Hansard, 2011-10-20

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. I wish to inform hon. Members that, pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of Standing Order 100, I have appointed Mr Cedric Foo to be the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and Mr Seah Kian Peng to be the Chairman of the Estimates Committee for this Parliament.

1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry would consider calibrating the flow of foreign manpower into Singapore in accordance with the ability of our public infrastructure to cope with such an inflow and, if so, how does the Government carry out this calibration exercise.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the capacity of a public infrastructure is a key consideration when planning for the growth of our overall workforce. We are therefore seeking to moderate the growth of the foreign workforce at no higher than one-third over the long term. Besides the social and economic reasons for this target, which I have explained yesterday, there are also real physical and infrastructural limits that we do need to take into account.

The Government has already introduced various measures to moderate the inflow of foreign manpower, in particular, at the Work Permit and S Pass levels. We have announced the schedule of Foreign Worker Levy increases which began from July 2010 and will continue until July 2013. The increases in levies and other measures such as the phased tightening of levy tiers send a clear signal to companies to avoid growing our reliance on foreign workers and instead invest in productivity improvements so that they can remain more competitive in the long run. The Government is providing full support for this productivity effort. At the Employment Pass (EP) level, qualifying salaries were raised in July 2011. From January 2012, EP applicants will be subjected to more stringent criteria including better educational qualifications and higher qualifying salaries.

Although managing the inflow of foreign workers has to remain a finely balanced exercise, our key objective must be to ensure that our economy remains diversified and competitive, and thus is able to provide good jobs for Singaporeans. At the same time, the Government is ramping up our public infrastructure development plans to meet the needs of a growing population.

I would like to thank the Minister of State for his response to my question. Just one clarification. We all appreciate that Singapore needs to remain open and vibrant in order to be a global city. However, one concern is that when a foreigner comes and works in Singapore, and he or she enjoys it, then, the family comes also. While we should obviously be open to this, is the Ministry of Manpower looking at, after someone comes and settles here, whether there is sufficient infrastructural support in transport, in health services, to accommodate the families coming also?

Mr Speaker, that is indeed the idea. Going forward, we do need to be cognisant of the overall demands. Clearly, not every foreign worker and person on Employment Pass who comes here, will bring the family, but that is something that we do have to bear in mind. Going forward, looking at the demands placed on our infrastructure would be something we need to consider.

2 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) what is the current number of foreign workers in Singapore; (b) how many bed spaces are allocated to foreign workers (excluding foreign domestic workers who live in their employers' homes); (c) how does the Ministry manage any shortfall in bed spaces for foreign workers; and (d) where are foreign workers without bed spaces currently accommodated.

Mr Speaker, there are currently 670,000 foreign non-domestic work permit holders accommodated in a variety of housing options including purpose-built dormitories, workers' quarters on construction sites, converted industrial properties, HDB flats and private residential premises.

Housing of foreign workers in proper accommodation is a multi-faceted issue which involves close collaboration between different Government Ministries and agencies. A Foreign Worker Housing Coordinating Committee, jointly led by MOM and MND, oversees this issue. Since 2007, the Government has been launching new sites for dormitories to meet the need for foreign worker housing. There are currently over 140,000 bed spaces for foreign workers in purpose-built dormitories which mainly house workers from the construction, marine and processed industrial sectors.

In spite of the housing options available, there are irresponsible employers who continue to breach the housing requirements and compromise on foreign workers' well-being. In the worst instances, workers have been found, housed in make-shift huts or bin centres. To ensure that foreign workers are housed in acceptable housing, MOM, together with agencies such as URA, SCDF and NEA, conducts regular inspections at locations suspected as being used for illegal foreign worker housing. These efforts are producing positive outcomes. Since 2010, almost 15,000 foreign workers have been relocated to acceptable housing. Over the same period, enforcement action was taken against more than 2,300 employers for breaching the Work Permit conditions by housing their workers in unacceptable conditions.

We will keep up the enforcement efforts as we develop more foreign worker housing. At the same time, as Members know, we are also taking measures to reduce our reliance on low-skilled foreign workers over time.

Sir, for those foreign workers who are staying in the less favourable sites and in unhygienic situations, what are our plans to decant them in the medium term? And secondly, Sir, can the Minister of State update us on the plans for social and recreational areas specifically for foreign workers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, where we do find foreign workers housed in unacceptable conditions, we do put in place measures to relocate them, which is why expediting the construction of some of these dormitories and housing options is something that we are pressing ahead with. We are speaking to the various advisers on this. Secondly, it is an important feature in the construction of these living quarters that we provide recreational and eating facilities, and so on, within those premises. Going forward, we are putting those in place to make sure that the foreign workers do have viable options. We think that is one important step in providing them a hospitable and good environment to not only live in, but to spend their free time in as well.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State to consider a proposal I had put up during the last Parliament session: for employers who do not house their foreign workers in appropriate accommodation and do not provide proper bed spaces, then, going forward, that they be penalised where their quota for employing foreign workers in the years ahead is concerned. That would be a sufficient deterrent and would ensure that proper bed spaces and accommodation are given.

3 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he would provide an interim assessment on the impact of the Shell oil refinery fire and facilities shut-down at Pulau Bukom on the Singapore economy, in particular on energy supplies and prices.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our assessment at this juncture is that the shutdown of the Shell refinery on Pulau Bukom is likely to have a minimal impact on the overall economy. And there are several reasons for this assessment.

First, even though there is a loss of petroleum output in the short term, the impact on downstream chemicals plants is small as there are alternative sources of feedstock. Furthermore, while the refinery accounts for a significant portion of the chemicals cluster, the cluster as a whole accounts for less than 3% of Singapore's GDP.

Second, Shell's efforts at restarting the refinery remain on track. On 10 October, Shell partially restarted its largest Crude Distillation Unit which accounts for 20% of its refining capacity. Shell is working closely with the relevant authorities to safely re-start additional processing units of the refinery as soon as possible.

Third, the incident is not likely to affect the chemicals cluster in the longer term. Investor confidence in Singapore remains strong and new investment projects will continue to be developed.

Finally, the Pulau Bukom fire incident does not affect Singapore's electricity supply. The primary fuel for generation of electricity is natural gas. While fuel oil is used for some power generation, our generation companies do not have any existing supply contracts with Shell for fuel oil. The generation companies also maintain a stockpile of fuel oil and diesel, in line with the Energy Market Authority's licence requirements. These are not stored on Pulau Bukom and hence the fuel reserve for electricity generation was unaffected by the fire.

Fuel oil prices are used to set our electricity and town gas tariffs. Members would be aware that this is because of the link between the natural gas we use for our power generation and fuel oil prices. The Pulau Bukom fire has not had any impact on fuel oil prices, which continue to be driven by global demand and supply trends. Based on currently available data, we do not expect the Pulau Bukom fire incident to have an impact on electricity and gas tariffs.

Sir, two supplementary questions for the Minister. First, there have been private sector economists' estimates about how much has been lost to the economy due to the shut-down. The figures that were cited were between $100 million and $200 million, depending on how long it goes on and what facilities are affected. So, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government has an estimate of how much has been lost so far, in dollar terms, to the economy in terms of output. Second question, Sir, is: there are obviously Singaporeans working in Shell and Singapore businesses supplying services to the Shell operations. Given that these livelihoods are affected, how is the Government working with Shell to ensure that the operations come up online and in the safest way possible?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Let me take the second point first. As far as the coordination of the recovery effort is concerned, there are two aspects to this: one is the fire safety and technical aspects, which we will address subsequently in another Parliamentary Question. As far as the economic aspects are concerned – because this is part of an integrated value-chain for us – EDB is working very closely with Shell and with the downstream companies that rely on some of the products in order to ensure that there is a smooth transition. I think, in the first instance, the key point is that there are feedstock supplies. So, in other words, there are inventories that can support the activities. So, a lot of the measurement of the outcome or the impact will really depend on how smoothly and quickly Shell can restart its operations. So, when the Member refers to private sector estimates, well, it really depends on the assumptions on which they rely. As of now, the Government's estimation is that the impact would be minimal but we are reluctant to put an actual dollar value until we know the exact duration and rate of response in recovery.

Sir, thank you and just one more supplementary question. I understand that it would take time for this thing to pan out, but what I was asking was whether, to date, the Government has an estimate of how much has been lost.

Sir, if we think about the economy and the size of it – 3% of GDP and this is just a component of that – and then we can do some estimations based on that. But, really, this is guesstimation. I do not think they are reliable numbers because you are not really looking at what is happening on a day-to-day basis. You want to look at the total impact. So, I would be reluctant to give a dollar value at this stage, but I can assure the Member that we are working on this and we are tracking the effects closely.

4 Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs with regard to the fire at the Shell refinery on Pulau Bukom on 28 September (a) whether the Government had worked with Royal Dutch Shell PLC or its subsidiaries to draw up or approve contingency plans to respond to the risk of various types of fire at Shell's facilities on Pulau Bukom and, if so, how was this undertaken; and (b) what findings have been made on the preparedness of the relevant responders, from both the public and private sector, in dealing with the incident.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Royal Dutch Shell refinery at Pulau Bukom (Shell Bukom) is required under the Fire Safety (Petroleum & Flammable Materials) Regulations to put in place appropriate safety measures to address the risks inherent in its operations. One key requirement is to have an Emergency Response Plan, which Shell Bukom is required to update regularly, to deal with various types of incidents, such as spillage, leakage, accidental discharge and fire. This plan is reviewed by the Singapore Civil Defence Force.

Shell Bukom is also required under the terms of its licence to establish and maintain an in-house emergency response team known as the Company Emergency Response Team (CERT). The SCDF conducts annual audits on the CERT to assess its competency. Failure to meet basic standards may result in composition fines or even the revocation or non-renewal of the licence that permits the storage of petroleum and flammable materials.

SCDF has developed and dovetailed its contingency plans with Shell Bukom. These plans are validated through joint exercises at least once a year. In 2011, two major deployment exercises coupled with CERT audits were conducted by SCDF in February and September. These exercises were critical in testing evacuation procedures, transportation of SCDF assets to Pulau Bukom, and their respective command and control systems.

On the preparedness of the responders to the fire at Pulau Bukom, our preliminary assessment indicates that both Shell Bukom and SCDF responded expeditiously and in an organised and well-coordinated manner. This was largely due to the close relationship established between Shell Bukom and SCDF through their regular joint exercises. Shell Bukom's CERT responded according to established protocols practised in its regular training, while SCDF sized and deployed its resources on-site quickly and appropriately.

In addition, pre-established mutual aid contingency arrangements between Shell Bukom and other petrochemical companies, including those on Jurong Island, were activated in good time to share foam and fire-fighting resources.

Throughout the incident, SCDF worked closely with other public agencies, including the National Environment Agency on environmental pollution control issues, and MINDEF which had offered its Fast Craft Utility and Super Puma Helicopters to support ongoing operations if needed. SCDF also worked with the Singapore Police Force to ensure the smooth evacuation of personnel on the island early on during the emergency. In addition, the Transport and Health Ministries were engaged to look into the impact on nearby shipping traffic and medical response-related matters respectively.

Three supplementary questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first question is that during the reporting of the incident, SCDF and Shell officials expressed surprise at the nature of the fire, describing it as complex and multi-dimensional. I would like to ask DPM Teo whether this suggests that there could be some gaps or blind spots in the scenario planning, and will more detailed exercises be worked out in the light of the experience of this incident.

Second question: more than 24 hours after the fire broke out, there was a press conference held and at that press conference, even the Shell experts were quoted as unable to say what was feeding the fire at that point in time. So, my question is this. We know that Shell has a strong safety record, but does this indicate that perhaps the complexity of the operation on the island is running somewhat ahead of safety or scenario planning?

Third question is about the interface between Shell and SCDF in the response. There was an interview of SCDF officials reported in The Straits Times of 6 October. They were quoted as saying that when the SCDF first responders arrived at the scene, Shell staff told them to protect two nearby tanks at all costs, without telling them what the tanks contained. My question is, in response to the operation, first of all, who is giving the instructions; and secondly, does this indicate some information gap, despite SCDF's annual audits, and do they really know what the safety response plan of Bukom required?

Sir, I do not want to comment on what was reported in the media or the press because it may or may not be accurate based on hearsay, but what the Ministry of Home Affairs would be doing is conducting an inquiry into the events, the events that led up to it, whether the safety arrangements were properly followed, then the response, both of Shell and SCDF, and whether those processes were properly followed. And we will also look at whether the design of the safety regulations and requirements is appropriate. When we have completed that inquiry, we would then be in a better position to say what we need to do for the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask a supplementary question. How many people are there on Bukom island at any time of the day and are there enough fast boats to evacuate these people in case there is a big fire like an inferno? Have they got time to escape? Are they prepared for this? Are there enough fast boats or helicopters to get them out?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the detailed figures of how many people precisely are on Bukom at any particular point in time. It is not the speed of the boats but it is whether they can leave to a safe location. Shell did carry out an evacuation. They have plans for an evacuation and as far as we can tell, that evacuation was conducted smoothly and expeditiously. And to back Shell up, if there is a need to do so, there are other resources available to move people on and off the island, including those from the Ministry of Defence.

5 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Defence if he could clarify (a) whether Dr Patrick Tan's prolonged disruption from full-time National Service, as well as his deployment to the Defence Medical and Environmental Research Institute, adhered to the then prevailing policies; and (b) whether Dr Patrick Tan had been accorded any preferential treatment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MINDEF had issued two public replies, in July and August this year, relating to Dr Patrick Tan's disruption and deployment during his National Service. In those replies, we stated that he was treated according to prevailing policies. He was not given any preferential treatment. Let me provide further details on how these policies were applied to all full-time National Servicemen. I use the term "NSFs" for full-time National Servicemen over the years. I beg Members' indulgence as there are quite a lot of details because the period is long. Please bear with me because I think details are important.

Since 1973, nearly four decades ago, MINDEF has allowed NSFs to disrupt from medical studies in Singapore because we need military doctors to serve in the SAF. This policy continues today. So, I think it is quite well known that NUS medical graduates are disrupted while they are NSFs to finish their medical degrees.

From 1981, the disruption policy for medical studies was extended to allow NSFs to study medicine overseas because the number of local graduates was insufficient. From 1981 to 1986, 38 NSFs were disrupted for overseas medical studies.

From 1986, the criteria were tightened to take into account their performance during Basic Military Training and Physical Employment Standards (PES) screening. Eight-six applicants were disrupted under this latter scheme, including Dr Patrick Tan in 1988. He had completed his BMT and was part-way through Officer Cadet School. From 1992, disruption for overseas medical studies was no longer allowed as the number of local medical graduates met SAF's needs. All in all, in the 12-year period, namely, 1981 to 1992, when disruption for both local and overseas medical studies was a prevailing policy, 902 NSFs were disrupted to study medicine in Singapore and 124 for overseas medical studies, for a total of about 1,026 NSFs. So, in that 12-year period, 1,026 full-time National Servicemen were disrupted for medical studies, 902 locally and 124 overseas.

MINDEF granted disruption so long as the medical degree was recognised by the Singapore Medical Council. And the length of disruption varied according to the time required to obtain a medical degree. For those who studied medicine locally, the period of disruption taken was typically seven years − five years for the medical degree, an additional year each for housemanship and hospital postings.

For those who studied overseas, almost all of the 124 medical students chose to study in the United Kingdom, Ireland or Australia. And these were disrupted for about seven to eight years. Only three NSFs applied and were approved for disruption to study medicine in the United States of America (US). By way of explanation, let me say that in the US system, the medical course is a graduate programme. In other words, to enter into a medical school, you will be required to have a pre-medical degree. So, the disruption period is typically longer – four years to obtain the pre-medical degree and then five more years for the medical degree proper.

I mentioned that only three applied for and were approved for medical studies in the US. One of them was deferred and disrupted for nine years. He obtained his US pre-medical and medical degree. The second case was deferred for four years to obtain his pre-medical degree and then decided that he did not want to do his medicine in the US but wanted to do it in Ireland instead. MINDEF granted it to him, so he was deferred and disrupted for a total of 12 years – four years pre-medical degree in the US, eight years for medical degree in Ireland. The third case, Dr Patrick Tan, was also disrupted for 12 years, for his pre-medical course in Harvard University from 1988 to 1992, and thereafter, for his combined medical degree and PhD program in Stanford University's Medical Scientist Training Program.

MINDEF had written to Stanford University to enquire if Dr Patrick Tan could shorten his course for just an MD – a medical degree. Stanford University replied that it was not possible, "the Medical Scientist Training Program is an integrated MD/PhD program in which both the MD and PhD degrees will be simultaneously conferred".

Several others NSFs have been deferred or disrupted from NS to obtain their basic degree followed by a PhD. These are few and each case was assessed and approved based on individual merits. Let me cite some examples.

In 1983, a serviceman was disrupted to pursue medicine locally. After he obtained his medical degree, he was disrupted again for his PhD studies in Oxford. He did Onco-pathology under the Rhodes Scholarship. In total, he was granted disruption for ten-and-a-half years.

In 1990, an exceptionally bright pre-enlistee entered University at age 14 and was accepted into a PhD course in Cambridge before he was due for enlistment. MINDEF allowed him to defer his NS until he completed his PhD at the age of 21. There were two other servicemen enlisted in 1988 and 1993 respectively, who were disrupted twice, first to obtain an undergraduate degree under the Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship, followed by a second disruption to obtain their PhD under the Rhodes Scholarship. Both disrupted for a total of eight years.

So, in summary, for disruption, Dr Patrick Tan was disrupted in accordance with prevailing policy to obtain his medical degree. A longer period was granted to those who were admitted to US medical schools. Disruption for overseas medical studies has been discontinued since 1992. We also have not granted disruption or deferment for PhD studies since 1999.

Now, let me speak about Dr Patrick Tan's deployment in answer to Dr Lim Wee Kiak's question. Dr Patrick Tan was re-enlisted in the year 2000, having obtained both his MD and PhD degrees. He was deployed to the Defence Medical Research Institute (DMRI), in view of his training and qualifications.

DMRI was a new institution then, established in 1995 to coordinate and conduct human science and biomedical research aimed at enhancing the safety, survivability and performance of SAF personnel.

Other full-time National Servicemen had been posted to DMRI in the five years preceding Patrick Tan's posting, from 1995 to 1999. Thirty-two NSFs were posted to DMRI, including another MD/PhD holder, some medical officers and the rest with A-levels, basic and Masters degrees. Fifteen of these 32 that I have mentioned were combat-fit. Each case was again approved on its own merit as having the qualifications that met the needs of DMRI. Some served in DMRI for the bulk of their full-time NS, while others were medical officers posted there on shorter stints of about six months.

After serving his full-time NS, Dr Patrick Tan was deployed to 3rd Combat Support Hospital and served his remaining NS liability till 2009.

MINDEF is acutely aware that all NS men must be treated equitably, regardless of background. I want to assure all Singaporeans that equity of treatment for National Service has been and must remain a cardinal principle. Without this strict adherence to this fundamental tenet of fair and transparent treatment, commitment to NS will be severely eroded and the institution of NS weakened.

We had or have explicit schemes, open to all applicants, which allow NSFs to disrupt for medical studies here or overseas which I have outlined in detail. There was no preferential treatment given to Dr Patrick Tan, or any other individual who was disrupted because of their connections. All NSFs were disrupted to obtain their medical degrees based on stated criteria applicable to all who qualified.

Dr Patrick Tan was deployed to DMRI, like the 32 NSFs before him, based on his qualifications, to build up the organisation and conduct medical research relevant to the SAF's operational needs.

Over time, prevailing policies do evolve to meet the changing requirements of the SAF and operational needs. For example, as I said earlier, we no longer allow or grant deferments and disruptions for overseas medical studies since 1992 or for PhDs since 1999. In 2009, MINDEF also decided for operational reasons that NSFs should be part of a military unit during their entire NS. Since then, we have stopped deploying National Servicemen to DMRI or other research agencies.

Let me emphasise to all, including commanders on the ground, that no NS men should be accorded preferential treatment. I would like to further assure Singaporeans that MINDEF implements the policy of selective disruption for University studies fairly and openly in accordance with existing criteria. MINDEF shall henceforth publish the list of those disrupted for University annually, on a routine basis for public scrutiny.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for clearing the air on this particular issue. I have one supplementary question with regard to Dr Patrick Tan. When he was serving in DMRI, if I understand it correctly, he was serving in the capacity of a non-uniformed medical officer. Currently, the Minister mentioned that he was deployed to the Combat Support Hospital. May I just check with the Minister: did Dr Patrick Tan go through the medical officer cadet course? Did he undertake the necessary training as a military medical officer? If he did not, then how was he going to perform in the Combat Support Hospital, and in what rank was he performing his duties?

As regards the other two doctors that were disrupted, similar to Dr Patrick Tan, did they serve also in a research position or in a uniformed medical officer position?

Sir, MINDEF decided to deploy Dr Patrick Tan to DMRI for reasons that were already stated. After deploying him to DMRI, it was left to those in charge of DMRI to decide for all those 32 NSFs that I talked about, how to deploy them and what they would wear then. So, I do not have details of what he wore on any particular day. I do not think Parliament should be concerned about what they wore, unless there are reasons that Dr Lim Wee Kiak thinks otherwise.

Dr Lim asked about the other two cases. As far as our records show, the two were deployed as medical officers. The two went to NS and were deployed as medical officers. So I think they went through the medical conversion course. Dr Lim asked why for this particular case, Dr Patrick Tan had not undergone the conversion course. The specific reason was having been deployed to DMRI, there was no need for it. The medical conversion course was to convert medical officers so that they could serve as medical officers in the camps. Having made the decision to deploy him to DMRI, there was no need for the conversion course for him to function in DMRI.

There were other questions as to what was Dr Patrick Tan's deployment after NSF, in other words, after he had finished full-time National Service. I think I have answered that in the main reply. Let me find that paragraph. I said that after serving his full-time National Service, Dr Patrick Tan was deployed to the 3rd Combat Support Hospital and served his remaining NS liability till 2009.

May I ask the Minister how does MINDEF ensure that there is no preferential treatment? Is it through the "white horse" stamp system, like what the Minister of State had shared with the House several years ago?

Sir, just on a point of correction. I have never spoken on any "white horses" or any coloured horse in this House.

If I recall correctly, I think it was Mr Cedric Foo, then Minister of State.

The Member's question was how MINDEF ensures that there is no preferential treatment. That is a very important question. As I said in my reply, MINDEF is acutely aware that in order for NS policies to be successful, to have buy-in from the general public, equity of treatment for NS must remain a cardinal principle. And we do it through a variety of ways, some explicit policy which means that, in this case, for disruption of medical studies, because it is in that sense a different treatment for a select group of medical undergraduates, because SAF needs medical doctors, to make sure that the criteria are upfront and explicit. To the extent possible, we list them. For instance, we said that they must produce documentary proof for admission to a medical school recognised by the SMC. In the case of the US policy where we allow overseas medical studies, we said that the pre-medical course does not lead to any other professional degrees such as engineering or accountancy, they must furnish documentary proof from the University and that the pre-medical course leads to a medical degree. Where it is possible, we explicitly state so. Then there are signalling mechanisms. Our commanders understand that if you do not uphold this principle of equity, you are going to undermine your authority because people think that if I have connections and I have preferential treatment, it is going to be very hard to be able to train men as a group or make them feel committed to serve NS.

Sir, I want to assure Members that MINDEF understands this. We do not ignore that there are different strata, but we hope that we can gel the men, regardless of their background, into one unit. From to time to time – let us be realistic, Singapore is small – we have anecdotes that someone thinks that because so-and-so's son is in this particular unit, that the unit will be treated better. And when they are punished, the converse is true that this unit is punished because so-and-so's son is in the unit and they want the unit as an example. We understand that, but I think, overall, we deal with it on a day-to-day basis, and we tell our commanders to make sure that when they apply a policy, they give good reasons why it is applied, maintain the principle of equity and lead by example. If Members of this House know of specific cases, where there is preferential treatment, there is open access to you to bring it up right to me, and we will deal with it.

Mr Speaker, to the Minister for Defence, thank you very much for that clarification. I am sure Singaporeans appreciate the restatement that equity in National Service is the cornerstone of the National Service policy. The question that was asked by the Member of Hougang, Mr Yaw Shin Leong was with regard to the "white horse" policy. If I can, may I ask the Minister whether medical dockets continue to be stamped today with the "white horse" stamp, in view of his comments on equity in National Service?

Sir, I think there were previous questions filed on the "white horse" matter which had been answered, but in direct answer to the Member, the answer is "no".

6 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Education (a) whether the Ministry aims to have schoolgoing children enjoy their education and derive happiness from their pursuit of knowledge and physical activities in schools; (b) whether character development, friendships, sporting pursuits and hobbies play an equally important role as results and grades in the development of children; and (c) if so, how will the schools achieve this.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr de Souza and the Ministry of Education share a common goal – to nurture each child holistically and to be the best that he can be. We want to develop our children in all domains – cognitive, moral, social-emotional, physical and aesthetics. Indeed, all of the things which Mr de Souza mentioned – character, making friends, sports, hobbies and the enjoyment of learning − are important.

We, too, want our children to be happy, but this happiness must be derived from something deeper, the satisfaction of having worked hard, to master the skills and knowledge of a new subject, and then the joy of deriving fresh insights about it. In short, learning should be a fulfilling experience, but not always easy.

How do we achieve it? I had outlined the key factors in my speech at the MOE Workplan Seminar in September. I signalled a clear emphasis on students' centricity and holistic education. First, we need to imbue in our children those character traits and dispositions that will set them right for life. These include resilience, respect for others, responsibility, integrity, care and harmony as the core.

Now, more than at any time in our history, we face unprecedented change. The more the world around us shifts and tilts, the more we need to be firmly anchored to a set of core values and to develop a quiet and well-founded confidence about oneself and our nation. We will strengthen the emphasis on values and character development. MOE has brought together the various content and skills to be learnt in National Education, Co-Curricular Activities, Civics and Moral Education under a Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) framework. We will work with schools to co-create a new CCE curriculum, comprising a national curriculum complemented by school-initiated programmes. This partnership is important because CCE is not something to be taught, but lived as part of the routine of everyday life in school.

We have increased curriculum time for PE by between half an hour to an hour across all levels. We have put in place new programmes such as the Programmes for Active Learning (PAL) for Primary 1 and 2 students which offer learning experiences that are active, hands-on, meaningful and fun. Beyond the curriculum and programmes, we need the steady guiding hand of our teachers. In recent years, schools have placed greater emphasis on helping students acquire social-emotional competencies, largely through the pastoral role played by teachers, especially form teachers. At the primary level, schools have put in place the Form Teacher Guidance Period which provides dedicated time within the curriculum for form teachers to form positive relationships with their students. At both the primary and secondary levels, we have advocated having a constant form or co-form teacher with a class for two years to guide their social-emotional learning. About 90% of schools are putting this in place in phases.

Second, we need to create the right condition for primary school to be a good school so that every child gets a positive school experience. It is worthwhile for me to restate what I said in September. A good school is "one that caters to the needs of the students well, given the diversity of students that cannot be a single ruler to measure success. A good school needs to know who the students are at the point of entry, study their strengths and needs, states what you like them to become when they leave the school, then exercises diligence and imagination to get there. A good school creates a positive experience for each student, allowing him to acquire the basics, but more importantly, making him a confident and lifelong learner. It provides a supportive and appreciative environment for teachers to experience the joy in impacting lives. A good school is student-centric and allows teachers to do their best for every child".

Anyone who has been watching the education scene will know that schools are seeking to do just that and introducing different types of programmes that meet diverse needs. Some schools focus on turning around their at-risk students. Others work on ensuring their very able students are imbued with a strong sense of community service. Many provide the opportunities which the homes are less well-able to afford, be it the chance to play sports or musical instruments or to learn dancing. No two schools are identical. In fact in my visit to schools, I have met many of the students who have benefited from these programmes and you can see the sparkle in their eyes when they tell me about their experiences that they have been through.

MOE has also created new pathways and options for students. Primary school students no longer get streamed but have a choice of Standard or Foundational subjects at Primary 5 and 6 so that each student can learn at the pace most comfortable for themselves. This allows everyone to play to his strength and to develop confidence in himself. At the secondary level, the choices open up even more. There are overlaps in subjects offered in the Normal (Technical), Normal (Academic) and Express courses, plus bridges and ladders to move between courses. This has allowed learners with difficult inclinations, learning styles and abilities to find something which engages and motivates them.

School attendance is universal, dropout rates are low, the quality of students experience in schools is rising and nine in 10 get into post-secondary educational institutions funded by MOE. More than three quarters receive a high quality tertiary education at our polytechnics and universities. More places are being created at diploma and degree levels. Our system is one that caters to the large majority of students and not just for a narrow few.

Third, schools cannot do their important work alone. We need parents and the wider community to agree with us on the importance of developing each child holistically, and support our schools and partner them in our endeavour to do so. Such a partnership is even more important as we focus on values and holistic education because these objectives cannot be achieved by schools alone. Many teachable moments occur in activities outside the school and classroom environment, and values need to be augmented and reinforced by the community and parents. Indeed, the primary responsibility for values education is with parents even as schools play their parts.

We also need our parents to help their children discover their strengths, develop these and feel confident about what they are to become. At the same time, we hope parents would also teach their children to deal with setbacks and failures and to learn to persevere, to try again. By doing so, we help them to grow, achieve fulfilment and enjoy their childhood.

Almost as soon as they landed in MOE, my colleagues, SPS Hawazi Daipi and SPS Sim Ann who are the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Community and Parents in Support of Schools (COMPASS) have been engaging parents and stakeholders. Minister of State Lawrence Wong and myself have also participated in these engagement sessions. Over informal chats, we heard Singaporeans heartfelt concerns and feedback and we received many good ideas. Parents are understandably concerned about examinations and stress, and how they can help their children succeed.

In my first few months in MOE, my team and I had spent much time meeting students, educators, school leaders and parents. The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Education, with Mr Lim Biow Chuan as Chairman and Ms Denise Phua as Deputy, have also been hard at work, sharing their feedback, concerns and suggestions. I discussed my priorities with them and got strong resonance on key points. But they also challenged my team and I to make improvements. MOE officials are hard at work within several aspects of our policies and programmes. These cover a range of key issues. The reviews will take time to complete. Some of these issues like examinations and competition are complex and not amenable to quick fixes.

In the meantime, as one follow-up on my workplan seminar speech, MOE is working with schools to enhance our current guidelines on homework policy. When done well, homework serves to reinforce learning. Doing more is not always better. Once the guidelines are finalised, each school will communicate this to students and parents so that everyone will have clearer expectations.

Singaporeans invest a lot of hope and aspirations for a better society through our collective investment in our young. This is a precious asset. The support of the public motivates us to keep making our system stronger, our schools better. By doing so, we wll ensure that young Singaporeans can realise their dreams and aspirations and grow into confident and fulfilled adults who strive for excellence and also care for their fellow Singaporeans.

First, I would like to thank the Minister and all his teachers for their vision to create a nurturing life-giving and confidence-giving environment in our schools. Parents with whom I spoke to hold out a lot of hope for this vision to be realised. So, first of all, I thank the Minister. My clarification is this: the Minister talked about there being chances for sports, music and dancing. My appeal is that these areas for sports, music and dancing be areas where the students are not assessed and where they can cultivate and nurture into their own selves and within their own interests. When I was in school, I took part in four different types of sports and I did not need to be in the school team for them. Some parents have responded saying that, "my child can only play basketball if he gets into the basketball team". Would the Minister assure us that these areas he speaks of will not create the pressure to perform, but give the ventilation needed for children to reach their own goals?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am glad that Mr de Souza was such a keen sportsman and had all the opportunities to play sports. Indeed, I agree with him. First, let me say that the competition in our CCAs, the competition in sports and allowing students to do their best is not a bad thing. It teaches value of striving for excellence. It teaches value of being gracious, in victory and in persevering in defeat. Therefore, there will be a range of sports and other activities where there will be a competitive element. Having said that, I fully agree with him that in sports and other areas of music, arts and other areas of CCA development, there is scope for us to encourage greater participation, which is why during my workplan seminar speech, I also addressed this issue that the Ministry will be reviewing the system of assessing students' participation in CCA, moving it towards a focus on participation rather than just achievements. I have also announced a review of School Excellence model. Again, the purpose is to give our school leaders more resources, more flexibility to deploy their resources so that they may provide this student-centric holistic education that we have set out.

Sir, I want to thank the Minister for his very comprehensive reply and also to compliment him for the wisdom to lead in the right direction, for example, in inculcating values and holistic education as the key themes of the MOE workplan. A supplementary question for him, Sir. Does the Minister have plans and when will these plans be to look into practices such as high-stake examinations like the PSLE which create an unhealthy impact on or add to the stress of the students' learning and the stress of their families, but add to the coffers of the tuition industry?

I thank Ms Denise Phua for the question. In the subject of high-stake examinations and stress, I fully empathise with the parents and students. I know that many working moms take leave during these high-stake examinations to help their children, and dads, too! Many of us have gone through examinations and gone through the stresses of high-stake examinations. Indeed, in our meetings with parents, many have given us the feedback on the issue of high-stake examinations and stress. We have given it much thought and I have had many discussions with our school leaders, and I have also spoken on this during the workplan seminar. Let me restate a few points.

First, the reason why we put the focus on student-centric holistic education is to recognise that each student is different, has different strengths and therefore it is important for us to develop those strengths. Indeed, our education system has over the years been moving in that direction. On the examinations, let me say that if you are doing badly in examinations, it is no longer like you are missing the last train, as it was during our generation. Then, when resources were much more limited, the system therefore had to be more broad brushed. Indeed doing badly in the key high-stake examinations may mean a big difference in one's life. But, over the years, successive changes have been made in our education system to provide a variety of pathways: whether it is going to the ITE, the polytechnics or the universities, or even across the different parts of our system. For example, in the Normal (Academic) and Normal (Technical) streams there are different types of courses which students can take, even at a higher level, transfers between the different streams, whether it is Express, Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) are available. Therefore, the system has many more bridges and ladders.

There will be more places at the universities, more pathways which the Minister of State Lawrence Wong is currently reviewing. To reduce some of these high-stake examinations, admission into secondary school, for instance, has been changed with the DSA. And so, a percentage of students can be admitted on the basis of their strengths. The universities and polytechnics too have the flexibility to look beyond examination results. So, when you look at the totality of those changes, there are indeed many more pathways that allow our students to develop at their pace, and I would encourage parents and students to develop at an appropriate path and take advantage of what we have in the system.

Let me also say that the parents whom I have met and the feedback that had been given is that nobody has suggested abolishing examinations. Examinations well done serve an important purpose which is it assesses the extent of learning and allows teachers and parents to gauge the extent of that learning. As a result of this, we have a rigorous system. Having said that, I have also been studying the experiences of other countries.

When I was in Japan a few months back, I looked at what Japan was doing. They had, because of the stress in the system, also reduced the curriculum content a few years back. But within a few short years, standards had fallen so significantly that they had to reverse course. The principals and teachers, whom I spoke to when I visited the schools, told me that the text books have become even thicker and because they had made the change so quickly, teaching resources have been reduced and the teachers and principals are facing greater stress.

I also had many interactions with my counterparts from the advanced countries, seeking to learn from them but they were seeking to learn from us. They asked me time and again how do we maintain standards, how do we have such a rigorous system. And in many other countries, they are looking at how they can raise the rigour and achievements of their students. And if you look at many of the reports, whether it is in Europe or US, you will see many of that. So, what I like to reiterate is that I think we have a rigorous high-quality system, which should encourage and motivate our children to succeed to reach the standards but at the same time recognise that each student, each child is different and there are multiple pathways for us to develop them. The system has changed a lot over the years. Nevertheless, I would say that ours is not a perfect system and that the Ministry will continue to study ways to improve this. In my reply earlier, I mentioned about how teams of Ministry officials have been hard at work looking at various key issues and this is one of those issues that we will be looking at.

Let me end by saying that education is a long-term endeavour and whatever changes we make, let us recognise that we have a high quality, strong system. Whatever changes we make, let us do it systematically, thoughtfully and not be rushed into doing the wrong thing because the consequences would be hard to reverse. And the key focus for us in the coming years is this: Student-centric values driven education because that is really at the core of education. When we get that right, many parts of it will be right and I am just continuing the very good work that has been done by my predecessors to move the system. If you look at the system, over the years, it has changed very significantly and let us build on this and continue to evolve the system. I would also like to appeal to parents to continue to work with our schools, work with our teachers to bring out the best in every child.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong, last question.

Thank you to the Minister for clarifying. I would like to ask the Minister what he thinks of allowing students to take more than two CCAs if they so wish and if he thinks that the current trend of top schools allowing students to take nine or more subjects at "A" levels is something he wishes to encourage? Or would he rather encourage that they focus on taking more CCAs if they are academically able to cope with the subjects. I think that CCAs do develop the students.

Sir, I thank Mr Yee for that question. First, the Member's question on whether a school should allow it if a student wants to take two CCAs –

More than two CCAs.

Well, I think in my comments on holistic and student-centric education, my key point is that everyone is different and, therefore, we should not be overly prescriptive about what that student should or should not be allowed to do. If a child is able to do three CCAs and enjoy it, it is for the parents, the student and the teachers to discuss and decide on this. I do not think the Ministry should be prescribing how that is to be done.

Now, on the Member's question about whether students should take more or fewer subjects: it is exactly the same philosophy. There are students who have done very well doing many subjects; there are students who are better off taking fewer subjects. So I think at the end of it, the heart of it, is that the student and his or her parents must think about this and think about how best to make use of the opportunities in our schools, in CCAs and in other areas to develop themselves.

Dr Ng Eng Hen, do you have a clarification?

Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make some clarifications on my previous reply. I think Dr Lim Wee Kiak had asked for Dr Patrick Tan's service during his operationally-ready national service, in other words, after national service, full-time national service. I was looking for the paragraph, and I have found it. Dr Patrick Tan served as a Laboratory Officer in one of the SAF's combat support hospitals. This is a standard designation in the combat support hospital. The role of the Laboratory Officer is to assist with blood and plasma storage and supply and to conduct clinical analysis of blood samples. I presume he was deployed there because of his qualifications.

My last clarification was in terms of what Mr Yaw brought up in terms of the "white horse" issue. I said that Mr Cedric Foo had answered the question previously and to refer to the reply. If Members checked the record of the reply, I think he made it clear the "white horse" policy was initiated to ensure that there was no preferential treatment given to anyone in regard to NS.

7 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs in view of the recent change of the Prime Minister in Japan (a) whether his Ministry would provide an update on the ASEAN-Japan relationship and its future directions; (b) what is the likelihood of changes in Japan's policy-making strategies; and (c) what would be its impact on ASEAN.

Mr Speaker, ASEAN-Japan relations have been built on solid foundation based on the principles laid down by the late Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Fukuda in 1977. Japan was one of ASEAN's earliest dialogue partners and that dialogue partnership complements ASEAN's relationship with other major countries like the US, Russia, Australia,China and India. The Japanese, indeed, have contributed much to ASEAN's development.

Over the years, the partnership has continued to broaden beyond the socio-economic sphere to cover, for instance, the fields of counter-piracy and trans-national crime as well as monetary and financial cooperation. Japan is and will remain a key ASEAN partner. I do not expect this to change irrespective of which personality or which party is in power.

It was therefore significant that after the devastating earthquake and tsunami that struck the Tohoku region on 11 March 2011, ASEAN Foreign Ministers convened a Special ASEAN-Japan Ministerial Meeting on 9 April 2011 to express the region's solidarity and commitment to support the Japanese people during a time of great difficulty.

This year has not been easy for Japan. They had been preoccupied with the management of 11 March disasters, but they have now moved on into the reconstruction phase.

The Japanese leaders are now exploring ways to deepen their engagement of ASEAN. Indeed, the recent visits by Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yukio Edano, from 22 to 23 September and Minister of Foreign Affairs Koichiro Gemba, from 11 to 12 October to Singapore and our ASEAN neighbours should be seen as a strong reiteration of the current Japanese government's desire to deepen regional cooperation with ASEAN. At the upcoming 14th ASEAN-Japan Summit in November 2011 in Bali, the leaders will adopt a Joint-Declaration for enhancing ASEAN-Japan Strategic Partnership for Peace, Stability and Prosperity. The Joint Declaration identifies key areas of cooperation that will strengthen the linkages between ASEAN and Japan.

One potential area is the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity (MPAC). As the MPAC moves into the implementation phase, Japan has continued to be a key contributor to the Connectivity initiative, both in terms of expertise and resources. Notably, Japan is the first ASEAN Dialogue Partner to establish an internal task-force to support the MPAC. We are confident that Japan will continue to be a very important partner to ASEAN in years ahead, regardless of the government in power. Japan is a natural partner whom ASEAN can tap on for their expertise and resources.

Sir, on the area of bilateral relations between Singapore and Japan, do we see any new areas of cooperation, moving forward?

That will continue to be explored.

8 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister or National Development (a) how many subsidised rental flats would need to be built to meet the current high demand; and (b) when does HDB plan to build these flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said yesterday, currently, there are 44,000 households living in HDB rental flats. Another 1,600 applicants are on the waiting list and the average waiting time for a flat allocation is now six months.

We are building more rental flats, with a view to shortening the waiting time further through speeding up the allocation of flats to these low-income families. Our supply of rental flats will soon reach 47,000, to which we will add another 3,000 units next year. So, this should clear the outstanding demand while meeting demand from new applicants.

We plan to build another 7,000 units. This will further increase the total stock to 57,000 by 2015, amounting to 5% of all HDB households. As we build more rental flats, we must ensure that they are safeguarded for poor and needy households who cannot afford to own a home, have no family support, and do not have other housing options. It is important that HDB maintains strict rules and criteria to do so. Nonetheless, HDB will exercise flexibility to help those who do not meet the rules but worthy of consideration.

We must also recognise that needy and vulnerable families often face social problems that extend beyond the need for rental housing. We will also work closely with MCYS and other social agencies to help these families more holistically.

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister for his reply. I would just like to ask one supplementary question. Has this number that he has come up with factored in the likely higher demand due to the looming economic downturn, and in light of the Minister's remarks yesterday that he intends to make housing for low-income families his second top priority?

Obviously, figures are dynamic and we have to be mindful of changing circumstances. Fortunately, for rental blocks, the construction time is relatively shorter, so we do have some lead time. I am ramping it up anyway, hence the numbers – 7,000 new units, 3,000 new units. They are higher than the normal projection of the annual demand. But I keep a very open mind because we do not quite know how the situation will shape up. Yesterday, I shared with the Member from Aljunied, Mr Low Thia Khiang, in the Members' Room, that whatever we do, we must not unwittingly incentivise the growth of these rental blocks. We need some, but I think if you make it too easy for rental units to be accessed, you can unwittingly create other kinds of problems.

As a stretch target, if you ask me, I would prefer "zero rental units", meaning everybody becomes a home-owner. We know that that is not possible but I think we should always bear it in mind that the correct thing to do is to prevent problems so that families do not get into a dire situation when they become homeless and need to be temporarily placed somewhere. The best is if they can organise themselves, and working with us, work towards home-ownership. That I think should always be our target.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Minister for the clarification. Just a supplementary question: it was reported that HDB will review its public housing model. So will HDB be considering abolishing its commercial partnership with Keppel Land to commercially rent out public flats managed by EM Services?

Sir, I think the Member was referring to another scheme which is a pilot scheme called Interim Rental Housing (IRH). Let us back-track a little. Ninety-two percent of Singaporeans own their own homes. This leads us to ask, "What happens to the other 8%?"

Sir, 8% of Singaporeans are living in a rented place. The bulk of them are in subsidised HDB rental flats, which is the 44,000 that I spoke about – which will become 57,000. The rest are in various kinds of arrangements, most of them private market arrangements. They rent a room, or they rent a place from landlords. They are not subsidised. Then, there is a small category which makes up a very tiny percentage of the total rental market. MND started this scheme two to three years ago as an interim programme. They were not sure how the project will shape up, so they asked EM Services – which happened to be the joint-venture which the Member spoke about – to test it out. They worked on a cross-subsidy model. Some of the units are rented out at market rates, some are at subsidised rates. The profits made from the market rates are used to subsidise the other portions.

I am reviewing the policy but because those are contractual arrangements that have been made to the company, I will see through the contractual arrangements. My own thinking is eventually we will take over all the rental units and leave the rest to the market.

9 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he would consider implementing measures to restrict the number of private property units a foreigner can purchase; (b) whether the amount of foreign ownership in private property is a cause of the high prices in the private property market; and (c) whether measures will be put in place to curb speculation by foreign buyers of private property, so as to make prices more affordable for genuine Singaporean home buyers.

Sir, in the first nine months of this year, developers sold about 12,000 units of private housing. This was about the same as the corresponding period last year. Demand for private housing has remained firm, despite growing uncertainties in the global economy.

In response to strong demand, we have ramped up the supply of land through the Government Land Sales programme. This year, we are releasing land for over 14,500 units to the market, compared to 10,000 units last year – so this is an almost 50% increase. We have also taken a series of measures to cool the property market and cut out speculative demand. The measures are having a clear impact, though the full effects will take some time to achieve.

While the private housing market is still rising, the rates of price increase have been trending down since the third quarter of 2009. So far this year, the price increase was 6%, compared to the 18% rise for the whole of last year.

Successful Singaporeans aspire to own private properties. We cannot promise that every Singaporean who wants a private property can get one, the way we can promise nearly every household an HDB flat. But we will ensure an adequate supply of land for private property to give Singaporeans more opportunities to own one.

Today, there are still 34,000 unsold private housing units, equivalent to more than two years of demand. We will keep up the Land Sales Programme until the market stabilises fully. The new supply will take time to come onstream, but over time it will help stabilise our private property market.

However, Singaporeans are understandably anxious when they see property prices rising, especially those who are first time buyers of private property. The rising property prices cannot be attributed solely to foreign purchases.

As I have explained yesterday, there are many factors at play, such as low interest rates and our strong economic fundamentals. Locals account for more than four fifths of all private home purchases this year. Foreign demand has nevertheless been growing. Last year, foreigners accounted for 12% of private housing purchases. This has grown to 16% in the first half of this year.

We are monitoring market conditions closely and, if need be, we will take further measures. For landed property, we have longstanding rules restricting foreign purchases which we recently tightened. However, we have to be very careful not to precipitate a loss of confidence, especially with the international backdrop of continuing uncertainty in financial markets and weak growth in the US and Europe.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. My supplementary question has to do with the fact that, while we understand we must remain open as an economy to remain a global city, there is concern on the ground that 20% home ownership of private property belonging to foreigners may be a bit too high. And my concern reflecting the ground sentiment is that it makes it fairly volatile because foreign ownership is most likely to be given up in a downturn, and who is left? The 80% of Singaporeans – the majority of whom are genuine home stayers. So, would the Minister consider how the Australians do it – although land rich, they still require the foreigners to sell only to Australians and the foreigners buying property in Australia are limited only to new developments. Would that be something the MND would consider? Perhaps not now, but would it consider?

Sir, I am familiar with the Australian scheme. Countries have different approaches and schemes towards private property ownership and management because of their different circumstances and history. We have forged our way just as Australia has forged its own way, for years. Policies are never static. As I said, we keep a close watch over the situation and it is not just watching over the property market. As I have explained yesterday, while I need to make adjustments to housing policies, even more important is to make sure our adjustments do not unwittingly damage, do harm to our economy and our society because at the end of the day they are all interlinked. So, it is a gingerly act of balancing and making trade-offs. It does require some skill and hopefully some wisdom. I try to impart some into this whole transaction. So, the bottom line is: we are watching the situation closely. Remember the larger equation is beyond me – what is happening to Europe, what will happen next or this weekend when G20 leaders meet and what will they agree on, etc. Unfortunately, all these larger equations do impact us and we have to be watchful. But I assure the Member that the concern the Member has expressed, I am fully mindful of it because very often they appear on my Facebook wall.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister this: just now the Minister mentioned that foreign buyers comprised 16% and the Minister is watching and if it need be, more measures will be coming. I would like to ask the Minister at what percentage of foreign ownership will he take further action.

Sir, it is very hard for wisdom to be translated into equations because if you can do so, then computers can take over and you do not need wise human intervention. But I think much more [Interruption] – sorry, Mr Low, what was that? "Meditate? Go Bhutan and meditate!", he said [Laughter.] Bhutan would be too cut off from the rest of the world! You may then not know what is happening elsewhere, and that would be highly dangerous.

But I think more important is I hope Members are mindful that cooling measures – whether new measures, addition of measures or subtraction of existing measures – are market-sensitive information. That makes it difficult for me to be too expressive in my reply, and I think I should just stop here.

10 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for National Development what are the reasons for the lower application rates for smaller (2-room and 3-room) Build-to-Order (BTO) flats and Sale of Balance Flats (SBF) as compared to larger (4-room and 5-room) flats in recent HDB flat sales exercises.

Sir, in last month's launch of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats, the application rates for 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats were 1.8, 1.6 and 2.4 times respectively. No 2-room BTO flats were offered. For the Sale of Balance (SBF) flats, the application rates for 2-room, 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats were 0.9, 8.2, 11.9 and 11.1 times respectively. As the Member has correctly observed, the larger flat types tend to attract higher application rates.

HDB provides a range of flats to cater to Singaporeans with different budgets and life-cycle needs. In planning the supply of the various flat types, HDB takes into account changing demographic profiles, as well as housing needs and propensities. The bulk of the new flats supplied are larger flats to meet first-timer households' needs for space, to cater to their growing family size. At the same time, we also need to provide a good number of smaller flats to help lower-income households become homeowners and second-timers right-size. The smaller flats will also be needed for our ageing population, allowing more seniors the option to move into smaller flats. Although the application rates differ at the time of launch, all the flats eventually get taken up, as they are completed.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions. First, there has to be a reason why there is a lower application rate at that time that flats were launched. Is it because, firstly, the poor are not able to navigate the application process, which involves a lot of online submissions and receiving alerts when the launches are imminent? Or secondly, is it because the price of these smaller flats is still out of the income range of these applicants? And thirdly, if the answer to the second question is "yes", would the Minister consider lowering the price of 3-room and smaller flats in order to make them more affordable to the lower income?

Minister, you have one minute and thirty seconds for your reply.

Let me try, starting from the last. Making 3-room flats more affordable compared to larger flats – the answer is "yes". In fact that is so. Yesterday, I gave Members some illustrations about the affordability of 3-room, 4-room and 5-room flats. Generally, the BTO prices less the housing grants equal to about five years of annual salary. But for 2-roomers, it is less than three years of annual income, after all the grants. Members can see there is a clear difference between the pricing of smaller flats compared to bigger flats.

On the Member's first question about the lower application rates and what could be the reasons: well, the application rate is a function of several factors such as how many units are put onto the market, how many people apply. And you cannot get it precisely matched. It is very hard to do it, such that you get an exactly identical application rate for all the different room types. I think that would be quite impossible. Even if you are able to project to such precision, that also cannot be the way we do things because when we design the housing estate – let us say in existing Tampines – we have to know what is the current housing distribution in Tampines and take that into account. But as I said, regardless of the different application rates, at the end of the day, no units get wasted. They will all be taken up finally. As to whether a lack of IT skills was a deterrent for the lower-income applicants, it should not be. At HDB Hub in Toa Payoh, we have staff there to assist, if needed.

Order. End of Question Time.

"to amend the Telecommunications Act (Chapter 323 of the 2000 Revised Edition), and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other written laws",

presented by the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

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

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President 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 the opportunity to address this House on this new term. If I may, I would like to congratulate you and our Deputy Speakers on your appointments. I look forward to your stewardship at the forthcoming sessions in this House. Please allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 424-425 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, for the past few months, from my conversations with some members of the Malay/Muslim community, many have voiced concerns about employment and cost of living issues, due to intense competition within the country as well as overseas. They are also concerned with the fast pace of development in Singapore.

Over the years, our efforts to make Singapore's economy relevant to face competition in the global and regional markets required us to change the type of industries we have. This resulted in changing needs in our workforce and in the type of educational qualifications required.

Our workers must stay relevant and continue to add value in order to keep pace with the global economic changes. Our Malay/Muslim workers are aware of competition from the foreign workforce in Singapore, especially for those from the middle-age group. It affects those without the necessary qualifications even more. Many feel that competition is even more intense, especially our students in our schools and institutions of learning. To them, the pressure is huge.

Many readily understand that competition cannot be avoided, and Singapore's economy must be open and global in nature. However, as the Government, we must explore more ways to help our workers to be more competitive and, at the same time, as far as possible, we must protect the workers' interests so that they can earn a comfortable living in Singapore.

At the same time, the Malay/Muslim community must also be proud of the great progress made. Many Malays have achieved success in various fields, including new areas, because they can overcome challenges and competition. However, competition being competition, whether big or small, we must do our best to overcome it.

Just look at the experiences of Taufik Batisah and Hadi Mirza, two of our popular artistes. Both are winners of the Singapore Idol competition. They managed to prevail against the competition from rivals of all backgrounds. However, in terms of income, they still need to compete with artistes from the West, China, Korea and local Mandarin artistes.

Therefore, they have to find ways – by exploring the regional Malay market. Their move must be commended as they made use of their talents to beat the competition by exploring new markets. They are still popular idols. Their hard work allows them to overcome fierce competition. I have spoken to them, and I am pleased that they are aware of the challenges in front of them and continue to look for their own opportunities and markets.

Our community has similar determination and drive. I feel that more can be done by the Government and Malay bodies to help our community compete better and face the global economy, especially in terms of shaping the community's mindset to be ready to prevail against competition.

The tightening of the criteria for inflow of foreign workers is welcomed. It will help our local low- and middle-income workers. However, we must also change the way some employers employ their workers. Maybe due to the fact that they can easily employ foreign workers for the past few years, there are some employers who selectively employ cheaper foreign workers compared to local workers. I understand that to the private company, time equates to money. But all these depend on the work environment that we wish to cultivate. We must ensure that local workers are not left behind in the long term, whether in terms of lesser pay or uncertainty in job opportunities due to competition from a foreign workforce.

I hope that the Government can help to instil an employment culture that takes into account the value of local workers as well as the high quality of our education. The fact that our economy is open, and the labour market must be based on meritocracy, should not become a convenient excuse for employers not to invest in the talent and career progression of local workers.

Another related issue is that we may hear stories about the presence of discrimination at the workplace. It may just be grumblings among a small group but, in reality, the Government had taken the correct measures to implement policies that prevent employers from using race as a criterion for employment, or language as a criterion. This effort must continue. I also feel that the members of minority communities who feel discriminated to be educated so that they report on irresponsible employers.

I am aware that MOM has made much progress in handling some of these concerns, including certain multinational companies that sometimes act unfairly in terms of employing workers from a certain race or profile. At times, the upper management are not aware of the practices among their own subordinates. But from what I know, most management act fairly and follow the principle of openness and meritocracy.

I am sure most of us work hard and make reasonable effort to get the relevant qualifications. But what we hope is that we are given equal opportunities, in the spirit of meritocracy. Hence, I urge members of the community who feel that they are affected to work together with the authorities. I am sure that the Government will investigate and study such complaints.

Mr Speaker, our community has achieved a lot of progress, and in today's new political landscape, members of the Malay/Muslim community from all walks of life are getting more interested about Singapore's progress and their own progress. I have been involved in many discussions and dialogues for the past months, and one clear thing was the need for a wider approach. The community wants their concerns about their future to be heard, whether it is about daily issues like education and employment, or issues like religiosity and the preservation of Malay culture.

I urge the Government, agencies and bodies like MENDAKI, MUIS and other Malay bodies, to cultivate better cooperation and consensus among the general public, and not only among leaders of certain organisations, so that we can better understand the community's aspirations, including their worries and concerns.

For the past few years, more and more Malays are active on the internet, and there are many forum groups and commentaries. Like other platforms on the internet, we can also see many false and unfair statements. However, after talking to many people, I feel that we cannot totally blame them, because they may not have been engaged effectively and do not fully understand the context behind policies, or why certain issues arise. I am sure that many of them will understand the implication of Government policies if they were engaged effectively.

I would like to encourage Malay institutions within Government and also Malay bodies to be more responsive and use the internet to help the community further understand the available channels of assistance, and explain how they can make better use of policies. With that, it is hoped that feedback and suggestions from members of the community will become more constructive, after they understand the issues much better.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to refer to the hon. Member, Mr Yee Jenn Jong's speech yesterday with regard to SMEs. He mentioned an article published in the Straits Times yesterday on issues that SMEs face. I happened to be the adviser for that group, the Association of SMEs (ASME), and have worked closely with a number of the ASME's business leaders in the last few months. There are more pressing issues that SMEs face today than GLCs. In fact, competition comes in all forms, even MNCs would have the skills to offer cheaper prices. Other SMEs, because businesses in certain tiers, find it hard to differentiate as well. For example, in the real estate and construction sectors, the competition from low-cost Chinese construction companies is tough. The issue of business is a practical one – profitability, human resources, costs of doing business. So, let us not try to politicise the issue by targeting the GLCs and cooperatives and focus on the real issues if you are truly interested in helping the SMEs.

In fact, one of the major issues they face today is the lack of manpower and high cost of business due to the tighter quotas on foreign workers, the levies imposed on Work Permit holders and the higher wage criteria for "S" Passes. And I certainly agree that we have to level the playing field for our workers, as mentioned in my Malay speech earlier. But if you speak to business leaders, as a result of some of these policies, some have slowed growth plans, which means fewer jobs for locals. Some are thinking of relocating, which also means even fewer jobs for locals. Some already moved part of their operations overseas where labour is less restrictive and usually at lower cost. So, I think MOM and MTI have a tough job ahead trying to balance this – the interests of our local workers, while trying to retain companies here – locals as well as MNCs. And I am aware a number of MNCs have also considered the same and a number have sought assurances from the Government that we will continue to foster a favourable business environment.

So, Workers' Party members, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Yaw Shin Leong, are contradicting each other. Mr Yee is concerned for the SMEs interests, while Mr Yaw would like further restrictions to foreign workers in addition to what the Government has put in place. I have not heard how Workers' Party can assure SMEs and businesses in turn that Singapore is a place where their business can flourish and not be viewed as restrictive. Let us not forget the reality that businessmen are all practical people and companies have options to relocate and what that means is lost jobs for Singapore. I fear for the jobs of Singaporeans because SMEs employ about 60% of the Singapore workforce.

But I do agree with Mr Yee that many SMEs are struggling because of the high costs of doing business here. As Minister of State Teo Ser Luck also mentioned that there is no lack of grants but, in addition to the higher costs, many are finding it hard to benefit from our productivity measures because of inherent weaknesses in being smaller in size.

I believe that SMEs also need a collective voice so that they can be proactive like the larger companies to voice the concerns of the sector more effectively, rather than individual, fragmented viewpoints. Their interests are varied because this segment is diverse, but they can focus on the major areas that the Government can help and level the playing field.

The next gap I see is that many have no skills, no HR functions, no CFO functions, so many are not able to cope with changes or benefit from Government measures or productivity the same way the bigger firms can. So, by helping SMEs understand the Government better and working with the Ministries closely, hopefully, both sides are better adapted to work together proactively, being prepared for issues that are coming up.

But back to Mr Yee, I also did not quite get the point of his argument about Bhutan. Many years ago, we aspired towards the modern Swiss way of life. And, today, is he asking Singaporeans to be more like Bhutan? The Workers' Party seems fascinated with monarchies and dynasties – first aspiring to be like the Tang dynasty and, now, the Bhutanese monarchy. Whatever happened to First World Parliament and modern democracy?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address mentioned that "we want a fair and just society that ensures the well-being of every citizen", and I agree with this view. But I would also add the sense of fairness of how the Government deals with the people is also important.

In the recent General Election and Presidential Election, speaking to people, reading forums in the mainstream media and online, one sentiment can be seen in common – that the sense of fairness, social justice runs through the Internet generation. This is something that the Government needs to come to terms with, especially in these times of the "Jasmine Revolution", the "Arab Spring" and "Occupy Wall Street" movements. The Government needs to better demonstrate that we conduct our business, engage and transact with our citizens in a fair manner. We can and should do more to expose Singaporeans to the deliberations that have been made in policies and what trade-offs we are making, and share measures that are in place to assure them that the policy will benefit them in a fair manner. This is especially true to emotive issues and one fault of the Government is that many a time, we let doubts linger and so, the sentiment of unfairness festers over time.

For the GE, for example, the issue of boundary changes, where the PA was politicised, and more recently, the issue of appointment of PA Advisers was raised, and the way we addressed the issues were to quickly move on rather than go head-on. The Government needs to spend time to engage Singaporeans on why the current practices are as such and why our system is a fair one.

On boundary changes, there will always be population movement, and so, moving forward, I think there should be a need to better justify the changes and earlier, if possible, where the population growth or decline has come from and why the changes have to happen.

On the politicisation of PA, when I had ordinary Singaporeans asking if my PAP campaign banners were made using public funds, I figured we have not done enough to demonstrate how the system safeguards Government property and funding from use for political campaigning.

The rationale for the appointments of Advisers will probably need a longer explanation from the relevant authorities. But the difference in a Government appointee is that in times when difficult Government policies need to be implemented and where bonding between the Government and the people needs to be fostered, this is where the difference is. This is where politicking stops and real work happens. So, with issues like GST increases, transport fare increases, and to explain housing and social welfare policies, the Government can be assured of an aligned execution on the ground.

Sir, in fact, many Advisers do more and bring the community behind them to cushion the impact of tough and unpopular Government policies. So, rather than take political issue with how much MCYS gives for ComCare, the grassroots and the Advisers raise funds, bring patrons into the community to augment financial assistance, to help needy residents – in support of the Government's "many helping hands" approach. The community must do its part in addition to the Government's efforts.

However, there is still much scope needed to address the issue of fairness, such as the safeguards in place to make the system fair and do not disadvantage any Singaporean who does not stay in a PAP ward.

In the Presidential Election, the issue of the President's son's deferment during NS raised questions among many local Singaporeans over whether there was preferential treatment involved. The Minister of Defence had given us a good reply during the PQ earlier. But this is a good enough example where we can explain that the system is fair, there is no preferential treatment. The issue here is we let the doubts linger for many months before the explanation came out. What this means is that we risk doubts over the credibility and trust of the Government.

We have to be more serious in addressing the issue of fairness, especially with a more educated Singapore and not let critics label this Government as disconnected, self-serving or uncompassionate. Let us not take for granted that public opinion can be fostered easily, let there be more debate and openness on the ground so that people better understand that this Government is working in their best interests. And so the way we announce our policies is also just as important.

Sir, the policy changes in the Addendum to the President's Address all came in quick succession, that even as a MP, I had to keep pace. And surely, in those few days, the ordinary citizen cannot appreciate the work that had gone into all these policies, and the trade-offs taken. So, either we slow policy implementation, which is not preferred, or we take more time to prepare the ground in advance. Perhaps, this House can consider pushing our Third Readings of Bills to the following sitting after the Second Readings are completed. Show that the Government is willing to deliberate on debates and arguments raised in the Second Reading. Then, allow the public to consider the views presented, and allow the media to carry follow-on views. And for the Third Reading, the Government is in a better position to consider all viewpoints, adjust and rationalise the policy better.

The Government must learn to carry the ground better on the back of its policies. Expose the electorate to deeper matters of government concerns and trade-offs, so that they can better understand how the policy is derived, whether the Government has been fair and connected in its approach.

Mr Speaker, Sir, undoubtedly the challenges of Government today are not easy. As we have heard in this House, there are many issues that need to be resolved. But we seem to be in firefighting mode, defending our policies and putting in place new ones to address immediate concerns.

What I believe is missing from this people-Government compact of today compared to our early post-Independence years is the trust and confidence that the Government shares the ideals of the people. The questions for the Government of today: Is this generation of Singaporeans today aligned with the shared vision of the Government? Are Singaporeans today inspired by this Government to continue to believe that –

Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy, please wrap up your speech.

We have undergone three generations of Government that have taken us from the Communist years, rapid growth and modernisation. So, what do we envision fourth-generation Singapore or Singapore 4.0 to be? What ideals and shared vision can Singaporeans of today identify with?

To credit our founding fathers of independent Singapore, there were many ideals that they believed in, where statistics, benchmarks and rankings would have foretold that post-Independence Singapore was impossible. Back in 1965, if we benchmarked Singapore against many islands of comparable size with no natural resources, cut-off from Malaysia, the analysts would have told us that we should have remained a backward port.

When S Rajaratnam wrote the Pledge to fuel the core values of multi-racialism and meritocracy, even the developed Western countries then were struggling with minority rights, economic progress and social mobility.

Today, we need this Government to do the same – to sell a vision of a life and a nation that our people can aspire to for years to come – ideals that appeal to our human survival and comfort instincts. And ideals that we must believe we can try to achieve against the odds.

Sir, we need to carry the nation towards a common dream, a common set of ideals that we can all identify with – and in the process strengthen again that bond and trust that the Government truly understands their aspirations and will take them there as we had many years ago. Our predecessors had written our story from Third World to First. I look forward to this new Government in this new term, and hope that we can inspire this nation forward to write the next chapter of our Singapore story together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin, please allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House. Sir, in his speech to the House, the President noted, "we must find ways to use the new media constructively, to connect with the digital generation and sustain fruitful conversations on issues concerning us all". MICA's Addendum noted that the Ministry seeks to find innovative ways to connect with citizens and it plays an important role in driving and coordinating whole-of-government efforts in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech today relates to suggesting ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. It is divided into two parts. First, I assess Singapore's mainstream media landscape, which directly affects the online world. Secondly, I seek to provide suggestions to the Government on how it can sow the seeds for a media and information environment where Singaporeans are as far as possible, inoculated from lies and misinformation online, and biased reporting from other media outlets in general.

Sir, the new media environment does not exist in a vacuum. Some Singaporeans routinely wonder why alternative political commentary websites are so popular among Singaporeans – these include Singapore Recalcitrant, Singapore Daily, Singapore Notes and sites from across the centre-left of the political spectrum like Yawning Bread, The Online Citizen and even some articles from the discontinued Temasek Review. Could it be that because for every ounce of misinformation, perceived or otherwise, these websites and blogs also ask serious questions pertaining to governance in Singapore – questions that are side-stepped, diluted or even ignored by the Government and the mainstream media?

The Government has, over the last few years in particular, referred to the new media in largely pejorative terms. The Prime Minister has referred to it as the "wild west" and more recently, as a "cowboy town". But the reality is this – the new media is here to stay, and it will continue to eat into the mindshare of the mainstream media, no matter what the Government chooses to call it. Temasek Review may have gone offline, but it is not going to be too difficult or technically challenging to bring in 10 new incarnations of Temasek Review online overnight.

Rather than fear or castigate the new media, Members need to consider how far the explosive popularity of the new media is partly a function of the PAP Government's politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP Governments have placed upon the mainstream media.

In 2010, former MICA Minister, Mr Liu Tuck Yew, stated: "we want to make sure that the Press is, and is seen as, independent of the influence of Government". This House would know, through conversations many must have had with their friends, that many self-respecting Singaporeans have well-founded doubts, perceptions though they may be, that the mainstream media operates with the long shadow of the Government firmly cast upon it.

The perceptions of ordinary Singaporeans were somewhat confirmed when the Chief Editor of The Straits Times last year was quoted as saying, "We're aware people say we are a government mouthpiece or that we are biased." For me personally, this perception was somewhat crystalised when I recently read a chapter in former President S R Nathan's memoirs titled "Entering the newspaper world".

On page 459, President Nathan was quoted as saying – and this was shortly after the corporate restructuring of SPH and just prior to the launch of T he New Paper – "privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits Times could well result in demands for heads to roll and a return to the old idea of putting in a government team".

Some members may feel that President Nathan's views are nothing more than reflections from a bygone era. But in 2003, another episode occurred, euphemistically referred as the "Val Chua affair", this time with TODAY, the MediaCorp publication. The precise details of what happened, and why it happened are hazy, but what did happen is that the newspaper's editor left his job shortly after the episode.

Little wonder why some Singaporeans, particularly those in the post-65 generation, have more faith and confidence in the new media, and why some may even tolerate misinformation online or get taken in by disinformation to varying degrees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government is not in a position to change perceptions of the mainstream media unless a fundamental rethink about elements of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) is considered and opening the mainstream media market to genuine competition is also considered.

These are issues that are far beyond the scope of my speech today. But that should not stop this Government from thinking about how it can prepare Singaporeans for a future – if it is not here already – where information will increasingly be at everyone's fingertips, whether you are 9 or 90 years of age.

How do we make sure that the overwhelming majority of our citizenry are readily able to seek reliable sources of information, be it online or in the mainstream media? How do we convince our citizens that there can be various perspectives to an issue and to respect these various perspectives and narratives, even if we may disagree with them or if they differ from our own? Once more, the answers to these questions do not lie in the online world, but in the real world.

To improve communication with Singaporeans, this PAP Government has to work hard to change the perception of its philosophy of indirect control of the mainstream media, and deliberately move towards a politics of empowerment when dealing with Singaporeans. The Government should commit to share more information and, in doing so, exorcise itself from its insecurity and paranoia, which makes less sense in view of the borderless nature of the Internet and the speed at which information is exchanged and perceptions formed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Dr Lam Pin Min's views that active citizenry in the real and virtual worlds are good for Singapore, and that good digital literacy and judgment are needed in future. I also support Mr Edwin Tong when he said Government engagement with Singaporeans can build a new social compact and that what is required is trust and not blind faith. Ms Sim Ann alluded to the "new normal" and said that voters must be active participants so that rationality has the upper hand. Mr Baey Yam Keng spoke of an emphasis in research and the interpretation of information. Mr Cedric Foo arguably went the furthest when he highlighted the existence of information asymmetries in Singapore, suggesting that voters had no benefit of decisions made in the highest echelons of Government. He also said that the Government's default mode should be to share more information to secure greater buy-in from the public, so that there is less room for the truth to be distorted. And Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef noted that government communication had to be enhanced and it was the weakest aspect of this Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with these words from PAP backbenchers which I support, I will now move into the second section of my speech that envisages specific legislation that can protect Singaporeans from lies, misinformation and open up new avenues for the new media and the mainstream media to promote a more informed citizenry.

I make four proposals, all of which call for more than the digital education suggested by Dr Lam. Critically, my proposals seek to signpost the Government to move beyond slogans, such as "new normal", to substantive change with a view to promote active citizenry.

Firstly – a Freedom of Information legislation – an idea that has been repeated in WP's 2006 and 2011 manifestos. Mr Speaker, Sir, a prospective Freedom of Information Act will allow any Singaporean citizen to make enquiries with any public body for statistics and information at a reasonable price. While I commend the Government for the recently launched website data.gov.sg and the regular public release of information by the Department of Statistics, these examples amplify the fact that it is the Government that decides what it wants to put out.

What a Freedom of Information Act would do is to allow ordinary citizens to pull information from public bodies that have not put the information sought in the public realm. A Freedom of Information legislation is not meant to oblige the Government to release sensitive data such as defence deployments and procurements. Exceptions are routinely scheduled in Freedom of Information legislation elsewhere, which prohibit Government release of sensitive information. It is useful to note that Freedom of Information legislation is very much the norm in countries which host a diverse and plural polity.

And in case some Members feel that such open-Government legislation only originates in Western countries and that we Asians do it differently, the multi-racial Malaysian states of Penang and Selangor have opened a dialogue on the induction of such legislation. India passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, a high-water mark of the previous UPA government.

Let us try to envisage a Freedom of Information Act in practice in Singapore. In the event some misinformation is being peddled on the Internet or the mainstream media, even ordinary citizens and journalists can walk into any Ministry, go to the designated information officer and seek official statistics on the matter. With this information in hand, the peddler of misinformation, either online or in the mainstream media, would be found out, and the webpage or newspaper which hosted the misinformation would lose credibility. No Singaporean will be able to accuse the Government of selectively putting out information it wants to, since ordinary Singaporeans will be empowered to seek the information they require.

A Freedom of Information Act hosts other benefits too. Only a few weeks ago, MCYS launched "Be the Change", an initiative, which invites "young Singaporeans to step forward, share their ideas, and take the lead in turning their ideas into reality." Such projects are likely to be far more successful, popular and broad-based if youth can make enquiries of Government on data and statistics to ensure their ideas are workable and practical.

A second arrow in the politics of empowerment is an obligation by the Government of the day to order the automatic release and disclosure of official information at fixed intervals of 30 years or so. In the United Kingdom, the Public Records Office manages this process. The disclosure of official information and documents, apart from introducing substantive accountability and transparency in Government-decision making processes, will likely provide Singaporeans with valuable insights on why decisions were made the way they were by political leaders in the past. Such a repository of information is extremely helpful to ensure succeeding generations of Singaporeans understand the circumstances behind the success of their predecessors while avoiding the very same mistakes and missteps.

Automating the periodic disclosure of official documents may necessitate a review of certain sections of the National Heritage Board Act. The Government should not see such changes as an attempt to criticise and expose previous governments. But no politician should be beyond reproach and a commitment to open government for historical scrutiny is an important feature of a politically mature society.

Thirdly, President Tony Tan, during his Presidential campaign revived interest in the office of the Ombudsman, a proposal first made to the PAP Government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin Commission almost 50 years ago. The PAP Government of the day rejected the Wee Commission's proposal. The current Law Minister reiterated the call for an Ombudsman when he was a backbencher less than 20 years ago in 1994. The office of the Ombudsman protects the interests of citizens aggrieved by official decisions. Currently, while the courts are available for this purpose, it is important to remember that judicial review, as far as Singapore law is concerned, only allows the court to adjudicate upon the process by which a Government decision was made, not the decision itself.

The office of the Ombudsman reflected an important philosophy of Government the 1966 Wee Commission recognised – that all political power has its limits, and people have rights against Government too, and the very individuals they voted into office.

More than just an institution, the office of the Ombudsman symbolises a certain confidence and trust a government has in its people and vice versa. Establishing such an office today is likely to go some way to opening new channels of communication between citizen and State, regardless of which government is in charge in Singapore. And it is a proposal this Government would do well to re-consider.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 2005, a Business Times article reported that speaker after speaker at a local conference called for Singapore companies to encourage whistle-blowing, to help ensure good governance. These speakers included Mr Hsieh Fu Hua, special adviser to Temasek Holdings, former Senior Minister of State Mr Ho Peng Kee and former PAP MP Mr Davinder Singh. Unfortunately, on 18 May 2011, a week or so after the 2011 General Elections, a Government spokesman with the Ministry of Finance announced that the Ministry had considered and decided not to pursue a whistle-blowing law to protect corporate whistleblowers. This was in spite of strong calls by Singaporeans for whistle-blower legislation, partly because of the banking disasters that came to light in 2008, but more because of Singapore's acutely important role as a financial and economic hub.

Singapore remains a prime target for economic crimes as much commerce passes through our shores. Whistleblower and whistleblower protection legislation makes ordinary Singaporeans part of the good governance process, not just the Government and law enforcement agencies. It also protects ordinary businessmen from rogue directors and employees.

Australia, for example, has included whistleblower provisions in their Corporations Act. In view of the comprehensive review of our Companies Act currently underway, which is coincidentally modelled on the Australian legislation, it may be apposite for this Government to re-consider including whistleblower provisions in our statute books.

In case Members think such legislation would stymie business and cause the wheels of commerce to cease, whistle-blower legislation makes allowance for the prosecution of whistleblowers should their complaints be found to be vexatious or without basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a lot of scope for this Government to take good governance to the next level and divert the focus from misinformation and disinformation online towards building institutions that promote communication, transparency and accountability between the State and all Singaporeans. Any sincere effort by the Government is likely to have significant consequences online – positive consequences. Each of these proposals, a Freedom of Information Act, the public release of official information, the office of the Ombudsman and whistleblower protection are key nodes in a system of trust that would give Singaporeans the tools necessary to rely less on the Government for solutions and play their part in active citizenship.

In the early 1990s, before the advent of the new normal, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought to usher in participatory democracy in Singapore. This slogan did not last very long, and many Singaporeans do not remember the Goh Chok Tong era as opening the door to participatory democracy. In the course of this debate, close to 10 PAP Members have called for the Government to improve communication with ordinary Singaporeans. Without doubt, the time has come for the Government to move decisively in this direction, not in words but in deeds. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Member for Aljunied. First, I am glad that the Member found some basis to agree with me, but what I was saying is that we should be building a social compact built on trust and I called for a greater sharing of information from the Government in relation to fulfilling the trust. But that is a far cry from saying that the Government is indirectly controlling the mainstream media which is replete with misinformation and lies. So, I would like the Member to please clarify, first, is he saying that the mainstream media is replete with misinformation and lies, and if so, what is the basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, I think the Member Mr Edwin Tong has completely misread my speech, I would be happy to give him a copy after this.

The hon. Member Mr Pritam Singh has quoted me as talking about the importance of participation of voters and rationality having the upper hand. I wish I could take credit for that statement but, in fact, I was quoting Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former MP and commentator whom I respect very much. I think credit has to go where it is due. And having made such a passionate speech about combating misinformation, I am sure the Member will agree with me.

Sir, I am not sure the Member has answered the question.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I suggested to the Member that I will be happy to give him my speech is because when he reads my speech, he will understand that I am arguing, I am talking about perceptions. At no point did I say the mainstream media peddles lies, so I think the Member should just see me later and take my speech.

Mr Seng Han Thong.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 426-429 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong issued a statement one week after the watershed General Elections, to announce that they would leave the Cabinet. In their short statement, what touched me most was that they reminded the younger ministers, not to forget the older generation of Singaporeans, and that this generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well looked-after.

When the two ex-prime ministers talked about the older generation of Singaporeans, they were probably referring to Singaporeans aged 60 or above. According to the 2010 Population Census, there are 508,850 Singaporeans aged 60 or above. They make up 16% of the total number of Singapore citizens.

Singaporeans who turned 60 years old this year were still high school students (14 years old) when Singapore was forced to separate from Malaysia 46 years ago. Singaporeans who are older have weathered the storms together with us, endured many hardships and overcome many crises. Currently, many of them have retired from work and are enjoying their golden years, some are still working, while a minority of them are struggling in life. Hence, when we talk about looking after older Singaporeans, we should not limit this to familiar terms like "rebate", "concessions" and "assistance".

I would like to invite all MPs present, including Opposition party MPs, to take a look at your communities, community groups, temples, churches, community clubs, and see if you have noticed the emergence of a new group of elderly folks. I call this group of old folks "the happily retired old folks".

After their retirement, they are healthy, they have savings and a good family. More importantly, they have the time, space and they enjoy life.

They have time, but they do not waste time. So, they use their time to exercise, to do volunteer work and to take care of their grandchildren at home. These old folks not only volunteer, but they also contribute money. During Hungry Ghost Festivals, they contribute by bidding for auction items. They can also be seen at fund-raising activities at community clubs, temple and church celebrations, singing and dancing. By taking part in various activities, they directly €˜open up' their own space.

In recent years, the Government has implemented the Lift Upgrading Programme and Barrier-free Access Programme, these are very popular with the elderly. Why? Because they can now move around easily and safely, without fear of falling down. Because of this, they are able to get out of their flat and go downstairs often. The opening of the MRT Circle Line further opened up their space. The emergence of budget airlines also expanded their "space" to overseas. The other day, at the opening of the Parliament session, I witnessed a filial son pushing his mother in a wheelchair to Parliament, and he turned out to be the MP for Hougang, Mr Yaw Shin Leong. I asked him where he lives, and if there are lifts and barrier-free access in his neighbourhood. He said, yes, if not, his mother would not have been able to go to Parliament.

If MP Ms Sylvia Lim sent young people to interview these old folks at the void decks, and ask them if they feel happy and fortunate, they will say, "You will be happy if you are contented with what you have."

On another day, I met a few old folks outside a TCM medical hall, they were going for a tour abroad, to enjoy life. They jokingly told me, "When we were young, we drank soft drinks together; when we grew up, we apply perfume together; when we are old, we buy medicine together."As you grow old, it is unavoidable to have some aches and pains, applying some ointment will help.

These old folks know how to take care of themselves, exchange health tips. They exchange experiences, take care of each other, do not and need not trouble the government and their families. They do not grumble about life, but they hope that younger ministers will apply a human touch when executing policies.

They have time, space and enjoy life. They are also sentimental. When the younger ministers implement policies, they should consider giving them more space. For example, when the MRT Circle Line opened, the old folks were very happy, but some complained that the words on signages were too small.

Also, new media is not exclusively enjoyed by youngsters, these old folks also know how to use iPhone and iPad. In fact, they have more time to spend in the virtual world. I am happy to know that IDA has launched the Silver Infocomm Initiative. This will allow more old folks who are unfamiliar with new media, to access new media and expand their horizon.

Of course, not all old folks are so fortunate. Another category of old folks are the salaried elderly, those who have a job and receive wages. These old folks are not as happy. They suffer from "the three cuts".

We know that currently, there are 268,000 workers aged 50 and above working in various industries and occupations. When the Re-employment Act comes into effect next year, more elderly folks will join this segment of the workforce. However, when salaried old folks talk about jobs, they will mention €˜the three cuts'. This is because, once they reach the age of 50, their CPF employer's contribution rate will be reduced from 16% to 12%, a decrease of 4%. When they reach 60, their wages will be reduced by 10%. When they reach 62 and are re-employed, they will suffer another cut, this time in medical benefits.

NTUC has urged the Government to review the CPF contribution rate of older workers, and employers and the Government have responded positively. At the moment, the tripartite partners have started discussions on this issue, with the hope that older workers will have enough CPF savings, whilst not affecting the competitiveness of companies. At the same time, it is heartening to know that some enlightened employers, especially those who are unionised, have not reduced the wage of workers above the age of 60. In fact, almost 1,000 companies have re-employed older workers even before the Re-employment Act comes into effect next year, the total number of employees re-employed exceed 9,000.

The Government is the largest employer. In addition, there are many statutory boards with many employees. Many of these will be re-employed when they reach a certain age. I hope that the Government ministries and statutory boards will take the lead, such that when they adjust the job scope, responsibilities and wages of older workers, they will be reasonable. If the worker's responsibility is the same, and the workload is the same, they should be paid the same salary as before. Of course, many older workers hope that they can retreat from the frontline, they hope that the workload will be less and they know that their salary will be reduced. But so long as the adjustments are reasonable, they will accept it. To a large extent, the officers in charge of human resources at Government ministries and statutory boards should communicate better with the workers and their unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a third category of old folks, they are really having a difficult time, I call them €˜the miserable old folks'. There are three things that they fear most. Firstly, they fear loneliness. Secondly, they fear illness. Thirdly, they fear letters from the Government.

These old folks do not have a good family environment because their children have either left them, are not taking care of them or do not have the means to take care of them. These old couples depend on each other, and when one of them dies, the one left behind will feel very lonely. In Parliament, we hear from MPs stories about old folks who have to sell tissue paper, be a karang guni, sell ice-cream, or work in low-wage jobs. This is the group that I am referring to.

Although currently we have a lot of assistance schemes to help them, and I am happy to hear from Acting Minister for MCYS, Mr Chan Chun Sing, that the Government will be enhancing assistance, I would like to add on by suggesting that the Government exercise greater flexibility during implementation, with a greater human touch.

I believe that Minister Chan, who comes from a poor family, will be able to empathise with the situation of these old folks. Yesterday, I was also glad to hear from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Sam Tan that there are plans to set up more Senior Citizens Activity Centres, to bring lonely old folks from their tiny living space to bigger spaces.

The second fear among these "miserable old folks" is illness. They are afraid to see the doctor, they are afraid that the doctor will tell them they have illnesses. They are also worried that the medical costs are too high, that they cannot afford it. I believe that the committee headed by Minister Gan Kim Yong, who is looking into problems of the elderly, will take note of this issue.

And thirdly, they are afraid of receiving letters from the Government. This group of old folks are afraid to receive letters from the Government because they cannot understand what is written in the letters. Secondly, they are worried that their water and electricity supply will be cut off. When they receive the letters, they will be so worried that they lose sleep. Only when they see their MPs and grassroots leaders, realise that we can actually help them, then they will feel assured. Hence, I suggest that, when the Government is communicating with these old folks, they should use more verbal communication and less English letters. The activity centres for old folks can play an important role in this aspect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the old folks of today were the youth of yesterday, the youth of today will be the elderly of tomorrow. When the Government draws up various measures, they should look after the elderly, especially the salaried old folks and the €˜miserable old folks'.

I mentioned that the Government needs to have a human touch when they implement their policies. The Government has always emphasised consultation with the people when they are drawing up major policies. But during implementation, they should focus on applying human touch.

To many ministers and civil servants who draft the measures, the measures will be effective when implemented. But from the viewpoint of the common folks, they sometimes lack the human touch, and this may result in dissatisfaction amongst the people. For example, why do Singaporeans like to eat bak kut teh? Laksa? Mee siam? Because these dishes not only look good, but also smell good and taste good.

Many of our policies are beneficial to the people and effective, but if we can add a bit of human touch, it will be even better. For example, the ERP system. Previously, the ERP hours along CTE in the evening lasts till 10.30pm, yesterday, when we drove home, the IU does not beep twice anymore. This is what I mean by human touch. My residents told me they feel happy too, so thank you, Minister Lui Tuck Yew.

It is the same in Chinatown. In the past, I used to go there to eat dinner but not any more, because many friends whom I dine with said they do not want to go, because they are not happy. The special part about Chinatown is that there has to be many people, many cars, although we do not want a lot of water. Chinatown does not need buffaloes or water, but there has to be cars. Now that ERP hours are shortened, cars will rush in to jam up the roads, then we can see the real flavour of Chinatown.

And also, on the immigration policy, although we have now tightened the immigration policy, we should consider cases whereby Singaporeans marry foreigners. When the non-Singaporean spouse gives birth and her relatives from another country come to visit during the confinement period, we should also relax the regulations. Here, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs. I had a special case, her application was not approved repeatedly. After I wrote in on her behalf, the authorities finally allowed her relatives to come to visit her. Imagine, if we have a daughter who is married overseas and is pregnant, and we want to visit her, the government of the foreign country should be humane too.

Yesterday, the housing policies announced by Minister Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament also demonstrated that the Government is humane. We strive to be a liveable city, and a liveable city cannot be without human touch, that is the kind of home that we aspire to. If the liveable city is lacking in human touch, we will not have the feeling of "Home sweet home".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to comment on the speech by the MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao, although many MPs have spoken about it before. One main point he talked about is the peaceful and prosperous era of Zhenguan. It is an era from history long time ago. When I went home and did a search on Google, I found that there was a point of doubt. The Member of Parliament Mr Chen hoped the Government would be like Emperor Tang Taizong, but the PAP Government never wanted to be emperor. On the other hand, according to Google search results, Wei Zheng was originally with the camp that opposed Tang Taizong and it was Tang Taizong who invited Wei Zheng to join him, as he treasured good talents. So I wonder if MP Chen is saying that he wants to join us from the other camp, I believe that is not the case.

Coming back to modern society, all of us in Parliament place national interest as priority. Just as President Tony Tan said at the opening of the new session of Parliament, we must collectively lead Singaporeans, look at the challenges posed by the less than optimistic external economic conditions, avoid creating divisions in the society due to increasing polarisation, so as to achieve the vision that the Government has been promoting in recent years, that is, the vision of an inclusive society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

: Sir, though the CPF scheme has worked well with the employer and employee relationship, there is a big group of people, the self-employed workers, who are not so well covered by our CPF scheme. So, the challenge, it means – how can we get self-employed persons to include the cost of building up their social safety net in a sustainable way so that they will also have a safety net when they grow old and get sick?

Last year, NTUC, together with MOM and the taxi companies, pioneered the drive and safety scheme for the taxi drivers who are self-employed persons. This is a tripartite effort and I must thank Mr Gan Kim Yong for his strong support of this concept when he was the Minister for MOM. It is a voluntary scheme. We want the taxi drivers to have a social safety net when they grow old and sick.

The idea behind the scheme is to get both the drivers and the taxi companies to regularly contribute to the drivers' CPF Medisave account. So, we championed that as a cause for taxi drivers. Social safety net should be included in the price of taxi service provided by the taxi companies, just like any mode of public transport, such as bus and rail.

Sir, similar concepts or principles should be adopted to create a national CPF framework for all self-employed persons in Singapore. We should act now and address these potential social problems of an inadequate social safety net for self-employed persons. Sir, currently there are about 133,700 self-employed persons who have trade net income below $6,000. They are mandated to contribute to their Medisave which can be used to pay for their medical insurance to cover their medical expenses should they fall ill.

This big group of self-employed persons is inadequately insured against unforeseen events, such as theft, permanent disability, critical or chronic illness. Unlike employees, when such unfortunate things happen to him or her, the whole family will fall into financial difficulties and experience great distress because he does not enjoy paid leave for medical or hospitalisation and cost of medical treatment. So, just like the CPF Dependant Insurance Scheme, we should set up an automatic opt-in for a basic Life Insurance scheme, which can be paid by the CPF savings. This will further strengthen the social safety net of the inadequately insured self-employed persons or, for the matter, all Singapore citizens under the CPF scheme.

Sir, where we can put our CPF savings to benefit all Singaporeans, including the self-employed, it would also make it a stronger case for the Government to give more generous CPF top-ups during the years with surpluses.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." Written hundreds of years ago by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, this quote is remarkably apposite today. Every once in a while, countries and nations come to a critical crossroads and the choices that we make will change our futures irrevocably.

Singapore is at such a crossroads today in terms of Singapore's future and the relationship between Singaporeans and the Government. We may not have fully appreciated it but the debates of the last few days had actually caused a much bigger, global phenomenon. There is a tide that is sweeping the world. We are riding this tide better than most but it has not left us untouched and we have yet to plumb its depths for its true lessons.

It began in spring, the Arab Spring to be precise. The events in Tunisia which spread to Egypt, Libya and Yemen, followed by the protests and demonstrations in Israel, the Anna Hazare protests in India, the Indignants in Spain, the riots in South London, and now the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York which has spread to the rest of the US, Europe and Australia.

For those of us who are old enough, there is a distinct sense of déjà vu. It resonates of Woodstock in the 1960s' hippie revolution, a movement which eventually died out but which changed the world and left a lasting legacy in its wake.

What is this global phenomenon about? It is, in essence, a collective outcry by the middle classes and the poor about economic inequality. The sense that the things they want are getting further and further out of reach, that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few − the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and wage disparity is increasing.

In the US, there is anger over income inequality, high employment, cuts in social spending, stagnant economy and lack of economic growth. The post-mortems of the UK riots show that the rioters did so because they lacked the belief that the political system represented their interests. They lacked hope and they did not feel that they have a future to risk. The Times of India article reported that those who hit the streets in India did so because of a sense of inchoate rage they felt that the political system which displayed contempt for their priorities. And in Israel, the sentiment was captured in a slogan which said, "We are fighting for an accessible future."

So what lessons does this hold for us, especially in the wake of the recent GE? Well, the first thing, if one considers our situation against the wider backdrop of what is happening, is that all things considered, our Government did well. The anger and disillusionment in other countries are accompanied by a sense that their institutions and political systems have failed them.

When you consider our GE results against the backdrop of what is now happening in the rest of the world, then one would realise that 60.1% vote share is actually a testimony that our Government did in fact get many things right and that, unlike the other countries, our institutions have not failed.

It is, I believe, for these same reasons that there has not been a desire to occupy Raffles Place. However, at the same time, there are many reverberating echoes of the global phenomenon in our last GE, in particular the concerns of middle-class and poorer Singaporeans that things are slipping out of reach and becoming inaccessible to them. It has manifested itself in concerns over shortage of affordable housing, inability to get places in local universities and rising costs of living. And this was despite the fact that we had record economic growth of 14.5% last year.

So, in the US, there is unhappiness because there is no economic growth. In Singapore, we have unhappiness despite economic growth. And what are we to make of this? The reason for the unhappiness in Singapore was that many Singaporeans felt that despite the 14.5% economic growth in 2010, the fruits of that economic growth did not reach the ground and was not spread out equitably. So the real lesson of the global events and our GE is that we must continue to pursue economic growth but we must also at the same time ensure that it is spread out and shared equitably amongst all Singaporeans.

The question of economic growth has occupied the House over the last few days and the debate has been positioned as economic growth versus happiness. That is not quite correct. The truth is that the two go hand in hand. One cannot just "don't worry, be happy". The world does not work like that. If we want more things for ourselves, if we want the Government to give more things, such as transport subsidies and healthcare subsidies, that needs money. The money must come from somewhere and, to get that money, we need economic growth.

We have to strike a happy medium between Abba's "Money, Money, Money" and Jessie J's "Price Tag". The Abba song is about girls looking for rich men. The underlying assumption is that having money will buy everything she wants and bring her happiness. The Jessie J's song, on the other hand, says that "it is not about the money. We don't need the money. Forget about the price tag. Money can't buy you happiness". I notice that everybody seems to recognise Abba but there was a slight look of puzzlement when I mentioned Jessie J, UK singer, list of top 10.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose that contains another lesson for this Chamber, which is that the MPs wish to be in sync with the broad spectrum of the Singapore population, they have to tune in literally and metaphorically not just to go 90.5 FM but also tonight's 100.3 FM.

But the challenge for Singapore and the Singapore Government is how to calibrate growth and social spending and to get the balance just right. In the last GE, the sense was that the balance was not right and now we need to correct this. If not, then the result will be what we see playing out in other parts of the world right now. In calibrating this balance, I would urge the Government to look more at healthcare subsidies and, in particular, education assistance for disabled as well as for special children.

Another issue surfaced in the last GE, which was the relationship between Government and Singaporeans. The relationship between Government and people in Singapore is not like that in other countries. The relationship between the Government and people in Singapore is a special one. It is founded on trust and confidence, of promises made and the sense of a shared destiny.

However, in the last GE, it is clear that this relationship was strained and there was a sense of disconnect and that the Government did not care. I do not actually think the Government does not care. Why does the Government pay so much attention to the economy? To ensure that Singaporeans have jobs. Why do you do that? Obviously, because you care. Why have Workfare? Why have Jobs Credit? Why have ComCare? Why have the Seniors Mobility Fund? Why have all these things if the Government does not care?

Sir, I think it does, but why is it that, despite all these things and these measures, there is this persistent feeling that the Government does not care? Well, in some areas, it really was the case that the Government did not act or act fast enough on feedback from the ground, leading people to think that the Government was not listening to what the ground was saying.

However, I think there is another reason and that is communications. That actually brings me to this point about communications, the point that the hon. Member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Pritam Singh, raised. The point that he made was that, well, people turned to new media because they felt that questions were side-stepped, because there is a sense of the politics of indirect control over the mainstream media. And I think when he was asked by the hon. Member, Mr Edwin Tong, he said that this sense of perception was real or perceived, and he had set out certain suggestions on how this could be redressed.

I have a slightly different view on how these issues can be addressed. But before that, I suppose I wanted to ask the Member, Mr Pritam Singh, to clarify because he has put forth proposals on Information Act, release of information, and these are based on the statement that there are perceptions out there, that there is indirect Government control of the media. I seek the learned Member's clarification whether he believes that there is indirect control of the mainstream media and perhaps that can be addressed after my speech.

But moving back on to the point that I wanted to make about communications, it is this. We have a well educated and thinking population and that is thanks to the PAP Government's education policy of the last 50 years. But the consequence is that Singaporeans no longer simply accept something blindly or uncritically. It is no longer enough for the Government to state its direction. What is imperative is the conversation that the Government has with people so that the majority understands and accepts that this is the direction that we must go. And if in the course of the conversation, the sense is that the majority of Singaporeans do not wish to go in that direction, then there must be a re-evaluation of that direction.

There is also a question of the tone of the conversation between government and people. In its desire to present substantive arguments, the Government has, over the last few decades, managed to leech out all emotion from its public communications. It is very often about facts, figures, statistics. And official replies sometimes have a rigid pomposity about them that immediately sets backs up. This has led to allegations of arrogance and allowed detractors to paint the Government as uncaring when this is, in fact, not the case.

It is just not about the end result but the conversation that takes place between Government and people and the tone of that conversation. It is not only what you say but how you say it. That is why I think that there is a lot of information out there, I am not sure we need another Act for that. But I think that part of the issue thrown up by new media is how Government communicates. And I believe that if the Government communicates effectively, clearly and in an inspiring way, then that will in effect address many of the concerns that Singaporeans have.

We should also make for policies that fit people and not make people fit the policies. There are many examples of these but just one which I would like to ask HDB to review is this policy of having co-tenancy of rental flats, especially when you have the elderly. When rental flats were first offered, the co-tenant policy made sense as people rented with their friends or relatives. However, as they have grown older, many of the co-tenants have passed on and now they are being asked to live with strangers. If we can change this policy and have maybe rental flats for one occupant, some for two occupants, some for families and have some flexibility there, then we will fit our policies around what people need.

I would also ask the Government to look into creative solutions to offset rising costs of living. One suggestion which I wish to put forward, far-fetched as it may seem, is: Can we explore solar power for HDB flats? This is not so far-fetched actually because the idea of the Marina Barrage was conceived 20 years ago. NeWater technology was not available then and the idea of turning the whole island into a reservoir to capture recyclable water at that time seemed like an impossible dream. But, today, it is a reality. I would ask the Government to look at the possibility of solar power for HDB flats because if you think about it, how much we would be able to save in terms of cost and how much we could add to the average family's disposable income.

I do understand that at the present time it is not an economically viable solution. All I ask is that it be studied so that going forward in the future, if it is something that becomes economically and technologically viable, this is something we should do for Singaporeans.

These are just some suggestions. Obviously, there have been many things that have been discussed in the House in the past few days, but these are some of the things that we should look at to make the future accessible for Singaporeans, young and old. It is not an easy task. It requires hard work, fiscal prudence yet creative spending. It requires Government and people to work together in tandem and hand-in-hand. It requires the concerted energy of a nation galvanised in a common goal.

Why is the situation in the US so bad today? Why has it come to the stage of "Occupy Wall Street"? Just three years ago, President Obama swept into Capitol Hill on the ringing cry of "Change!" and "Yes, we can!" Three years later, it is apparent "No! The US couldn't". Or at least to-date, it cannot. The US is experiencing firsthand the words of Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

But that is not the case in Singapore. For us, it is not a matter of "we can" but "we can and we will". When the PAP Government pledges change, the change is real. Remember the Re-making Singapore Committee ten years ago? At that time, Singapore was criticised for not being a happening place. We were compared unfavorably to Lan Kwai Fong. Madonna could not have a concept here because there was too much red tape. Pubs and nightclubs complained that they could not open past midnight. In response to that feedback, we implemented change, so much so that the pendulum has now swung the other way and I have to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to do something about the side effects of excessive partying at Roberston Quay.

So, what we must understand is what this GE is truly about. What this GE is truly about is that we are at a crossroads. There are challenges for us and big challenges: How to do what other countries have not been able to do, which is to give Singapore an accessible future and to have a relationship between Government and the people, not just of trust and confidence but also of affection. If we can get this right, we will ride the tide of fortune. If we do not, then we lose all our ventures.

So far, the rest of the world has not been able to get it right. The challenge for us is how to succeed against all odds, to do what the others cannot do, to not only dream that impossible dream but to make the impossible dream come true for all Singaporeans. In the words of Billie Holiday, and these are words of encouragement for the Minister for National Development, in particular, and for the Minister for Transport and the rest of Ministers, "The difficult, we will do right now; the impossible takes a little while". But either way – and these are not Billy Holiday's words, these are mine – either way, we will do it because we are Singaporeans. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I refer to the hon. Member Ms Indranee Rajah's request for me to clarify. I beg your pardon, it was not a clarification. She wanted to know my opinion, how I felt, whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Now, I wish the Member had stuck to some of the points that I made in the speech about my proposals for this Government to improve communication with Singaporeans, rather than ask me what my view was as to whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Be that as it may, let me just go through two points that I made in the speech again for the sake of clarification, nothing more.

I refer to the comments of the chief editor of The Straits' Times last year again, and this is what he said: "We are aware. People say we are a Government mouthpiece or that we are biased." First point. Second point. The remarks of former President Nathan in his memoirs, page 459, "Privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits' Times could well result in demands for heads to roll or a return to the old idea of putting in a Government team."

Now, never mind what Pritam Singh thinks. What do we say about the comments made by the chief editor of The Straits' Times and our former President? The fact of the matter is, there are Singaporeans – and I am sure Members in their heart of hearts will know that – many Singaporeans are concerned that because issues are not addressed in the mainstream media across the political spectrum, you have popularity gaining online and the biggest loser in all of these is the Government, not Pritam Singh, not the Opposition, but ordinary Singaporeans who actually want to hear diverse perspectives, diverse views.

So, I hope the Member, instead of asking me for my opinion on things, can suggest to the Government what it can do to improve communication between itself and ordinary Singaporeans. Thank you.

Sir, a point of clarification. The hon. Member for Aljunied had put forward a proposal. The proposal was to address a particular concern. The concern was that there is a perception, or he said there is a perception that the mainstream media is controlled. He has cited two examples, the chief editor of SPH, being aware that people say, meaning that is what is people think; President Nathan's quote – that is what people think.

But the Member of Parliament is putting forward a proposal to have certain Acts which have extremely important provisions. So, all I was seeking was clarification whether that Member believes the reason for these Acts, in other words, does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled and is that why you are putting forward the proposal for these Acts?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to repeat what the focus of my speech was when I made it just now –

I suggest you keep it short.

Yes, Sir. I basically suggested ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. And I divided the speech into two parts: I first assessed the mainstream media landscape which directly affects the online world. Now, that is my contention. Now, if the Member does not believe that what occurs in the mainstream media has no effect on the online media, then I am not sure how far I can take this argument.

Secondly, I very clearly informed this House that there are a number of legislation that the Government can consider to actually improve the situation insofar as lies and misinformation occur and this really is a reflection of the President's Address and MICA's Addendum to that Address. They are not referring to the mainstream media. They are referring to the nexus – They are referring, I beg your pardon, to the online media. I am suggesting that there is a connection and the Government would do well to pay heed to that connection. This is not about Pritam Singh's views on the mainstream media.

Sir, thank you for allowing me to seek a clarification. Mr Singh is putting forward a position about perceptions on mainstream media. There are many ways of avoiding an answer to the question and Mr Singh has tried a number of them. The question is a simple one. It is very important to know what Mr Singh thinks because a whole series of proposals are being put forward as to how the Government should deal with these perceptions. A Member of Parliament, when asked a direct question as to what he believes in, should either say he is prepared to answer or should simply tell the truth, which is that, "I am not prepared to answer the question".

I think the Law Minister would know better than I how to answer a question in Parliament because he has been around here longer than I have. But I can only answer a question with my hand on my heart. I am not here to score a political point. I am not here to suggest that the Government is doing something wrong. But what I am saying is that there is scope for this Government to reflect and, more importantly, reflect on the words of the former Foreign Minister, the man who occupied this seat that this Member currently occupies. And he said that "the PAP needs to transform itself" and here you have a backbencher who has stood up and suggested to the Government in all sincerity not to score political points but just to suggest to the Government that there is scope for improvement. And if they need any advice or any suggestions, anything of that sort, I am sure I will be happy to provide them. But I am not here to score a political point or to teach someone how a question ought to be answered or not. This is not my intention. And if the Member thinks that answer is so important that it will have some effect on the real Singapore society, then I think he is mistaken.

Sir, the point is a very simple one and it is this. Does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled, purveys lies and dishonest opinions? Why is it important to know that? When Members speak here, their personal views and their integrity to speak their personal views and speak from the heart, there are no games that need to be played. The question is not about other people's perceptions only. It is a very simple question capable of a simple answer. What do you believe in? Then, we have a basis to move forward. Why is it important to say what you believe in? As an elected Member of Parliament, you come here and express your views, you got to put your hand on your heart and say, "This is what I believe in". That does not require years of experience as a parliamentarian. That simply requires telling the truth.

Mr Singh, will you state your belief, otherwise we will move on?

Mr Speaker, can I first make a clarification? Is the Minister suggesting I am lying?

I am simply saying that Mr Singh does not want to answer the question.

Well, I think I will be running over ground that I have already gone over. I essentially am saying that this Government can do better. Now, I am saying that with my hand on my heart.

Gentlemen, we will move on. Dr Ng Eng Hen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48 (8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech.

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of the hon. Members present to so move?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 48 (8) in respect of the Prime Minister's speech. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the start of a new term of Parliament that people have chosen us to be their representatives and it is our duty to fulfil the trust that they have vested upon us. We have debated the Government's programme for the next five years. MPs have also raised many issues which affect Singaporeans, affect their voters. But let us take a step back from all these detailed items and to-ings and fro-ings to address how they all fit into a larger picture.

We all know the Singapore Story. A dramatic transformation from Third World to First, apparently effortless and inevitable but it was not just by luck, it was not just by mere passage of time that this happened. It was the result of hard work, strong determination from all parties and concerted sustained performance over many years. As we look to the future, we have to ask ourselves, it is a new environment as Ms Indranee said, we are at a crossroads, and the tide is in full flood.

Can Singapore thrive in this new environment? Can we build a stronger society, a more inclusive nation, a better home? Can we achieve what President Tan said in his speech: the vision of providing a better life for all? As the President's Address put it: we want every Singaporean worker to hold a skilled well-paid job, every family to live in an affordable, comfortable home, every young person to develop himself fully and pursue his dreams, every senior citizen to stay active and to live with dignity. And my answer is, yes. We can do it. But to achieve this, we need an inclusive society that leaves no one behind. We need a vibrant economy that improves all our lives. And we need a constructive politics that put Singapore first.

Let us take them one by one. What is an inclusive society? It is one where everybody benefits from the progress of the nation; it is one where everyone has a say, a stake and a sense of belonging; and it is one where everyone aspires to do better through their own efforts and feels that he or she has a real chance to move up. Why is this important? Well, firstly and most fundamentally, because we are one family, one Singapore family. Then, it is because it is a reflection of what we are, our values, what we stand for when we look at the mirror in the morning – how we see ourselves, how we want others to see us. And it is also a practical matter because if we are inclusive, if we work together, we stand together and succeed. But if not, we fall apart and we fail.

Our society is changing. New challenges have emerged to creating an inclusive society. There are more different groups with sharper different interests and concerns: the young, the old; the special interest groups; different socio-economic groups: the professionals, the middle-class, those who think of themselves as in the middle of the sandwiched, those who feel that life has not quite been fair to them.

Income inequality is starker than before. The most successful Singaporeans will continue to do very well. The average Singaporeans will be able to make improvements in their lives and are much better off than people in most other countries. But at the lower end, incomes have risen too slowly, far too slowly, especially in real terms. We are seeing our society stratifying which means the children of successful people are doing better, the children of less successful people are doing less well. And fewer children from lower income families are rising and coming up to the top of the heap. We are seeing ageing, visible all over Singapore. We see this in our daily lives, we watch out for it because we are shepherds and responsible for Singaporeans, but I think Singaporeans must see it too.

I visit schools, I see the bright kids, the sparkle in their eyes, the excitement of their projects, of the things they are planning to do, the places they are going to. I do Meet-the-People sessions. We see families come, desperate, anxious, worried about themselves but we worry more for their children because when they have no home, no place to go, studying in the void deck, how do you go from that to the kid dreaming in a laboratory to be the next Nobel Prize winner?

It is a big gap. It exists in Singapore, sharper than before. It exists in many other societies, but it is something which we worry a lot about. Stratification is an issue too because a generation ago, everybody was poor. Many of the kids went on to school, university, become professionals. One couple, one rental flat, seven kids, five graduates. Many such stories. Today, not so common because the kids are graduates already, they are not living in rental flats anymore and their parents probably not living in rental flats either. So, those who are left behind are finding it harder.

Ageing – happening almost before our eyes. I do not just mean when we look into the mirror. Five years ago, I was preparing for a National Day Rally speech, talking about ageing and I made a special effort to visit Radin Mas, Mr Sam Tan's ground because Radin Mas had a more advanced stage of ageing amongst its residents than the rest of us. But today, when I come to Ang Mo Kio or many other estates, I do not have to go to Radin Mas anymore. I look at the residents, you watch them, they are active, they are happy, but visibly greyer than five years ago. Just ask yourself: 10 years from now, where will we be?

By the 2030s, the statisticians tell me through freedom of information, one in five Singaporeans will be about 65. Today, it is only one in 10. In 2030 – that means 18 years' time – one in five. It is an abstract statistic, but what you see is what you can sense in every housing estate, in many hawker centres when you walk around the streets and especially on Polling Days when all the old folks come out, either with their walking sticks or their wheelchairs, to vote.

We are not alone so there is some solace, but we still are faced with the problem and the question is how do we respond to this? After the General Election, I asked Deputy Prime Minister Tharman to review social policies comprehensively – set up a committee, oversee a comprehensive whole-of-Government exercise, because this is not an issue just for MCYS, but many Ministries are involved and, indeed, it is not just a multi-Ministry issue on some of the major things. You need a national mobilisation for it to come before a national consciousness as a priority which we have to deal with. So, Manpower, Education, National Development, Health, MCYS, even Home Affairs, because if we are talking about kids with problems, MHA has a vested interest. And they have meeting, discussing, tossing out ideas, getting a grip on the problem and a sense of how we want to approach these problems. Today, I just want to share some of their thinking with you which we have discussed amongst all the Ministers.

I think the first priority we would have dealing with these is to strive to maintain social mobility, to create the best opportunities for our people to progress and to encourage people to make maximum efforts for themselves. That is how we have built our prosperity based on self-reliance, based on personal endeavour. And I think that is still a right direction. Because if you want a resilient Singapore, if you want a prosperous Singapore, if you want a Singapore where everybody is doing well, we cannot have passengers. Some will be the strobe setting the pace, some will be the main might of the crew rowing hard. Others, even if you are not able to pull your full weight, do what you can so that nobody is just a passenger.

So, therefore, we have put a major emphasis on education and training, on the Ministry of Education, on the Continuing Education and Training which MOM is overseeing. And that is one of the reasons why we have put a very strong team into the Ministry of Education. When Ng Eng Hen moved to MINDEF, I thought carefully. We put Heng Swee Keat into MOE who has been there before, who understands education and has experience in the Government at very senior levels and will be able to get going, hit the ground running. And I supported him with a strong team -- Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Hawazi Daipi and Ms Sim Ann so that education is right up there on the front burner. And education, not just doing well what we have already done but taking new initiatives, moving into new areas and starting early in life so that children can get ahead and do better than their parents.

So, we are focusing on good quality, affordable preschool education: how to support that, how to make sure that all Singaporeans can get there. We are making sure that every neighbourhood school is a good school. It is not a slogan. It is a slogan but it is a reality and we make sure that every neighbourhood school is a good school and any MP who feels that his school is not quite up there, please let us know and we will do something about it.

We are putting in Learning Support programmes at Primary 1 and Primary 2 because when the kids start with a deficit, we want to close that deficit. We do not want the gaps to widen and have them falling further and further behind. We are helping children with special needs – specialised learning and therapy, expanded capacity and higher quality in their special education schools. I think it is the right thing to do. I heard Ms Denise Phua speaking earlier in the week with great passion. I agree with her. We need to do more. I do not agree with her that it should all come unto the Government's plate. But we will do more and, with people like her, I think we will achieve more.

Ms Low Yen Ling also spoke about this and how there are children when in pre-primary or preschool who have learning difficulties that need to be diagnosed and then identified and helped early. These are all very sensible, very practical approaches which we will pursue and pursue aggressively.

Even then, some kids will get into trouble. It is in the nature of kids, especially boys, and we have to tackle these youth problems early because we want to nip the problem in the bud before they get into the first brush with the law, second brush with the law, exposed to hardcore drugs or criminals, and then you are on a lifetime of crime. Wasted. And that, again, is multi-ministry because it cannot just be done by good intentions in MCYS.

So, we must get people to move, we must start early in life and we must keep the avenues open so that it is free for people to move up. If you are talented, hardworking, have drive and determination, however poor your background, there must be no financial or social impediment for you to move. And I think we can say that, institutionally, we have that: schools, bursaries, fee remissions, universities. If you are able, you are willing to study and you show the performance, the door is open.

We are widening access to higher education, particularly university places where there are 25% going on to 30%, and we have Mr Lawrence Wong with his Committee studying how we can widen access further in one form or another, so that more students can make it to tertiary education. More bursaries and scholarships will be given and, beyond the university, better facilities in the polytechnics and in the ITEs at every level to let students move up and achieve their best.

The principle is meritocracy. The most capable, most reliable, the one with the most potential to go into the most crucial job because we want to put the person who is going to do it best so that the rest of us can be assured that nothing will go wrong. But we have to see meritocracy widely, not as a narrow one-dimensional definition of success as in examination and results, but a broader range of abilities; many models of achievement, many ways to make your mark. Whether it is arts, sports, science, as a businessman, an entrepreneur or in the public sector, whether as a leader or a specialist. Many ways to do well, and society to recognise and celebrate all the different people who do well.

We also have to set the tone for our society if we want to keep our system open. Because the rules may be there, the scholarships may be there, but if between the lower end and the higher end, there is a social gap – you are not accepted, you do not feel comfortable, you are awkward or a magic circle forms and you cannot get into the magic circle – I think that is very damaging. So, we must keep our society open, egalitarian, informal: people socialise together, people mix freely together, people get to know one another in our State schools, in our National Service, in life, in our hawker centres, able to mix comfortably, able to integrate into one Singapore team.

We have done this so far and there are many examples of students who have come up from poor homes who have excelled. We have kids who took part in theatre for the first time, discovered an aptitude, talent spotted, going into SOTA next year. We have a badminton player who developed his academic and athletic potential in the Sports School and will be representing Singapore at the upcoming SEA Games. We have got budding talents in the NUS Math and Science School excelling in Mathematics or Bio-medical Olympiads, flying the flag for Singapore. We have sons of taxi drivers winning a SAF scholarship to study in Imperial College in London. There many more such stories and we must make sure that every time there is a young boy or girl with potential who is from a poor home, we identify him and we smooth the path for him and we help him to make it.

So, the first approach towards dealing with our social problems is to strengthen the ability for people to succeed. But the second approach, which must complement the first one, is to strengthen our social safety nets, because there is a "yin" and a "yang". The "yang" is what you try to do for yourself, to compete, to achieve, to thrust forward. The "yin" – you are looking out for one another, giving your peer a helping hand, helping the person who cannot quite make it, "Welcome. Come along. I will help you take the next step."

Especially for the low income and the disadvantaged families, we have been doing this and we will be doing more of this. In the last five years, we created Workfare, we created ComCare during the economic crisis. We implemented a Jobs Credit programme aimed mainly at the lower end. And with Workfare, the Government is providing significant wage top ups. Every year, 400,000 workers benefit. Every year, they receive more than $400 million, all in. This means that it is about $1,000 per worker; $400 million of benefits to the lower end. It goes into their Medisave, goes into their CPF, goes to them in cash payments. A very substantial measure. Not a minimum wage, but better than a minimum wage. And something which we will enhance, as we gain experience, as we understand how it works, as we see where we need to do more, just as we are enhancing ComCare, as Mdm Halimah informed Members a couple of days ago.

We will also want to encourage employers to help low-end workers to upgrade, to be able to earn more. And that means what NTUC's Mr Lim Swee Say calls "best sourcing". It is jargon. It means that when you outsource and you award a contract to a firm to do work – cleaning, maintenance or security – you want a firm which will have workers who are properly trained, properly equipped and properly paid, not just a firm which will give you the lowest tender and then, having made the lowest tender, who will offer the lowest possible wage to the workers and then do as little as he can without getting into trouble on the contract.

This is something which the unions are very focused on. Mr Zainal Sapari spoke at length on this a couple of days ago and the Government supports this. And I think the Government itself, as an employer, will have to see how we will do this. I think we will have a problem with the lower end workers because in the olden days, the lower end workers were unionised. We had daily-rated employees, they worked for the PUB, they worked for the Government, Environment Ministry or NEA. But progressively, this unionised generation is not there anymore. The daily-rated employees are not there anymore. And the low-end workers today, the "sua kang", the people who are the cleaners, they are not unionised. So, there is nobody to speak for them, there is nobody to fight for their rights, nobody to argue, advocate on their behalf. It is not easy to organise them but I think it is a problem we have which we have to find some way to solve. We owe it to these low-end workers to make sure that they too can earn a decent living in Singapore.

Our focus is on the low end but we will extend the support beyond the low end selectively, where it is deserved and justified, also to the not-so-poor – the lower- middle-income, the middle-income workers. People who are not so poor that they need help every month, but from time to time run into difficulty and then they need some assistance to tide over that period. And that is why we are paying attention to long-term care for chronic sick and elderly, because I think many of the families in the middle, they have elderly parents. If they are working, and their parents are well, that is fine. If they are working, their parents get ill, that can be quite a burden. And if the illness is catastrophic – they have cancer – that is even more difficult. Drugs are expensive and it can carry on for many years.

So, these are problems we have, we are focusing on and I think we understand that in an environment where incomes are stretching out, where the middle-income sometimes are having to struggle to make ends meet, some helping hand will become necessary.

The most important thing we do for Singaporeans, of course, is to help every family to own a home – the HDB flat. Mr Khaw Boon Wan spoke at length about it yesterday and I am sure that would not be his last speech in this House on this subject. I would just like to add a few words that the house is much more than a secure roof over their heads. The house in Singapore is also a major way for us to level up the less successful and to give them a valuable asset and a retirement nest egg. We are using the HDB flat as a means to give every Singaporean household a stake: this belongs to me, this is what I am going to work for and help pay for, this is what I am proud of, this is what I will defend, and this is what I really should keep until retirement.

So, that is why we are making sure that HDB flats are affordable even to lower income households. If you earn $2,000, you can buy a flat. If you earn more than $1,500, maybe a bit harder but we will help you to do that. Already we are giving the poorer households more support when they buy flats. The new Members of Parliament who may not have heard all the jargons should know that there are Additional Housing Grants if your income is not so high, and if your income is quite low, there are Special Housing Grants on top of the Additional Housing Grant. And maybe one day we will have an "Extra Special Housing Grant"! But the purpose of this is to target the subsidies, the assistance, the Government support, so that we give the lower end an extra helping handout: "Here, this is yours. Please take good care of it."

We do have a problem because a minority are not always taking good care of it. Some of them, having bought the flat, are getting into debt. The flat is protected. In fact, the creditor cannot foreclose and take the flat away from you. But the creditor can put enough pressure on you that you feel that you have no choice but to sell the flat and clear the debts and go and see your MP and ask for another one. That is a very serious problem, and that is one of the important reasons why we have a long queue for rental flats, not because they did not have a house in the first place but because they have lost the house which was theirs. The money is gone and now they are homeless and it has become the Government's problem again.

We must find some ways to address this problem. It is not easy but, to be honest, I think we have to acknowledge that there is a difficulty here which has to be tackled.

The third aspect of making an inclusive society is to enable Singaporeans to age with dignity and grace. We are going to have a silver tsunami coming and we need a national effort to plan ahead, to be ready for it so that it does not wash us away.

We need elderly people to be able to work longer, to help them to work longer, to help employers to keep them at work productively. And I think if you look at the numbers – the proportion of elderly working longer is going up and will continue to go up, but most importantly mindsets are changing. People are beginning to understand that it is good to work and employers are beginning to understand that older workers have their advantages. They are steadier, they may not be quite so strong and resilient but they are reliable and, if you can keep them for a long time, they can be productive for a very long time.

To prepare for the silver tsunami, we need to contain and to share healthcare costs. This, also, Ministry of Health is doing. Mr Gan Kim Yong has been focusing on that. We need to build up care services so that there will be more hospitals, many more nursing homes. But beyond hospitals and nursing homes, also community facilities and homecare because, for old folks, if you can stay at home, it is always much better than if you have to go into a nursing home or have to be in a hospital. You want the elderly to enjoy the care and the love of a family and to be near friends and the community.

So, these are major national initiatives which will be necessary over the next 10 years. I said "national" because it cannot be done just by the Government. You need VWOs, you need community groups, you need households – parents, families -- all to participate and do their part to do this. We can help to orchestrate this but it is something which has to be a national effort.

All these measures are essential if we are going to help the lower income Singaporeans earn more, if we are going to enable more of their children to do well, if we are going to prepare for an ageing society. The trends themselves will be hard to reverse but what we do will make a major difference and will help to ensure that nobody is left behind. The social spending by the State will grow. The items are good, as Ms Indranee Rajah reminded us – they all cost money, and some of these money will have to come from the State. And the Government is prepared for this. We have made major revisions to our revenue streams in the last term of this Government and I think we will be okay for this term of the Government.

But it is not just having enough money. You must have programmes which are properly designed and must yield results. I wanted to say the programmes need to be cost-effective – I was told that shows inadequate warmth – but the programmes have to be effective. We have to worry about the cost, the programmes have to work and, at the very least, they must not make things worse. In social spending, it is quite possible for more money to make things worse. If we look at the way families have completely broken down in the West, it has a lot to do with the way the welfare state was implemented and the money which was spent supporting single mothers. So, we must make sure that we spend the money well and the money goes to effective projects and they really are investments in our people. We like to think so. We would like to try our best to make it so but if we look at the US healthcare system, if we look at the problems which the Europeans have with their welfare state – the Greeks are the worst, but so too are many other European countries – you know that more spending is not always better, and just calling it investment does not mean it is going to yield you a positive return.

So, we have to make sure that somebody is keeping our system straight and sustainable. The next five years, I am quite confident, we have adequate resources, we can do what is necessary. Beyond that, it will depend on how much our needs and our programmes go. But I can tell you that if we do all the things which have been mooted over the last few days in this Chamber, we will not have to wait five years before you think about raising taxes. We will have to think now where the money is going to come from. And so, I think we move, but have a care and make sure that we get results.

By building an inclusive society, we will strengthen our social compact and we will build a Singapore where we care for one another, where we can treat one another with grace, courtesy and respect, where we understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and a society which represents the best of Singapore and the best of Singaporeans.

Social cohesion and intangible aspirations are important but so, too, is a vibrant economy. You need a vibrant economy if you are going to create jobs, if you are going to raise wages, if you are going to generate confidence in a brighter future. Because if the economy is slow, if nothing is happening, it is very hard to be optimistic to find new opportunities and to have a zest for tomorrow. If we look at Japan: high level of income, high technology, very disciplined, very well-educated people – what is missing? A certain zest because the optimism is not there, that they can grow, that tomorrow will be better. It is an exciting journey that we are on and I think that is why growth is important to us. Besides, without growth, as many Members have pointed out, including Dr Amy Khor, it is the poor who are going to be worst hit. So, when Members say we have over-emphasised growth, I would say have a care. Focus on social issues. I have spent a lot of time talking about them, focus on intangibles, focus on emotional connection, but do not forget, we need to feed our people and we need to grow our economy.

We aim for high quality and inclusive growth but we must also recognise that competition is fiercer than ever. Every year, the Chinese produce seven million graduates, the Indians produce another three million. That is 10 million in total, equal to two Singapores. They are going to have an impact in the world, not just at the lower end blue collar, but middle-income, white collar professionals everywhere in the world. It is a tide and we have to ride it.

The way the competition is coming is threatening entire industries and jobs. We call it hyper-competition. With the Internet, it pervades every nook and cranny and it is reaching out to the world of what are called "PhDs" – poor, hungry and driven people – everywhere. And there are many "PhDs" in the world like that – poor, hungry, driven. We are not poor, we are not hungry but I think we have to be driven. It used to be called "outsourcing'. You find a company in India, you give him the job, he does it for you, or China. Now, they call it "crowdsourcing". I put it on the Internet, whoever can do the job, come, you take the contract, you do the work.

Some are simple jobs like webpage design, writing a review. You can go to freelancer.com or crowd-sourcing.org. If you have spare time and want some pocket money, you can just take a job like that and do it. Others are complex projects. The US Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has got a website which is devoted to crowdsourcing that designed an UAV, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. They did not give the contract to Boeing, Lockheed or Airbus. They put it up on the web and you form your own teams and you post your design and people will vote on it. The best design will get a prize and there is a chance they will build the thing.

So, it is a different kind of world. We would like to keep the competition away. Let us not have so many foreigners here because they compete against us. Let us give ourselves a bit more pay because the cost of living is high. We would like to improve our lives but we cannot wish away the competition just by doing that. It is there. And "there" is not across the ocean. "There" is one mouse click away and that is the world which we live in, whether you vote for the PAP or the Opposition. That is the world that we live in.

So, we have to recognise that and if we look within Singapore, you have to recognise another very important fact and that is that our growth is likely to slow down. Our economy is more developed. It cannot expand in the same adolescent way as it used to, 7%-8% a year, effortlessly year after year. We have domestic constraints of population and space. Population growing, Singapore getting crowded, space being allocated. We have to scramble to find space for new workers' dormitories, new factory land, new space for highways, for parks. Everything which you put in, something else has to be displaced. We are slowing down the inflow of foreign workers and immigrants, but that means squeezing out more businesses and reducing more growth. That is a very high opportunity cost. There is a trade-off. Already, many employers are feeling it, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and especially those which are run by Singaporeans because they tend to be the less generous pay masters and the first ones to run into difficulties, not able to get workers.

But it is not just the SMEs. It is also in industries staffed mainly by foreigners serving Singaporeans, like nursing homes. If you cannot find staff from the Philippines or from Indonesia or wherever the nurses come from, you will not find enough Singaporeans to do this. So, we are going to face slower growth over the next 10 years. We have made 5.5% growth over the last decade. Over the next 10 years, we have set a target of 3%-5% growth, but I would say that we can make 3-plus % consistently over the next 10 years if we have a good decade. We have to moderate, adjust our expectations, understand what is possible within those parameters, do the best that we can and do it as intelligently as possible.

So, how can we grow in this environment? MTI has been pursuing this strategy for some time now. Restructure the economy. What does that mean? Turn over the industries, phase out those which are lower value-added, phase out those which are low margin, not profitable, without a bright future. Phase in new industries, new technology, new know-how, new skills, new trained workers and therefore raise productivity in every sector and therefore, we can share the benefits amongst all Singaporeans who have good jobs.

What is the magic bullet to do this? There is not one. By hard work, you can do it. Hard work – educating our young, upskilling our workers. Therefore, raising our level and raising above the competition, not meeting them head-on, trying to be cheaper than them, but rising above them to be better than them. And, at the same time, making a special effort to help the older workers and the PMETs because I think we are going to see more problems with them in the next 10 years, as Ms Low Yen Ling and Mr Patrick Tay reminded us yesterday.

With the good workers, you can get investments, you can get good productive jobs and then, you can have the wealth, you can have social measures which will help the yin part to complement the yang part. And we can get through and succeed economically. One advantage that we do have when it comes to economics which is unique to us and very valuable – and I am afraid often under-appreciated by Singaporeans – is that in Singapore, we can make our whole system work well. Not just individual pieces work, but the whole system works well. Our unions work with our employers and the Government, we have tripartism. Our business environment – everything clicks. You can register your company for $2 and, in 20 minutes, it is done. You want telecommunications, you can have it. If you want an SIA flight, you can have it. If you want utilities, it is there. It is a tight, high-functioning system where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. And this is not just bragging rights. It is because of this, therefore, Singaporeans enjoy wages beyond what they would earn if the same person, the same skill goes to work somewhere else. If you cross the Causeway, you work somewhere, or just go overseas, work somewhere, one of our neighbouring countries, any of our neighbouring countries, you would not get the same wage. In fact, many people come here to work from those neighbouring countries because they are taking advantage of our whole system performance, our entire system excellence and we are taking advantage of them because they add to our numbers. So, we have to keep that and, through that, I think our Singaporeans can have a premium. And if they can strengthen that advantage, that premium can go up.

Many business leaders recognise that there is this special Singapore premium. It is not just a figment of our imagination. Therefore, they put major projects in Singapore even though we are not always the lowest cost location or even the biggest market or their home country. But they see us, they decide they have confidence in us, they explain to their Boards the Singapore performance and track record. Even though yesterday somebody said past record is not a promise of future performance, in Singapore, they say, "you have this past record, I think we will bet on them. We have confidence that they will make the future work". They come here and that is why now we have high quality investments even in a quite difficult global environment. And, when they meet me which they often do – I have met quite a number of them recently – they strongly advised me to uphold the fundamentals, stay the course and never lose this advantage. And what they do not tell me, but which I know, is that of all the economic factors, this entire system performance is the one which most depends on our getting our politics right.

So, underpinning a harmonious society, an inclusive society, a vibrant economy, we must have a constructive politics which puts Singapore first. Our politics are not constant. It is evolving. It happens in every country. It is happening in Singapore. Nothing is permanent – no situation is forever, no solution works indefinitely. Our politics is evolving in response to new economic and social realities because our economy is facing challenges for the future, because our society is ageing, is having greater income gaps, and is becoming more diverse. Therefore, our politics is reflecting these social and economic conditions.

There are more diverse interests and perspectives among different segments of the population. We have a better educated population. They want to hear more alternative voices, they like closer engagement, and they believe in a different relationship with the Government. As one of them said, "In the old days, we were here, the Government is here. Now we are here, the Government is here, the gap is not so big, so therefore the relationship has changed." I think that is correct, and the relationship ought to change.

The Internet is playing a role. It is not just a passive medium but it also shapes our interactions. And it redefines our sense of belonging and affinity, because on the Internet, you are not necessarily interacting with your neighbour or your fellow Singaporean or even your classmate in school. It could be your special interest group who may live in California or Australia. It could be a world of war craft opponent who might be in Eastern Europe or Russia or China farming for money. It could be a tiny little interest group collecting stamps or building model aeroplanes but each person, each group fragmented into your little narrowcasted sub, sub society, not one inclusive, cohesive Singapore society. And that makes for different politics. We saw the effects this year in two elections ‒ in May, the General Election; and, in August, the Presidential Election. I think it is necessary and healthy for our politics to adapt to changes in our society and to be up to date and in sync with the times because, if we do not adapt as the society goes, it is brittle and, one day, it will break. But we cannot assume that just because you are changing, you are moving forward. You could be going the wrong way, you could get into a dead end. We have consciously to find the right way forward so as to avoid problems which other countries have run into.

Singapore is not quite the same as other countries. Many things have changed, but one thing has not changed,, and we still need a capable and an effective Government. We are always a small country. We are successful, but our success is always an act of will. Levitate, stay there, do not fall down, do not lose that determination to keep levitating and keep performing and rise higher. And if we have bad leadership, if we make the wrong policies or do the wrong things, it can easily fail. Therefore, we are different from other countries.

We cannot have a low key Government, unlike, say, Switzerland where you just have a Council of Ministers and the Ministers take turns to be the Prime Minister. Or like the Scandinavian countries where it is a very homogeneous society, your neighbours are so successful societies, homogeneous, similar to yours and the society can run itself, civil servants can run it and the politicians, well, you add to the system, but life can go on. Least of all, can we afford in Singapore gridlock or malfunction, which happens in many First World Parliaments? Belgium is a very interesting case. In 67 years, they have had 45 governments, so about once every year-plus. And for the last 500 days, since the last election, they have had no government at all because they have not been able to form a coalition. There is no vote of confidence, so there is no government. But the old Prime Minister is still there and he is still conducting the business, and life goes on. Japan, a much more established society than us, has had six Prime Ministers in five years. I think if that happens in Singapore, we are in serious trouble.

So how do we respond to this new political situation? First of all, we have to take a much more open approach to Government and to governance − the way we organise ourselves; the way we conduct our affairs; welcome different views; reach out to diverse groups, including critics – hear them, exchange with them, pick up ideas from them, persuade them; share more information with the public, whether it is information on population trends or information on employment figures, or foreign workers, even GIC investments. We are publishing more information now than we used to do, whatever we can. Not everything can be disclosed. We do not want to tell the world the overall size of our reserves, we cannot publish our defence plans. But wherever possible, we will disclose more rather than less and, as we go forward, we will review the rules and what we are putting out, and I am sure, over time, we will do progressively more.

We need to engage citizens more in the decisions affecting them, across a wide range − from special narrow groups like VWOS helping special needs children, nature or animal welfare groups. Specific issues which are important but where there are specific groups which are concerned, like looking at the CPF concerning workers, employers, and the older workers, and they want their CPF rates revised. The Government is working with NTUC and with employers to review the question. But even on broader issues, like population and immigration, I think it is constructive for us to have a discussion, to debate, to examine the facts, to understand what the trade-offs are, to focus minds. A month or two ago, the Institute of Policy Studies put up a paper showing various projections of how Singapore's population will grow or shrink over the next decade on certain different assumptions. It is not a conclusive last word, but it was a very helpful contribution to the public debate. I think it helped to educate people and make them understand what this is about. I think over the next year, we will put up more papers, we will discuss them, get people to focus their minds and to understand that we actually face very serious trade-offs. There is no free lunch. You can say you want to have fewer but, if you have fewer, there are serious consequences.

But the public debate is not a free-for-all and there are risks. The French tried this. They had a debate on what it meant to be French because they wanted to close over some of the fault lines in their society between the immigrants, the Muslims and the non-Muslims in France. The immigrants were mainly Muslims. But it took a nasty turn. It became a xenophobic discussion. The government had to try and smooth things down and distance themselves from the debate. So while we debate sensitive things, we have to be very careful not to let sensible, moderate, thoughtful views be drowned out by unthinking xenophobia. So that is the first thing we do – take a more open approach to Government.

The second thing we must do is to have more space for civic society and for the Government to pull back wherever possible, so as to have more Singaporeans take the lead and act on their own. I spoke about this at the National Day Rally. I described the Yellow Ribbon programme and how volunteers are doing a lot of good work, helping prisoners rehabilitate themselves. But there are many other examples. When we are talking about ageing, an ageing society and preparing for that, there, of all places, we will need lots and lots of civic society to be involved, and some of them are already active, doing good things. For example, there is a Young At Heart Community College. Some of you may have heard of it. It is in Marine Parade, started by the Marine Parade Family Service Centre and Southeast CDC. They call it YAH! Although it has to deal with ageing, they are young at heart. And the idea is to help the elderly to learn more about being self-reliant and leading an active lifestyle. The people who come for the courses are trained as Community Education Ambassadors and they go out and promote awareness of wider issues. So they are bringing in old people, giving them some useful knowledge and skills, and then they can go out and they can be active in their community and do good and feel useful, and I think probably improve their mindset and their health. So we need many more of these, one in every constituency, times 88 constituencies, and even more.

Thirdly, we need to emphasise how our policies impact Singaporeans and are seen by Singaporeans. Government is not only about doing things. Government is also about making people understand what we are doing, getting people to support what we are doing and knowing what people would like us to do, so that we can do the right thing for them. Everything the Government does is to benefit citizens. Why on earth do we want to do that? We are voted by citizens. Our responsibility is to them. What we do must be for them. But Government is complicated and, very often, the link from the measures to the benefits are indirect and not obvious. So the result is anxiety, sometimes opposition, sometimes a lot of angst. We try hard to communicate. We make speeches. We have dialogues. We listen. We talk. But as Members have not tired of telling us, and I hasten to tell Members that I have heard you, we do not always do it as well as we could. And we need to communicate better – to listen, to engage, to explain, to be close and sense one another better. If the policies are wrong or circumstances have changed, then say so. And change the policies. We are on a new tack. But if the policies are not wrong and we have to persevere, and it is the perceptions which are mistaken, then I think we have to have the courage of our convictions, preserve the core principles. We can be flexible on the implementation. We can be flexible on the details. But we have to work hard to persuade Singaporeans that we are doing the right thing.

Take the ERP, for example. I believe it is the right thing. I think the Minister for Transport believes it is the right thing. I think some Members of the House believe it is the right thing and more Members understand that it is, although they wished it were not so. But it is something which we cannot avoid doing. At the margins, we can adjust. Chinatown: in the evening, if I can stop earlier, and the shops feel that maybe their customers are less deterred, why not? Let us do that. Central Expressway: people are going home, they are prepared to be stuck in the traffic jam a little bit longer, all right, we can compromise at the edges; let us turn it off at eight o'clock. I am not sure that it will solve the problem but if people feel less angst, and makes the policy more acceptable, I think it is the right thing to do. Preserve the principles, adjust the details, politics is the art of the possible.

Finally, we need to harness the power of the new media, to use it better to engage and connect with citizens, to manage it better to encourage responsible and constructive behaviour. We need to strengthen what is called "digital judgment" and we need to set new norms and rules. What is "digital judgment"? That means the good sense to know that what you saw on the website does not mean it is real, just because it is on the website, and just because it is a Wikipedia does not mean it is true. Ask, find out, verify. We did not invent the term "digital judgment". The British talked about it because they did surveys and had found that actually people do not have digital judgment. When they see something on the web, they tend to believe it. If they hear it from the Government, they tend to disbelieve it. They do not have control over media, neither do we. But they have a problem, so do we.

And we have to get people to be more sophisticated – to understand the Internet is very good, the Internet is very interesting, many good things there – quite a number of lemons. And we would need norms and rules to deal with a new situation not envisaged in the norms and rules which had to do with print media, with speeches in person, when now you have anonymous stuff going around, when now you have instant stuff which can proliferate and go viral. So the British and other countries, and the Americans, too, have laws on cyber terrorism, cyber bullying. They have laws to prevent people from misusing the Internet, to sometimes very dire purposes. You would have heard of one American woman who pretended to be a young girl and befriended another young girl and tormented this other person until she committed suicide. Why? Because there was some conflict between that girl and this woman's daughter. So the woman pretended to be a young girl and did this on the Internet. Are adequate laws existing? Not yet. Do we need something? I think we have to study how we can do this. It would not be 100% foolproof, but it will be necessary and is something which MICA is fully focused on.

Finally, we need to enlarge a common space shared by Singaporeans. This is a broad continuing effort. The Internet is pulling us in different directions, the world is pulling us in different directions – so many opportunities in so many countries, so many exciting possibilities for different people to pursue. How do we pull everybody together so that we feel Singaporean together, that we are anchored – this is home truly, as the song says?

We have to make maximum use of our schools, National Service experience, our HDB communities, our National Day parades, events and major developments which we share, things we go through together, whether it is SARS or economic crises, so that we have shared reference points, shared memories, and we feel one together. But it is a continuing effort and is something which we must pick up. Again, the Government cannot do this. Really, it is a national effort.

The Government, at the end of all these, in a "new normal", in a new environment, still has a duty to run Singapore. Having heard all views, it has to decide what are we going to do – this is the way we go. It is what we were elected for, it is what the electorate expects of us to produce results and to present our record to voters at the next election for them to judge whether they are satisfied or not satisfied.

The Government is one of our political institutions. Parliament is another, and the Presidency is another. And we need strong political institutions to have a good Government to work well. And it has to be strengthened and kept up-to-date. Several MPs have talked about this. Ms Denise Phua and Dr Janil Puthucheary suggested reviewing the NCMP scheme, the NMP scheme and the Elected Presidency scheme and asked whether they are still relevant to the new environment. We have amended these not long ago. We last amended the NCMP and NMP schemes in the last term. That is why there are nine NCMPs in this House. That is why we have NMPs permanent and we will be appointing NMPs so that there will be enough alternative voices in Parliament, and that is why we now have three NCMPs in this Parliament because it is our intent to make it so. And the NCMPs come from parties which say they do not believe in the system but clearly not believing in something does not stop them from benefiting from it. But we have just changed the rules in the last term, so we will see how it works out before deciding whether further changes are needed.

On the Elected Presidency, we have just held the first contested election in 18 years. It was hotly contested. After the election, there has been much thoughtful commentary which has been published on the Internet as well as in the print media. And the question is: how can we strengthen this important institution of Singapore's government? In fact, Mr Chen Show Mao interestingly argued the same a day before yesterday, which I note is a change from the Worker's Party's position that the Elected Presidency is wrong and should be abolished. But I take him seriously and this is something which we have to consider very carefully.

Parliament itself is a key institution. The Government is accountable to Parliament and we welcome vigorous questioning and debate in the House. So we look forward to joining issue with the Opposition – I am sure the Opposition looks forward to joining issue with us too. They declared that they will be responsible and constructive – we will hold them to their word. Do not just criticise what the Government does. Put up serious alternatives to be considered. Argue your case. Be scrutinised as you scrutinise us. And do not just support popular measures like increasing social spending or building more HDB flats or asking the Government to deliver more – anybody can do that. Also acknowledge that these measures cost money and explain how proposals will be funded. Speak up for measures which may be necessary but are unpopular, like immigration. Being principled does not mean not being afraid to offend the Government because the Government is not the Emperor and it does not chop heads off. Being principled means not being afraid to tell unpalatable truths to Singaporeans because voters are the sovereign and they can vote against you. But if you have conviction, if you believe in it and have passion, then persuade people to follow you. Do not lead from the rear. And that applies to PAP MPs too. Speak your minds – speak frankly, vigorously and passionately. We have heard many heartfelt views over the last few days. Many of them passionately argued, each in his/her own way. They have expressed their aspirations and concerns of their voters, but I also encourage the PAP MPs to keep close to other groups in society who will see you as their voice in Parliament, people for whom you are their natural conduit, whether it be the young, the old, community organisations, clans, sports groups, nature groups, etc. Each of us comes with our own interests, our own connections, our own constituencies outside of the people who voted for you. Nurture those links, broaden your contacts, cover their natural ground and, together, cover the whole ground comprehensively. But as I said, also stand up for your convictions; do what you believe will benefit your voters and what is right for Singapore.

Singaporeans themselves play a critical role in making our democracy work. They have to be active citizens, working for causes which they believe in, but united by a larger cause – share in common, which is to make Singapore grow and prosper. Interests will not always be aligned. It is not in the nature of human beings or human society that we are all clones of one another and all have exactly the same ideas and interests. Therefore, we need to work harder to build consensus, to compromise, to give and take for the common good. And I think as incomes go up, as people become more educated, this will take more work.

Take, for example, the recent story which many of you would have read about the nursing home which needs to be built in Bukit Batok. The residents are concerned and they would prefer not to have a nursing home next to where they live. And their concerns have some basis and their emotions are understandable. And, yet, if every neighbourhood in Singapore rejects having a nursing home nearby, then there will be no nursing home built in Singapore, and I think we will all be worse off. It is not just Singaporeans who have such a psychology. It happens in many countries. There is even a word for it. It is called NIMBY − not in my backyard. You have bought a house, the house is worth something, somebody puts a facility next to your house, property value may be affected, please put it elsewhere. Next block is all right – it is not too far for me to walk, but downstairs affect my amenities. And this will crop up repeatedly, especially in a crowded city like Singapore. Mr Zainudin has a similar problem in Bishan because Marymount Terrace homeowners are affected by the North-South Expressway acquisition, and it is not easy to resolve. Mr Zainudin, and I think Mr Hri Kumar also. We are discussing, and we are trying our best to help. We have to find fair and practical compromises. And if some groups have to give up something, then we try to help them in some other way where possible. To make every deal win-win-win, I think is very hard. But on each deal, you will win some, you will lose some – overall, taken it over the big picture, we all win – I think that is possible. And if we have good faith, if we trust one another and we work together with one another, I think we can make that possible. We cannot afford to let every local objection block important projects because otherwise, on healthcare, on transport, on housing, on many issues, we will be gridlocked, frozen, and we will be stuck, like some developed countries are stuck when they have no powers to do what is in the public interest. So we need the spirit of compromise and it is this sort of spirit which has to be part of our maturing democracy. So when we say a democracy is maturing, it is not just the Government taking an attitude or your institutions being right, it is also how the people relate to one another, relate to the Government, and relate to the community.

By building an inclusive society, a vibrant economy and constructive politics, we can face the future with confidence. The next decade, we must expect a challenging environment. Nobody can tell what the next 10 years will bring. It will be a more uncertain and volatile world. Look at the last decade. Ten years ago, in October, if you had looked forward for 10 years, would you have predicted 9/11 or SARS or the global economic crises? Nobody had heard of Osama Bin Laden; nobody had invented the term SARS, nobody knew what the sub-prime debt was. Had it not been invented? Probably. But in 10 years, three big surprises will change. What are the surprises we must expect over the next 10 years? Nobody can say. We can see certain serious problems in the world economy today – America, with its fiscal problems and political gridlocks, so they cannot decide whether they are going to raise taxes or cut social spending; the EU, with Greece in deep trouble; with Spain and Italy worrying whether they also may have a run and a crisis of confidence; and the Euro, not certain whether it goes forward to be more integrated or goes backward and comes unstuck. These are very deep and structural problems which are not going to be resolved soon and there is a real risk of a protracted global slowdown – stagnation – just like the Japanese, after 1990 was stagnant for now 20 years without being able to get the economy moving. Something like that could happen in Europe, something like that could happen in America. We hope not, but it is possible.

There are opportunities too. China and India are growing, not without problems and likely to be affected by the world but a bright spark of light. Southeast Asia – not doing badly. We are friends with our neighbours; our neighbours are prospering. We can work. There are opportunities. And when I receive western visitors and they ask me how things are, and I tell them some of our problems, they say, "But you all sound so optimistic, compared to where we come from". Because if you really were at ground zero in Washington discussing the budget or in Europe discussing the Euro, then you know what gloom is. So we have reason for hope and confidence.

Faced with such an uncertainty, I think our course is quite clear. We work to build a Singapore to create a better future for ourselves. We will not have 100% foresight – we will not get it right exactly every time, but we will move in the right direction and, if things turn out better, well, we seize the opportunities. If things turn out worse, we adjust course and we take it in our stride. But we stay nimble, flexible and resilient. And in such a future where not everything is always hunky-dory, we seek Singaporeans' understanding. Please fasten your seat belts, but we are flying safely, take the bumps, let us continue to try and climb higher.

In the President's Address, President Tan challenged us to "give all Singaporeans a better life and a brighter tomorrow". And I am confident that we can make this happen. Why? Because I believe in Singapore, I believe in Singaporeans. We have changed before. We have made it work before. We are better prepared now. We can make it work now. We have energy and spirit. We have courage and resolve. We have commitment to the country and to one another.

So, let us write this next chapter of the Singapore story together; ensure that every Singaporean lives a fulfilling life; give every child the chance to do better than his or her parents; build a caring and compassionate community where we all look out for one another, and work together to keep Singapore a special, warm and successful home for many more years to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposals contained in my address cost money, but I hope the Prime Minister will not raise taxes. Having only recently emerged from the worst global recession in decades, we are now staring at the possibility of more global economic uncertainty ahead. This could mean more pain for Singaporeans and test our social and economic resilience. I urge the Government to continually review and enhance the measures to uplift and upskill Singaporeans, and strengthen our ability to cope with the challenges that economic uncertainty brings.

This includes retraining older workers and incentivising companies to retain and not replace them. Just last Friday, a sprightly old lady sought my assistance to find work. She had been laid off from her job of over 20 years. Older workers on the same factory floor were similarly affected. They were told they were not able to see the small components that they were fitting as well as the younger foreign workers who replaced them. She asked despondently whether older workers were somehow less useful. Her situation is representative of a growing number of elderly who face difficulty finding dignity in work. This is a global problem. While the Government has put in many measures to help older workers, such as re-employment legislation and the Special Employment Credit, more can be done on this front, in line with the Government's focus on quality and inclusive growth.

At the same time, even as the Government moves to tighten foreign labour controls and push towards productivity, I hope it will proactively reach out to our small and medium enterprises to help them adapt and cope. Many small-time businesses find it difficult to get Singaporeans to take on jobs that foreign workers used to do. They find it a challenge to innovate, redesign or mechanise their work processes, unlike larger corporations or MNCs.

One case I encountered was an elderly couple who runs a vegetable wholesale business in Pasir Panjang market. They employ three other elderly Singaporeans but relied on the strength and stamina of one young foreign worker from China to do the heavy lifting. His work permit could not be renewed, and he went back. The livelihood of this elderly couple is suddenly at risk. Might our knife be cutting too deep?

Mr Speaker, Sir, against the backdrop of economic uncertainty, MCYS' plans to strengthen Singapore's social safety net is indeed timely and a number of Members have spoken passionately about this over the last few days. My focus, instead, Mr Speaker, will be on coordination and delivery of social assistance. Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing said on Tuesday that our effort to help the less fortunate is not just about doing more but also doing better with the resources we currently have. I fully subscribe to this. Partnering VWOs and other social service organisations to help them be more productive and effective will make a career in the social services sector more varied and appealing. It will also help them stretch existing resources. As Mr Willie Cheng, former Chairman of the NVPC, wrote in his book some years back, it is not just about doing good, but "Doing Good Well".

During our weekly house visits, my grassroots leaders and I encounter individuals or families in hardship. Recently, a senior grassroots leader alerted me that there was a particular family that, in his words, and I quote "they looked like they were in very bad shape". We paid a visit. The elderly head of the household and his wife had serious, chronic medical conditions. Both could not work. To pay for medication and treatment, they were relying on the wife's near-exhausted Medisave. One son was trying to find a job; another was still studying.

Yet in another visit, we came across a pair of brothers living with their widowed mother. She suffered stroke and was bed-bound. On their tight salaries, the two sons scrimped to hire a domestic worker to look after their mother. They had little left. Instead of weekly physiotherapy, they cut it down to once a month. And to bring her out of the flat for some sunshine and fresh air, they had to push her in a wheelchair down a flimsy, treacherous plank that doubled as a makeshift ramp for their door-step.

Both these families were for some reasons not aware that they were eligible for many forms of Government assistance. But as they had not come to the Meet-the-People Session, or gone to the CDC, or visited the nearest Family Service Centre, or been picked up by any VWO or Government agency, they went unnoticed for some time. We might be missing other families like these.

And so it is that our social support system is made up of many helping hands, from the public, private and people sectors. And we have an extensive array of schemes and programmes as well as the capacity and resources to give assistance. But we need to ensure that these hands interlock tightly to form a seamless social safety web so that cases do not fall through. For instance, social service agencies can further strengthen their outreach efforts, galvanise the extensive local grassroots network, and encourage active citizens in the community to help spot Singaporeans in distress. The grassroots movement can also form local communities of care within closely-knit communities and neighborhoods, such as within a precinct or even a single block, to provide support and care for the disadvantaged. This would be painstaking work but I believe it would make our social safety net that much more effective.

We should also streamline the way we assess cases and deliver social assistance. Many families we meet at MPS come with complex and difficult problems that require the compassionate ear and the active involvement of many organisations and agencies. But just like in the acute care environment, these "patients" have to see many specialist agencies, one after the other. For instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, if they have financial problems or need job placement, they might be interviewed by CDC. If family disputes are involved, they might be referred to a Family Service Centre. If housing problems are in the mix, they may be interviewed by HDB. If they have difficulty paying for treatment, they would see the hospital's Medical Social Worker. They repeatedly answer similar questions, and may often have to submit the same document to many organisations and agencies.

I accept, Mr Speaker, Sir, that some degree of specialisation is inevitable because each agency views each problem from a different angle. To be fair, our agencies and VWOs have gone a long way down the road of integration and data sharing. However, we should see if it is possible to create a "one-stop shop" at centralised networks and node points such as the CDC to consolidate basic information and documentation. We already have plans for one medical record for every Singaporean. Maybe we also see one case file for each needy applicant.

A related point is about the legal system's interface with the community, in particular low-income Singaporeans. These Singaporeans sometimes have difficulty applying for probate or letters of administration to deal with the assets of their loved ones who have passed away because of legal costs. These are people who might fall outside the Legal Aid Bureau's means-test ceiling. But these are the types of legal processes that the man in the street has to grapple with at some point or the other. I would therefore like to make three simple proposals for consideration:

Firstly, can we simplify these processes further so that people can navigate them easily without the need for expensive legal assistance? After all, there is no more estate duty involved in the process.

Second, can the Public Trustee help administer small estates even if there is a will involved? I understand that the Public Trustee can only assist where there is no will involved, that is, where a person dies intestate.

Third, can we allow lawyers to charge contingency fees, that is, to collect fees after the proceedings are over depending on the outcome, for selected types of legal proceedings? This could apply to non-contentious matters like probate or simple contentious cases involving simple disputes. To prevent abuse, the fees can be capped or mandatorily taxed by the Court.

I would also encourage Government agencies to continually review existing stable of social programme to see how these can be enhanced in light of experience. As far as possible, excessively tight restrictions should be relaxed. There should be greater discretion to apply such programmes in favor of the disadvantaged. One example is the Seniors' Mobility Fund. It assists the elderly in getting basic mobility devices to achieve greater independence in the community. I strongly support this initiative. Many Members support this initiative.

On Monday night, an elderly frail Singaporean sought help because his wife had suffered from a serious condition and could not walk. He had to carry her everywhere from bedroom to bathroom, from bathroom to living room, and was near the point of physical collapse. I asked him if a wheelchair might solve part of the problem. He said "yes", and so I quickly applied under the Fund for a wheelchair. Two days ago, I was advised that the Fund could not be utilised because it was restricted to Singaporeans only. You see, in this case, the man is a Singaporean but his wife had been a Permanent Resident for a long time. In the end, we found other sources of funding and support to help the family. But should it be this way? To be fair, this is a new scheme. I am confident that in light of experience on the ground, the relevant agencies will review and widen its criteria. But the broad point I am making, Sir, is that wherever there are rules and restrictions, there should also be "safety valves" of discretion that will allow flexibility in dealing with special circumstances.

While on the topic of mobility, I will make two small points on the implementation of "barrier-free access" in estates. A resident once remarked to me that while the estate in Jurong Spring is 100% barrier-free, one of the last obstacles for the elderly and disabled is actually right at their doorstep. In such older estates, unlike newer developments, there are steps leading up to the flats and while our residents had no trouble in their younger years, these have now become painful obstacles that they surmount every day. I know the Minister for National Development is extremely busy with many priorities but I hope HDB will find some time to study this to see if a scheme to build ramps for the elderly in older estates might be feasible in the future.

The other small point is the Transport Ministry's announcement in its Addendum that it will consider adding lifts in MRT stations and overhead bridges near stations to make our transport system more barrier-free and elderly-friendly. I wholeheartedly support this review and I hope the hon. Minister will remember the frequent and long-standing requests by residents in Jurong Spring for such an amenity at Lakeside MRT. This will benefit elderly residents tremendously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how society cares for its weak and vulnerable, is a good indicator of the resilience and strength of its community and the depth of its conscience and soul. But social policy, unlike other policy areas, cannot be meaningfully discussed or debated in abstract or purely on statistics. This is because the true measure of the effectiveness of a social safety net is qualitative, not statistical or quantitative. It is about people and their individual stories. It is about their trials and tribulations; and it is about how lives are rescued and transformed one by one. In short, it is about individual outcomes, for individual people, not about how many cases are processed, or how much money we indeed spent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has painted a broad vision for Singapore, founded on the basis of inclusivity, active citizenry, and the promise of quality growth. This will not be easy given the challenges we face, internally and externally. We can only achieve this if the Government and people work together as one. And on that note of unity between the Government and people, I move to my final, slightly disjointed point and that is in respect of the hon. Member for Aljunied Mr Pritam Singh's proposal for a Freedom of Information Bill, so that if lies are purveyed on the new media or elsewhere, any citizen or journalist can walk into the Government department, obtain the data and expose the lie. While this is not an appropriate venue for a thorough discussion on the benefits or disbenefits of the Freedom of Information Act, I just like to share my concern about the underlying premise of Freedom of Information legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, often such legislation is predicated on the fundamental distrust of government, of adversarial relationship between government and its people, on the assumption that government is often reluctant or even hiding things from its people. Is this the kind of relationship that we want between our Government and our people? Is this the structure we would like to have in the relationship moving forward? I prefer the Government and our people to be united and to have an open, frank and honest dialogue. I expect the Government to be transparent, to be accountable and to be responsive at all times. If lies are spread, I do not think we need citizens or journalists to go into a department to compel the Government on pain of the law to disclose information. I hope our Government would release information to shed light on half-truths and lies instead.

The mechanics of a Freedom of Information Act is not straightforward, Mr Speaker, Sir. Results in other countries where the Act exists are mixed. Indeed on the 20 September this year, an article appeared in The Guardian Online entitled, "Mixed Results since Blair's €˜dangerous' Freedom of Information Act launched". In this article, it shows that while it has brought about some accountability of government, the converse has happened in terms of trust between government and its people. The article suggests that the Act may have perverse results in the way government operates and I think, as this point is being made, we ought to carefully consider it and ensure that all the merits and the disbenefits of this legislation are thoroughly debated. On this note, I support the motion.

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.

Mr Speaker, may I make a clarification in response to the Prime Minister's reference to my speech? In my speech, I noted that President Tan had promised to strengthen our common bonds and our core values by working for the interests of all Singaporeans irrespective of their political views. He did not call for more powers that could curtail the sovereign powers of the Parliament in order for him to do that, but instead he said he will try to do so by acting as a resource and a symbol to the nation. I applaud his plans to do so, to strengthen his office and I note that this can be done equally well by a President whose functions are purely ceremonial.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I make reference to Mr Desmond Lee's comments about the Freedom of Information Legislation. I do not for one minute suggest any law that the Government passes, does not have a flipside to it. I think it was a proposal that was put forward. The Government is free to investigate whether this can actually be effective for Singapore. The Member spoke of an article in The Guardian. I will just show him that there are other cases where FOI Legislation has been seen as a great benefit to the country, and unlike the way he represented the situation, it is not a case of people walking into Ministries demanding information, harassing officials. That is not the image of a Freedom of Information Legislation and I wanted to clarify that.

In response to the article in The Guardian, I would advise him to have a read of The Parliamentarian. It is a magazine which is found on the book trolley in the Parliament library. This is the second – not the latest edition, it was an edition before that – and there are interesting articles on the Freedom of Information Act. Now, I am not going to go into them but he will very quickly realise that there could be more benefits than disbenefits.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Sir, the President in his Address had touched on the need for the Government to engage Singaporeans more extensively in policymaking. Several Members of the House have also echoed this need in their speeches for the past few days and we have just heard the Prime Minister discussing the same point. For example, Mr Edwin Tong spoke of having deeper and broader engagement with Singaporeans and the need for the Government to connect with their hearts. Mr Cedric Foo called for an open sharing on information. Ms Sim Ann appealed for higher level of partnership within the people of Government. Mr Baey Yam Keng touched on how the Government can leverage on the social media more effectively.

Sir, I would like to assure the House that MICA will be working closely with fellow Ministries to ensure that the voices of citizens and the needs of our various segments of society are heard, understood and considered in policy formulation. And this includes greater sharing of the rationale, thinking, trade-offs and in some instances, information on any policy decision making process. The Government will make a concerted effort to communicate better and reach out to a more diverse populace. Our population today is more educated and vocal. Younger Singaporeans are also more adept in using social media and are receptive to all kinds of news and views. So, the Government must evolve its communication approach and style, openness, empathy, responsiveness, authenticity and transparency are key pillars in good public communications. Guided by these principles, we can go a long way to expand public spaces to deliberate issues objectively and constructively and more importantly, addrFess the challenges facing Singapore as one people, one nation.

MICA, Sir, will facilitate the whole-of-Government's efforts to leverage on multiple platforms to better inform, consult and engage the public in developing new initiatives and shaping policies. In particular, the Government recognises social media as a valuable platform that agencies can use to directly engage with individuals and interest groups and get more people connected on collaborative projects. Most Ministries already have some forms of social media presence, be it in Facebook, YouTube, blogs or Twitter. It is, however, not the number of social media platforms that matters but rather the quality of the engagement process. It goes beyond having fresh and updated content that is accessible and informative to engaging in a two-way conversation. Going forward, MICA is speeding up efforts to better equip public offices with greater awareness, knowledge and skills sets in social media engagement. In parallel, MICA will build a community of social media practitioners drawn from all Ministries to share widely on good online engagement practices for the public sector. The leveling up of online engagement will serve to complement existing efforts and broaden the communication outreach of the Government. We must also make known these channels widely so that more people can come on board. MICA recently launched the Government's social media directory to provide a one-stop repository of all the social media platforms that are run by our public sector agencies.

In a nutshell, Sir, we will raise the bar on online engagement. But having said that, I would like to emphasise that social media is to supplement existing outreach channels and not to replace them. Face-to-face dialogue sessions, townhall meetings and kopitiam chats are "high touch" interactive channels that we will continue to focus on. The Government is well aware that it does not have the monopoly of good ideas. Over the years, the Government has engaged the public in various public consultation efforts to improve policy robustness and developed consensus on policy options. These dialogues were useful, allowing for many good ideas to surface. Public inputs have been incorporated into numerous policies such as the Ministry of Health's means-testing framework, MOM tripartite efforts to overcome the downturn in 2008, and MOE's regulatory regime for the private education sector.

With issues becoming more multi-faceted, the need to tap on the broader community, including academia, independent think-tanks and various segments of society, is of greater imperative. MICA recently sought the views of the public, the arts community and the industry on the Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR). This approach was also taken for the proposed Data Protection Bill. I am heartened by the responses, and I would like to emphasise that the Government welcomes active contributions and suggestions from all segments of society. Our approach in public engagement also needs to be enhanced to be more inclusive and collaborative. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and each agency has to consider the scope of engagement and its stakeholder profile, public consultation must be considered as an essential component in policy formulation and in some cases implementation process. This means stepping up our efforts to tap on the people, private and public sectors (3P Model) to come together to define problems, develop possible solutions and co-create policies. The process of public consultation must also be made more visible – both through news media and social media – to encourage more people to come forward to contribute ideas. MICA will set out to share and spread best-in-class practices across Government agencies.

One key area is in closing the loop with the public after a public consultation exercise and making efforts to explain why a policy has been shaped in a particular way, why some suggestions can be incorporated, and why some cannot. So, to better support the whole-of-Government communications, MICA will expand its pool of Information Officers and enhance their skills to help deliver the desired outcomes.

Sir, several Members of the House, such as Dr Amy Khor and Mr Lawrence Wong, have shared their concerns on the Internet becoming a conduit for undesirable behaviour. The standards of behaviour on social media should be no different from the physical world. Social norms should be respected. While many netizens are respectful of their Internet-users, some, hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, have been less than considerate in their use of the Internet, posting comments that incite racial or religious animosity, spreading misinformation, and even cyber-stalking. This can sometimes lead to dire consequences. For instance, earlier this year it was reported that a Myanmar girl studying in Singapore committed suicide after her ex-boyfriend posted "bad comments" on her Facebook page, accusing her of being a "loose woman". In another instance, two Singaporean youths traded racially insensitive remarks on a Facebook page, making vulgar comments about each other's religions.

There is a need to promote the responsible and discerning use of the Internet, or as how Dr Lam Pin Min puts it, as enhancing the "digital quotient" among Singaporeans. As part of our efforts to foster cyber-wellness, MICA has been working with partners from the public, people and private sectors to implement information literacy, or what the Prime Minister calls digital judgment, and cyber-wellness outreach programmes. The Inter-ministry Cyberwellness Steering Committee (ICSC) has set aside S$10 million to co-fund initiatives from the people, private and public sectors to promote cyberwellness. A total of 17 projects have been funded to date. One of the ICSC-supported projects is the Cyber Wellness Movements in ITE (Balestier Campus) and ITE (College West Campus), which reached out to students, parents and educators through interactive drama, workshops, group work and peer mentoring. MDA's ongoing Cyber Wellness Campaign also aims to equip students, parents and educators with practical knowledge on how to handle cyber content and issues.

Despite these efforts, Sir, the 2010 National Information Literacy Study conducted by the Nanyang Technological University found a low level of influential literacy in cyber etiquette amongst Singaporeans. Clearly, more needs to be done.

Sir, the community can play an important role in defining socially acceptable norms for responsible behaviour, a code of responsible behaviour that we seek. A recent call by a group of bloggers for a more balanced and moderate approach on the Internet is encouraging. We hope to engage the community for their views and together build a culture of civility and responsible behaviour on the Internet where a diversity of views can thrive for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

I would like to touch on one more issue related to the Internet. While we need to pay attention to the softer aspects of Internet usage, we have not forgotten the need to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age. In this regard, IDA has provided equipment and training to those in need of assistance through its various IT programmes. For example, 14-year-old Ibrahim Bin Paishar used to go to his friend's house when he needed to use a computer for his schoolwork. However, he has recently benefited from IDA's NEU PC Plus programme and now has his own laptop with a broadband connection. Since the launch of the programme in 2006, it has benefited more than 11,000 needy households with school-going children.

Seventy-two-year-old retiree, Mr Victor Sim, has also benefited from IDA's programmes. Mr Sim attended computer training at an IT learning hub in Toa Payoh library and now leads an active digital lifestyle, using the email, editing photographs, exchanging travel tips and sharing information. Close to 50,000 other senior citizens have benefited from IDA's Silver Infocomm initiatives.

IT has also improved the lives of those with disabilities such as 24-year-old Ang Yu Kiong, who has mild cerebral palsy. Due to his condition, Yu Kiong has a speech impediment and has difficulty walking. After graduating from Republic Polytechnic with a Diploma in Business Application in 2008, Yu Kiong had difficulties finding a job because of his disabilities. He approached the Infocomm Accessibility Centre (IAC) to enhance his employability with IT skills. IAC developed a training plan that set him on a path towards a career in web design. Yu Kiong is now working at an engineering consultancy company as a project assistant. He is happy with his job and was recently promoted.

IDA is exploring with the local Special Education Schools, including MINDS, Metta and AWWA, to tap on social media and mobile applications as assistive learning tools for children with special needs. As each school takes care of a spectrum of disabilities, a shared platform hosting suites of services will be explored to cater to the varying needs.

Sir, the President also spoke about the importance of building a future together. In looking towards a common future, one of MICA's key foci is to bring arts and culture to the community. MICA plans to spend $80 million annually over the next five years to implement the ACSR's proposals. Through arts and culture, we hope Singaporeans can learn and reflect on our shared heritage and value.

To Mr Alex Yam's suggestion that MICA should give more support to traditional arts groups, I would like to share that MICA has committed $23 million to develop the traditional arts. NAC has already embarked on its National Traditional Arts Plan. In March this year, NAC rolled out three new initiatives to increase support for productions, nurture promising groups, and develop strategic partnerships with cultural and community organisations and arts intermediaries. Some 120 Traditional Arts groups have since benefited from the new initiatives by the NAC.

Sir, we have received many comments and suggestions during the ACSR public consultation exercise. Taking in the feedback, the ACSR will refine its recommendations to cultivate a broad-based arts and culture scene to reach out to everyone, and build our capabilities to enable our talent, institutions and offerings to scale greater heights of excellence at all levels.

Sir, in conclusion, MICA will continue, in partnership with other Ministries, to strengthen the Whole-of Government Communications to broaden and deepen our engagement with the wider public. We encourage members of the public to come forward to share their views, and work with us to co-create policies. MICA will also build a vibrant arts and culture scene as a key part of the Government's efforts to make Singapore an endearing home for all.

Sir, please allow me now to move on to speak as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.

Sir, Singapore is at a turning point that we are all trying to grasp. Because of our open economy, events beyond our borders constantly impact us. Digital media is transforming the way we relate to one another, while immigration has changed the face of our society. Singapore remains a home with exciting opportunities for all. But the changes also create a sense of uncertainty and anxiety among many Singaporeans. We have heard MPs reflect these concerns in the House.

All these concerns are also shared by Singapore's Malay/Muslims. As a community, how should we respond? There have been many discussions both in this House and outside. Many ideas have been suggested. And as we start this process of finding solutions with the opening of the Twelfth Parliament, allow me to take a look at the wider picture. When we build, it is important that our community gets our foundations right.

Although some of the challenges seem new, we should not forget that, collectively, we have been here before. Our community is not unused to dislocations and stresses, and even challenges to our identity. Fortunately, such experiences, I believe, have been mainly positive, because they have strengthened us. They have given us greater resilience, a stronger identity and better problem-solving skills. So, our community can draw on the wisdom we have gained from the past in order to seize the opportunities of the future with confidence.

For the Malay/Muslim community, the last 46 years of nation-building has brought about profound changes to our lifestyle including our religious life. The need to adapt to nation-building policies has left lasting imprints on the psyche of the community. It is a story that has been narrated by both local and foreign commentators, including many who are not from the community.

Sir, we have always seen ourselves as part of the Singaporean family. Every year, without fail, we will see many Malay/Muslim families attending the National Day Parade, many with national flags painted on to their cheeks. Yet these very same families have a love for Malay language and are comfortable practising their religion here in Singapore. We have the same hopes and dreams. We want to see our children do well in school, our workers excel in the workplace and our families living in happiness and harmony. This is the Singapore dream of unity, peace and progress. At the same time, we treasure our religious and ethnic identity as both Muslims and Malays. Islam is central to our lives. It defines our place in this universe. It gives us the impetus to put in effort, the confidence to embrace change with a progressive outlook, and the values of tolerance and respect. At the same time, our Malay language and cultural heritage is an anchor. We are proud of our language and want to remain vibrant. As the proverb goes "bahasa jiwa bangsa" or the language is the soul of the race.

All our identities define who we are. Yet our religious affiliation and cultural and linguistic heritages connect us to the wider Muslim world and the region. These are important bridges that our community can tap on to the benefit of our nation. Our haj pilgrims, and this is the haj season, have often been praised for being well-organised and orderly, reflecting positively our experience as Singaporeans. Their only fault, Sir, is that they use too much water while they are in Mecca. Therefore, being Malay/Muslim Singaporeans means we are in some ways the same as other Singaporeans, and in some ways different. The exact balance is something we have to answer for ourselves. What do we want to share, and how do we wish to remain unique? This is the central challenge that has always been with us, and will never go away. Our plus point is that we have always been an open community.

Achieving the right balance has been harder than some people think. Some, mainly outside Singapore, dismissed us for staying put in Singapore. They failed to recognise the rational and responsible decisions our forefathers' made to keep our status and standing in a new nation. We neither sold out nor abandoned ship. These critics did not think that it is possible to achieve any balance between being Singaporean and being Malay/Muslim much less being both a good Singaporean and a good Malay/Muslim. On the other hand, Sir, there are some observers at the other extreme, who think we have never even tried to integrate and that we remain separate. Again, only those who do not know our community can hold such perceptions. We have not only adapted to public housing policies, but we also attend national schools, mingle and interact freely and more recently engage in serious and open dialogue about our respective faiths. The exact balance that we strive for is something that is circumstantially dynamic. But for us at the philosophical level it is a settled thing. This is our home and we are not going anywhere else.

Sir, over the years, when the welfare of our community, our way of life and identity appeared at risk of being compromised because of national policies, we have found constructive solutions. Each time, we have been guided by the same imperative, to be good Malay/Muslims and to be good Singaporeans. We have stayed true to our community identity and at the same time embraced and contributed to the Singapore project, keeping faith with this beloved nation of ours.

As our young nation developed, one of the first challenges the community confronted was adapting to living in high-rise HDB flats where the sense of a community in a village life could not be easily replicated. With the move to modern housing estates came the anxiety of seeing our places of worship having to make way for development. But in a creative move not seen in any other country where Muslims are minorities, the Government together with community leaders proposed and implemented the highly successful Mosque Building Fund (MBF). Since then, the MBF has funded the construction of 23 new generation mosques. Every working Malay/Muslim adult, from the humble road sweeper to the corporate executive, has a hand in this as we all donate to this fund.

In another ingenious move, the Government together with the community created a unique legal framework for the religious life of the community. The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) of 1968 paved the way for the creation of three Government-supported institutions namely the Registry of Muslim Marriages, the Syariah Court and the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). Every visitor I have met has been impressed at this innovation, in which religious institutions exist as part of a secular state. These institutions have allowed Muslims to practise their faith freely and, more importantly, as Singaporeans living in a multiracial multi-religious society. This is indeed a privilege that many Muslim communities elsewhere would welcome.

With the introduction of mandatory military service in 1967, it was painful to see an earlier generation of Malay/Muslim men have their loyalty to Singapore doubted. Many faced a double blow, as they subsequently faced economic disadvantage as a result of not having done National Service. Our community patiently but persistently pressed our case. Since those early years, much has been done to address this concern and today there is a growing number of Malay/Muslim officers across all uniformed services.

The debate on compulsory education inevitably turned the public's attention to our six full-time madrasahs, which pre-date Singapore's Independence. For a community proud of its Islamic heritage, the apparent finger-pointing did not go down well. We readily accepted that a cap to madrasah enrolment was necessary in line with our needs for religious teachers. Then, 9/11 happened and a JI terrorist cell was discovered in Singapore, and the entire landscape changed. I was appointed Minister in-charge-of Muslim Affairs just a few months later and suddenly the job had become very different from what it used to be. Our community was put on the defensive, constantly expected to prove our loyalty. Fortunately, the Government responded decisively to engage the wider public on the difference between Muslims and those advocating violence by misusing the name of our religion. We responded decisively too giving birth to the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and playing our part actively in the various inter-faith engagements and programmes. Compared with 2001, I think we are stronger now. Only those who are not in touch with Singapore will fail to see how firmly engaged we are as Singaporeans. These incidents reflect how circumstances can sometimes push us off-course but because internally the gyroscope has been balanced we invariably revert back to the straight path.

The rapid pace of modernisation in 1970s and 1980s also brought into focus other issues. The emergence of the drug problem in the late 1970s and an increasing awareness of gaps in educational performance raised doubts about the community's ability to adapt to a modern society founded on the principles of fair competition and meritocracy. Despite the daunting magnitude of the problem, we persevered and tackled the drug problem decisively hand-in-hand with the authorities. Since the formation of Mendaki in 1982, we have striven to close the educational gaps working together with other Malay/Muslim organisations. In 2003, we went further to formalise the Community Leaders Forum to share expertise and experiences, and do projects together to develop the community holistically in tandem with the Government efforts for the nation. Even though many had said we will never catch up, we have never given up on putting in effort and today we have a growing number of students excelling across the entire education landscape. Yet for every Malay/Muslim individual who makes it academically, there will be many others, from our other major communities. Hence, for my community, when someone succeeds, we rejoice as a community as he or she reflects progress and the hopes of the entire community. As a community, we do celebrate our talent achievements in all areas and not just those who excel academically.

Sir, the Singaporean Malay/Muslim is well aware that there is no free lunch and that success only comes through consistent effort. Sir, the sketch above is not comprehensive but is intended to give a favour of the challenges of the community over the last 46 years and how we as a community responded to those challenges. The challenges will not go away. Some say they may intensify because the identity issues are becoming more pronounced in a globalised world. However, Sir, I am confident that we will get better managing that.

What the future holds for the community is as uncertain as it is for other communities. The lack of certainty does not mean that we should think less deeply about our challenges and opportunities. We need to concern ourselves with benefiting from Government policies as well as ensuring personal and committee engagement in the national dialogue. Like other Singaporeans this is our home and it is here where we have our roots, start our families, nurture our children and chart our future. Some may cynically say that certain Government policies and institutions are remote and inaccessible and that the Malay problem cannot be solved. But our history shows the power of engagement to improve the community. We have developed deep experience in dealing with difficult issues. Our community leaders have extensive experience and are well regarded for their commitment and conviction. There is sufficient institutional memory in the community to avoid the quicksand and the minefields. For example, now there are enough community leaders who know what to do whenever there is any hint of inter-religious friction. Indeed, some Muslim groups are at the forefront of inter-faith cooperation. Through our measured and rational approach, our community leaders have earned the trust of others. We can speak up for the community without being suspected of being chauvinist or extremist.

This ability to negotiate and build trust is important because the tensions will not go away. This tension is not unique to the Malay/Muslim community. All communities face similar tension between racial and religious identity and being Singaporean. There is now more recognition that we can be different yet equal partners. We need to continue to provide first hand opportunities to make a difference to identify problems, understand their causes and come up with solutions. Open thoughtful constructive dialogue is a critical component in that process. Personal commitment and active participation in this effort is also a key component but beyond navigating what is, our community needs to be able to imagine what we can be. And in shaping that vision of ourselves, we can draw upon the many diverse experiences that have shaped and will continue to shape our community.

Sir, we are proud of our faith and our culture and linguistic heritage. We are proud to be a part of the Singaporean family where we work, live, play and interact with other Singaporeans in this little island we call home. Our aspirations, hopes and dreams are no different from those whom we share this island with. All of us carry multiple identities and this is a boon and not a bane as some of us would like us to think. Indeed, our Chinese, Indian and Eurasian and other compatriots have had their own share of trials and tribulations, both unique as well as what we have commonly shared as Singaporeans. We, therefore, need not shed the layers that define us in order to become Singaporean. If anything, these layers should continue to contribute to the continuous project of defining who we are and what it means to be a Singaporean in the 21st century. This is our hope and our sense of place in this home can only be secured by continuing our active participation and process of nation building shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me share some of my thoughts in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 430 for Vernacular Speeches.] The Malay community of Singapore has faced many challenges and experiences since the country gained independence in 1965. All these challenges and experiences have not only strengthened our identity but also helped to build us into a stronger and more capable community. All the successes we have achieved, whether in the education and social fields, are the result of our hard work to be cohesive and our willingness to be progressive. These are the values that we must continue to practise in the effort to build the vision of a community of excellence. Our journey towards a community of excellence requires a continued effort and cohesiveness. I believe that we are on the right track towards this noble vision for the sake of our children's future.

Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to address this clarification to the Minister and in his capacity as the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts. With regard to the Minister's remark that he would like Singaporeans to come forward and co-create policies, I may have belaboured the point. I think all Members would know what I am driving at now. It is really the freedom of information legislation. Can I request from the Minister whether his Ministry would consider at least looking at the both pros and cons of such legislation and to find out whether it is suitable for Singapore, especially in this era where people want more transparency, more accountability the Government?

Certainly, the Government will consider all necessary legislation either existing or new ones that we have to amend in order to achieve some of the desired outcomes. Let me share with the Member some information which I have obtained about the Freedom of Information Act, about its practice in other countries. We know that while theoretically the Act will allow individuals more access to government information, in practice there are typically also important exceptions to information access. In the UK, for example, Sir, I have been informed that the Government may refuse where the disclosure of classified information that may endanger certain public interests or if it is too costly to retrieve the information. So, this means that individuals are usually only able to acquire unclassified information. So, we have to bear that in mind.

In Singapore, Sir, unclassified information is already released on various platforms. And Mr Singh has mentioned the effort by MICA to put data online progressively, on the websites of public bodies and periodic press releases. This incremental value of freedom of information legislation may be limited but I agree with him that we need to study all possible formulations of the Act or other existing Acts that may help us to achieve the outcome that we want.

I would like to seek clarification from the Minister in his capacity as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. The Minister did mention that he is looking forward to working shoulder-to-shoulder to achieve success for the people. So, I would like to know whether is he open for me to be part of the CLF, for me to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the current CLF leaders for the betterment of the society.

The CLF is a structure created by the community for community partners, not political parties. So, if tomorrow there is another VWO that is prepared to take on the CLF responsibilities, we will be happy to entertain them.

As he mentioned that it is being organised by our community, I believe that I am also part of the committee and would like to do my utmost best to build the community.

Mr Ang Hin Kee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. My personal views in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 431-433 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, after listening to the debate for the past several days and combining feedback I gathered from residents, I have pondered over the following questions:

Is it true that many Singaporeans who are stuck in difficult situations find that there is no way to get out of their situation?

Are many people lamenting that they have missed the opportunity to lead a better life?

Is the Government not doing enough to help more low-income families get out of poverty quickly?

Personally, I feel that the Government has always been trying to create better conditions and opportunities for Singaporeans. We save our reserves to cope with the needs of the future. We invest our surplus on training citizens to develop a more competitive country. We encourage more foreign investments here to create more jobs for Singaporeans.

Many MPs have talked about Singaporeans who have good careers and live happily because they worked hard and improved their skills. To help prepare for the future, the Government provides companies and individuals with various kinds of assistance, so that they can maintain a competitive edge in the face of global competition.

Indeed, not everyone or every company can have a smooth journey from the beginning to the end. Quite often, they will run into difficulties. I myself have switched jobs seven times and experienced the misfortune of being retrenched. Fortunately, Singaporeans can get help from Government schemes. Our major policies have achieved their intended results. However, we can do more in some other areas to bring some warmth to people. I think we can study where we can do more and be more comprehensive, especially for those people who strive to improve their lives, make our policies more "personalised".

Let me give three examples. I hope the Government can use them as reference to review and adjust the policies accordingly.

First, we can implement a tiered social assistance scheme. I met a 30-year-old single mother in Ang Mo Kio – Cheng San Seletar. Her ex-husband is in jail and she has to raise six kids single-handedly. She used to earn $1,500 and received various Government subsidies such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), ComCare and housing, childcare, transport and utility rebates. Her boss raised her wages to $1,700 as a reward for her good performance. This should be something to be happy about. This also achieved the objective of WIS. However, she found that she can no long enjoy some of the subsidies because her current salary exceeds the income ceiling and the $200 wage increment is not enough to meet the daily needs of the family of seven.

For low-income families, if they lose subsidies because of salary increment, some of them might lose the drive to earn more because they feel that what they gain cannot make up for what they lose. By making our current programmes more comprehensive, we can help low-income workers to get out of the social safety net. I am glad that my ex-colleague from the National Trades Union Congress, Madam Halimah, announced yesterday that ComCare will become more flexible, so that citizens can enjoy financial assistance for a longer period of time.

I would like to suggest that low-income families who are currently under assistance schemes continue to enjoy the same subsidies for six months, if they have upgraded themselves and are now earning wages that exceed the income ceiling. For the next six months, they can get half of the subsidies. This would encourage them to continue to work hard to get out of the poverty circle.

Second, there are more Singaporean men marrying foreign wives. According to Population in Brief Report 2011, unwed rates are highest amongst men with secondary education or lower. Forty percent of Singaporeans married foreign spouses. Seventy-seven percent are single men who married a foreign wife. They thought they will be able to enjoy life after marriage, but find themselves running into difficulties. These men face an uncertain future because their wives cannot get permanent residency. They cannot buy HDB flats. If the wife gets pregnant, they cannot enjoy medical subsidies. As the wife does not have work permit, she cannot find a job to supplement the family income. In the end, the husband has to shoulder the heavy financial burden. If they have children, and the wife's application for social visit pass renewal is not approved, she has to go back to her home country. I am sure many MPs have seen similar cases. Perhaps the Government can consider issuing a "special work permit" to a Singaporean's foreign spouse, so that she can work. Next, for the foreign spouses who are employed or have children, we can expedite their PR or citizenship application, so that the family can live together.

Every year, about 9,000 ex-offenders are released from jail. Under the Yellow Ribbon Project, they can get help and re-integrate into society. SCORE's data shows that, since 2007, the number of companies providing job opportunities to ex-offenders has increased by 70%. Many ex-offenders found a job successfully. This shows that the society and employers have made progress in accepting ex-offenders. Next, we should encourage more employers to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Project and hire more ex-offenders, to give them an opportunity to live a good life instead of treading their old path.

To encourage employers to hire older workers, the Government has earlier introduced a "Special Employment Credit" scheme. At the end of last month, the first payment was disbursed. There are over 50,000 employers who have provided jobs to 170,000 low-income older Singaporeans. I suggest the government introduces a similar "Special Employment Credit" under the Yellow Ribbon Project to encourage more employers to create more job opportunities.

We can also introduce a "Start Work Grant". For ex-offenders who are under the Yellow Ribbon Project, we can consider giving them some allowances to pay for their expenses right after they find a job because they have not received their salary.

A few months ago, it was reported that world sprint champion Usain Bolt was disqualified in the 100-metre race because he had a false start. His long hours of training and dreams were shattered in that split second. Many people feel sorry for him. They feel if he can join the race, he may win and even break the world record. Many people have had a false start in life; some people fall halfway through the journey. Our current polices can help these people to stand up again. Mr Speaker, we are different from Usain Bolt in that Singapore will not disqualify anyone just because they have a false start.

During the last financial crisis, the Government implemented many decisive measures to help Singaporeans weather the storm quickly. Hence, I do not think we are permanently stuck in difficult situations. On the contrary, if our people are willing to work hard, we will give them a helping hand. I am sure we can do more and with greater resolve. We can improve our policies and inject more warmth in them. Together, we can fulfil the vision of inclusive growth and a better future for all Singaporeans as mentioned by President Tony Tan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, listening to the debate over the last few days, I had a sense of déjà vu. If my memory serves me right, I was seated, five years ago, where the hon. Member, Mr Chen Show Mao, is now seated. On my right, was Mr Baey Yam Keng; on my left, Dr Fatimah Lateef.

I was looking around the Chamber to find the oldest object here, and I think it must be the Mace. It is the symbol of the authority of the Speaker. This particular Mace at the head of the Table has been a part of the Legislative Assembly since 10 September 1958 – just over 53 years ago, before many of us were born. The early Mace was, in fact, a weapon of war – with a round-fisted head and sharp metallic spikes. The Mace in this House has a head that is shaped like a lion with wings. Hopefully, Sir, it will never cross your mind to use it against us, even when we are engaged in heated wars of words.

More than anyone one of us, this Mace has been a part of Singapore's legislative history. It bore witness to all the historic moments in our young nation's political development. And yet, if the Winged Lion Mace head were to come alive and be asked how things were different back then and now, I suspect it would say simply, "some things have changed and some things have not." Whether our GDP is US$400 as it was in 1960; or US$4,000 in 1979; or US$44,000 at the end of 2010. The lower income among us still find it hard to cope. Whether we live in muddy kampongs, 2-room rental flats or at The Pinnacle with its million-dollar views, we cannot avoid entirely episodes of job losses or poor health.

One significant change, however, is that we now have much better resources to deal with our problems. Significantly, too, our politics has changed and is still changing. I would like to say more about our politics. But before that, let me say something about our resources and our attitude towards growth.

Minister of State Lawrence Wong had on Tuesday explained how the PAP Government did not pursue growth for its own sake. He also explained how, without seizing growth, Singaporeans would have been worse-off. I would like to add another perspective.

Many of the programmes that MPs have asked for will increase our spending. So as not to burden our future generations, the responsible way to increase spending is to, at the same time, increase revenues. This way, we can keep a balanced budget. One option, of course, is to raise taxes. If we do not, we must find ways to increase revenues. The question is how?

A quick study of our revenue structure shows that about 60% of it is contributed by four items. They are: Corporate Income Tax (CIT), Personal Income Tax (PIT), Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs and Excise Duties (CED). How sensitive are these revenues to economic performance? In the 2001 recession, our GDP declined by 6.1% in nominal terms. It had a major impact on our tax collections in the following fiscal year. Our corporate income tax collections in FY2002, which was based on 2001 income, fell by 12.8%. Personal income tax fell 8.3%. GST grew marginally, but you have to compare it to the double-digit growth that we used to experience around that time. GST was growing in that year at 1.4%. Customs and Excise Duties fell 4.1% as well. In all, the revenue from these four sources dropped around 9%.

In 2007, our economy did well, and nominal GDP rose by 14.6%. This led to a 14.1% increase in corporate income tax collections in FY2008. Similarly, personal income tax grew 19.3%; GST up 5.2%; Customs and Excise Duties up 4%. Overall, the combined revenues from the four items increased by about 12%.

I have picked FY2002 and FY2008 because there were no major changes in key tax rates in those years. For example, GST rate increases, or reductions in corporate income tax rates. This allows us to see the effect of economic growth on revenues in a simplified way.

My purpose in taking Members through these numbers is to explain that we really ought to have a healthy regard for growth. It helps to generate more revenues which allow for increased spending without having to worry about higher taxes. Many countries, in addition to being profligate, did not pay enough attention to their economies, allowing themselves to lose competitiveness and for their growth to trudge along. Many of them borrow money to keep up their spending commitments to their own citizens. But this is passing the burden to future generations, who are also citizens. For some, the day of reckoning has already arrived, and they are faced with the painful options of sharply raising taxes and cutting benefits. Singapore must avoid this.

Some other countries have resources such as oil and so can afford to spend a lot more for a lot longer before running into problems. We have no such luxury. We must not pursue growth blindly, and certainly not in a way that does not benefit the broad majority of Singaporeans. But we must also not become disdainful of growth. Without growth, we will have fewer resources to make investments for the future. Moreover, our needs and wants will always exceed our means. Therefore, we must spend wisely. It is not always possible to measure the value of our spending. But, we must still exercise prudence and resist the temptation to spend our way out of problems.

One area of spending which we have been able to do when revenue flows were particularly strong is the top-ups to our endowment funds. Having been part of the labour movement before I entered Government, the investment I most appreciate is the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLEF).

In the depths of the global financial crisis in 2009, I received a phone call one day. It was about the retrenchment of 700 workers from a garment manufacturing company where we had a union branch. Ninety per cent women, seamstresses, who had no other skills. And three out of four of them aged 50 and above, with rather bleak prospects for finding the next job. Their last day was to be a Thursday, which was just four days before Chinese New Year. My fellow union leaders and I were, to put it in an understated way, quite devastated. We tried our best to persuade the employer to at least hold the workers till after Chinese New Year to no avail. So, we had to do the next best thing: keep our chins up, grit our teeth and set in motion a series of measures to lessen the pain for the workers.

The big lesson I learnt then was that there is nothing more risky to workers than a job they feel contented in. It is a great irony for union leaders seeking to improve working conditions of our workers. Because the more contented our workers feel, the more likely they are to postpone training and the less motivated they are to upgrade themselves. And so when the game is up, they are caught unaware. That is why I believe, more than Workfare bonuses, more than CPF top-ups and GST credits, we need to give our workers the chance to build lifelong employability so that they need never be caught in the terrible situation those 700 seamstresses faced.

Since 2000, we have topped up the LLEF by $3.6 billion. The monies from the fund have contributed to the development of our Continuing Education and Training (CET) system which will benefit many Singaporeans by helping them upgrade, stay employable and to earn a better living. These are the real investments worth every dollar we put in. If we continue to grow at a reasonable pace, we can generate resources that will allow us to continue fruitful spending on such programmes.

Sir, my second point is on shaping our political culture. After the General Election, many have noticed the marked change in the way people interact with their MPs. I would like to share some observations. One type of interaction, I would characterise it as sort of a Transactional Relationship. A resident comes and sees us, and says, "I voted for you, so now, please get me my HDB flat, or approve my wife's PR application, or get my son into this primary school. There are eight votes in my household." That is one type.

The second type is accusatory and sarcastic in tone. Emails that are sent, words that are used. For example, saying, "Is this how the Government puts Singaporeans first?", if they do not get what they want. Or anything can be labelled as, "The Government cares only for foreigners."

The third is also worrying. It is the attitude of "My-way or no-way". This happens when solutions proposed by agencies that balance the needs of all the stakeholders are rejected without consideration for others. "It doesn't suit me, so no-go."

It was not like this before. And frankly, I am quite saddened to see my country develop in this direction. If this is the "new normal", in my mind, there is nothing to celebrate. But there is a different kind of "new normal" which we can aspire to, one where it is not uncommon to admit mistakes and accept apologies.

One good example is the Central Narcotics Bureau: volunteering information that past statistics had not been entirely correct. They took the flak but I was very heartened that at least a small group of people was prepared to say, "Bravo for owning up, but please work harder, do better." But not all are so forgiving. And it makes me think, that if we always crucify people for honest mistakes, for owning up to their honest mistakes, what we will have is not the "absence of mistakes", only the "absence of honesty". Is this what we want in the "new normal" of our politics?

In the "new normal", it should not be unusual for parties, political or otherwise, to adjust our positions. I recall very vividly, a visit that I made to the French National Assembly. There, in front of the Speaker, sort of a semi-circle theatre-style, are where all the legislators are seated. And I was told, if you are from a Left party, you sit to the left from where the Speaker sees you. And if you are from the Right, you sit on the right. And you are either on the left or on the right, and your position is fixed. And no matter how the debate develops, no matter what new information is brought up, the Speaker says, what does the Left have to say, and what does the Right have to say? And so your physical position fixes your mental position!

I was very frightened by that sort of a positioning. It is necessary for us to adjust our positions from time to time with new information, new knowledge, new understanding, new developments. Further good behaviour norms that should apply equally on both sides of the bench, front and back, and across party lines, include the willingness to acknowledge trade-offs.

A good example is in transport. If we have more vehicle quotas, COE prices will be lower, but we will also have more congested roads and more illegal parking. If we have more stringent immigration measures, fewer men can get PRs for their foreign brides. In these issues, a responsible Parliament must find consensus on where the balance should fall, and from debate, move to action. In some cases, we can agree to disagree. Like in the exchange that we just had. Mr Pritam Singh, the hon. Mr Singh is not here, I wish he had just made his position clear, as the Prime Minister has, during his speech, which is that we do not agree with the perception that the media is controlled by the Government. It is all right for Mr Singh to disagree, but because he has not been willing to make known where he stands, I really do not know what to make of his proposals.

Importantly, in the "new normal", we must aspire to have the moral courage to avoid polarising the public on issues which are divisive. And by this, I mean not just race and religion but, increasingly, issues pertaining to our heritage and the environment, and also, the treatment of foreigners.

In the last two days, we talked about former Minister George Yeo's encounter with a Catholic priest and Minister Khaw Boon Wan's recent interactions with the Chief Monk of Bhutan. And it reminded me of a story I first read about 12 years ago. It is titled "The Rabbi's Gift". And I seek the Deputy Speaker's permission to share the story.

The story concerns a monastery that had fallen upon hard times. Once a great order, as a result of waves of anti-monastic persecution in the 17th and 18th centuries and the rise of secularism in the 19th, all its branch houses were lost and it had become decimated to the extent that there were only five monks left in the decaying mother house – that were the abbot and four others, all over seventy in age. Clearly, it was a dying order.

In the deep woods surrounding the monastery, there was a little hut that a rabbi from a nearby town occasionally used for a hermitage. Through their many years of prayer and contemplation, the old monks had become a little bit psychic, so they could always sense when the rabbi was in his hermitage. As he agonised over the imminent death of his order, it occurred to the abbot at one such time to visit the hermitage and ask the rabbi if, by some possible chance, he could offer any advice that might save the monastery.

The rabbi welcomed the abbot at his hut. But when the abbot explained the purpose of his visit, the rabbi could only commiserate with him. "I know how it is," he exclaimed. "The spirit has gone out of the people. It is the same in my town. Almost no one comes to the synagogue anymore." So, the old abbot and the old rabbi wept together. Then they read parts of the Torah and quietly spoke of deep things. The time came when the abbot had to leave. They embraced each other. "It has been a wonderful thing that we should meet after all these years", the abbot said, "but I have still failed in my purpose for coming here. Is there nothing you can tell me, no piece of advice you can give me that would help me save my dying order?"

"No, I am sorry," the rabbi responded. "I have no advice to give you. The only thing I can tell you is that the Messiah is one of you." When the abbot returned to the monastery his fellow monks gathered around him to ask, "Well, what did the rabbi say?" "He couldn't help," the abbot answered. "We just wept and read the Torah together. The only thing he did say, just as I was leaving – it was something cryptic – was that the Messiah is one of us. I don't know what he meant."

In the days and weeks and months that followed, the old monks pondered this and wondered whether there was any possible significance to the rabbi's words. The Messiah is one of us? Could he possibly have meant one of us monks here at the monastery? If that is the case, which one? Do you suppose he meant the abbot? Yes, if he meant anyone, he probably meant Father Abbot. He has been our leader for more than a generation. On the other hand, he might have meant Brother Thomas. Certainly, Brother Thomas is a holy man. Everyone knows that Thomas is a man of light.

Certainly, he could not have meant Brother Elred! Elred gets crotchety at times. But come to think of it, even though he is a thorn in people's sides, when you look back on it, Elred is virtually always right. Maybe, the rabbi did mean Brother Elred. But surely not Brother Phillip. Phillip is so passive –

Order. Mrs Josephine Teo, I am sorry to interrupt your very fascinating story but if you are going to use your 40 minutes, you will exceed the time beyond 7.30 pm. Could you allow the Leader of the House to move the exemption? I am sorry once again.

I wholeheartedly do.

Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provision of Standing Order No. 2 – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please proceed, Mrs Teo.

Debate resume.

Phillip is so passive, a real nobody. But then, almost mysteriously, he has a gift for somehow always being there when you need him. He just magically appears by your side. Maybe Phillip is the Messiah.

Of course, the rabbi did not mean me. He could not possibly have meant me. I am just an ordinary person. Yet supposing he did? Supposing I am the Messiah? Oh God, not me. I could not be that much, could I?

As they contemplated in this manner, the old monks began to treat each other with extraordinary respect on the off chance that one among them might be the Messiah. And on the off, off chance that each monk himself might be the Messiah, they began to treat themselves with extraordinary respect. Because the forest in which it was situated was beautiful, it so happened that people still occasionally came to visit the monastery.

As they did so, without even being conscious of it, they sensed the aura of extraordinary respect that now began to surround the five old monks that seemed to radiate out of them and permeate the atmosphere of the place. There was something strangely attractive, even compelling, about it. Hardly knowing why, they began to come back to the monastery more frequently to picnic, to play, to pray. They began to bring their friends to show them this special place. And their friends brought their friends. Then it happened some of the younger men who came to visit the monastery started to talk more and more with the old monks. After a while, one asked if he could join them and then another and another. So, within a few years, the monastery had once again become a thriving order and thanks to the rabbi's gift, a vibrant centre of light and spirituality in the realm.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I love the story. I am sorry Mr Low does not. For one thing, I love the difference we can make when we start to treat one another with, as the Prime Minister says, grace, courtesy, respect, regardless of our station in life. I wish we do this all the time – with cleaners, security guards, bus drivers, hawkers, foreign construction workers. Can you imagine what a powerful force we can be if Singapore were exceptional in this way?

I love the story, too, for the imagery of revival, of spiritual uplift. It never fails to give me a high. Most of all perhaps I love what the story suggests about accountability. The rabbi had no solution. All he did was to change the standard by which each monk benchmarked himself – to that of the Messiah! You see, the real difference we make is not when we hold other people accountable. That is too easy. It is not even when we hold each other accountable. The highest order of accountability is that we hold ourselves to. It is when we hold ourselves accountable to the highest standards of civility, honesty, integrity, good faith, good sense, that we have the best potential of changing the world.

Sir, the elections are done. We now have the duty of living up to voters' high expectations. At the same time, we have the privilege of setting new political norms for Singapore. Let us, in our hearts, place upon ourselves this burden and this honour. Let us persuade Singaporeans to join us in shaping a political culture we can all be proud of. If the Winged-Lion Mace head could speak, let us hear her call us "an exceptional Parliament". Then, these watershed elections would truly yield something good for Singapore's political development, something worthy of celebration. Sir, I support the motion. [Applause.]

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

I give my consent.

Resolved,

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

Dr Lam, resumption of debate, what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Resolved,

"That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." – [Dr Ng Eng Hen].

Adjourned accordingly at 7.34 pm.

1 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Ministry will consider the proposal to provide foreign domestic workers working in Singapore one day off per week.