Hansard, 2011-10-21

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:

1 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he would provide an update on the results of the investigation that Singapore has received on the case involving two Singaporean women detained in Malaysia in June this year for alleged immigration offences and who were made to perform nude squats; (b) what is the number of Singaporeans caught by Malaysian authorities for not having their passports "stamped" by Malaysian immigration officers at the Malaysian side of the Woodlands and Tuas Checkpoints in the last three years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand and share the concerns Singaporeans have over the treatment of the two Singaporean women. They were detained temporarily at the Pekan Nenas Detention Depot for alleged immigration offences.

We have raised these concerns officially with the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on a number of occasions. They have assured us that they will investigate the allegations and that the outcome of the investigations would be conveyed to Singapore as soon as they are in. We have reminded them of this commitment, and in their last correspondence with us on the matter on 9 September 2011, the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore informed us that a thorough investigation of the case had been completed but that the report of the investigation was being finalised by the Malaysian Attorney-General's Chambers.

We are all aware of recent media reports that the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs has made a statement on this case to the Malaysian Parliament. He was reported as having said that based on a probe, the female Malaysian immigration officer had carried out the body search on the two Singaporean women in an orderly manner, and that the inspection was according to that stated under the Detention Depot's Standard Operating Procedure. We have sought a clarification from both the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore and the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the statement because as far as we are aware, the investigations had not yet been concluded. The Malaysian High Commission informed us that it did not have any further information on the Malaysian Minister of Home Affairs' statement in the Malaysian Parliament and that his Ministry would be seeking an update from the Malaysian Attorney-General's Chambers on the status of the investigation. He added that the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs will provide us with the official report of the investigation as soon as it has been finalised. That is where things stand at this point in time.

I know that many Singaporeans are anxious for an expeditious resolution to this case. So are we. We have registered our concerns with our Malaysian counterparts and reminded them of their commitment to conduct a thorough investigation and update us on the outcome of those investigations. We will continue to press for the official investigation report. But even as we do this, it is important to bear in mind that this matter will have to be resolved in accordance with Malaysian laws, rules and regulations.

Mr Ang has also asked for the number of Singaporeans whose passports were not stamped at Malaysian Immigration checkpoints and had thus encountered difficulties on exit. The ICA does not keep track of such incidents because unless they are reported to us, we will not know about them. We have received very few such reports, but certainly not all such incidents are reported to either ICA or MFA. I will take this opportunity to remind Singaporeans travelling to Malaysia, and in particular those travelling to Johor by road, to always check and ensure that their passports are stamped at entry and exit by the Malaysian Immigration authorities.

Sir, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I trust the Minister would agree that this incident will not affect the good bilateral relationship that we have with Malaysia. But having said that, when Singaporeans are detained at the Causeway for not getting their passports stamped, the experience can be traumatic. This is especially so when the Singaporeans just want to spend their holiday or conduct business in Malaysia without any intention to flout immigration rules. My question is: how can Singaporeans obtain help from the Government if they are detained at the Causeway for not getting their passports stamped, assuming that they are able to contact their family members or associates during their detention?

This incident should not have an impact on the overall bilateral relationships between Malaysia and Singapore though we have made very clear that we want a proper investigation of the matter. We have conveyed our serious concerns when the original report came out and we have indicated that we will be looking at the report that comes to us very carefully. And that has been acknowledged by Malaysia. As regards Mr Ang's second point as to how Singaporeans who get detained in Malaysia for these sorts of offences can get help, on the basis that the detentions take place in accordance to established rules and procedure in the first place, the detainees will have a right to notify their next-of-kin. And insofar as Ministry of Foreign Affairs, our Consulate in Johor or other authorities get to know about it, we will certainly investigate, process and take up with the Malaysian authorities.

2 Mdm Foo Mee Har asked the Minister for Trade and Industry in view of the severe floods in Thailand which had destroyed rice crops (a) what is the impact on our rice prices; (b) how dependent is Singapore on rice imports from Thailand; (c) what strategies are in place to keep rice affordable especially for the low income groups; and (d) how much rice stockpile does Singapore have.

Sir, as of September 2011, the export price of Thai fragrant rice preferred by Singaporeans had risen by about 9% compared to the start of the year. Singapore's rice imports comprise only a small proportion of global rice exports. In 2010, our total volume of rice imports was only about 1% of the total rice traded in the world. Although about half of our rice imports in 2010 came from Thailand, it was less than 2% of Thailand's total rice exports. Given our small import volumes, we are a price taker. However, it would also mean our demand can be easily met by alternative sources of supply given the size of the world market.

This said, when prices of rice increase in the international market, our purchases will become more expensive too. While we cannot avoid price fluctuations, we can do a number of things to mitigate sharp price spikes and possible supply disruptions.

Firstly, we continue to diversify our supply sources. More than ever before, we now import rice from many more sources, including Vietnam, India and the United States. Our small import volume also helps ensure that we can source enough rice to meet demand.

Secondly, we maintain a policy of stockpile. Today, all of our rice importers keep a healthy stockpile of two months or more.

Thirdly, to better educate consumers, MTI through the Retail Price Watch Group (RPWG) is working with major supermarket chains and retailers to highlight the variety of rice, meaning apart from fragrant rice, available that are high in taste and quality; as well as other non-rice staples that consumers can consider as part of their healthy diet choice. Even with the Thai fragrant rice, there is a 1.5 times price differential between the branded and non-branded rice. MTI will continue to monitor the situation in Thailand with our importers and retailers to ensure supply and price stability.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive answer. I would like to ask a supplementary question on reports that financial speculators have been responsible for increases in global food prices. In the market, there has been discussion about spiralling – food prices being driven by financial players taking over the commodities market. Financial speculators now account for as much as 60% of the agricultural futures and options. Could the Minister of State also comment about how we are impacted and hedged against this?

Sir, I thank the Member Ms Foo Mee Har for her question. The kind of speculation that Ms Foo mentioned has not been seen at least in the contractual purchases between our importers and the exporters of the supplying countries. Typically, our importers will sign contracts of two to three months each time they place an order. In the last few months, when Thailand raised the rice prices, we are seeing our importers and importers in the market switching to lower cost supply. There is no panic in the market because this industry of supply has got many buffers in each of the supply chains. For instance, we have our own stockpile. Other countries do as well. Even the suppliers or the intermediaries themselves keep a healthy stock level in terms of supply. So, given the floods in Thailand, about 10% of the rice-growing areas in Thailand are affected. The other 90% is still supplying. In fact, we are all watching the harvest of fragrant rice in November.

Apart from fragrant rice – which accounts for only 18% of Thailand's rice production – the other 82% is in the white rice category. White rice has three to four harvests per year. First of all, we believe that the floods have not seriously affected the rice fields in Thailand. Secondly, given the frequency of harvesting, they will be able to catch up to re-supply to the market.

The market right now is quite calm. On the local scene, we have 35 major importers, supplemented by about 70 smaller importers who purchase rice from the smaller markets like India and Pakistan. We have sufficient competition within the local scene to ensure price stability.

3 Mr David Ong asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether there is sufficient support for home-based care of the aged, chronically ill or disabled elderly; and (b) what are the Ministry's plans to ensure that domestic help receive the right level of care-giver training and support to look after the elderly at home.

Sir, MCYS understands and supports older Singaporeans' wish to age in place in their own homes among their loved ones, rather than in an institution among strangers and unfamiliar surroundings. We recognise the fact that our population is ageing rapidly and we need to prepare for this silver tsunami. Over the last few months, I have been visiting many eldercare facilities, including the frail elderly at home using home-based care services, to understand their needs and concerns. I agree that we need to do more.

Currently, MCYS and the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL) work with nine VWO service providers to offer home care to some 2,000 seniors. MCYS and CEL will nurture our VWOs so that they can expand and scale up their services in tandem with our rapidly ageing population. CEL will work with them on their manpower needs, and also to recruit and train the staff that they need. CEL will also continue to encourage and seed fund the use of technology and innovative care solutions to enhance the efficiency and quality of home care. The SEED Fund or Sustainable Enhancement for Eldercare and Disability Care Services Fund has, to date, supported 23 projects, granting a total of $2.4 million for initiatives benefiting our frail elderly and their caregivers.

One such initiative is the one that CEL is currently partnering with NTUC Eldercare and Thye Hua Kwan Moral Society, to pilot an integrated home care model. The pilots currently serve 184 elderly with multiple care needs. The staff takes care of the elderly's basic needs such as basic maintenance exercises, the provision of emotional support, personal hygiene, meals preparation and household tasks, in an ensuite elderly client-centric fashion.

Currently, home healthcare forms a small part of MOH's healthcare system. In 2010, there were 10 subvented home medical/nursing providers serving 4,000 unique patients. This includes a provider that has since ceased operations. MOH will of course continue to scale up the capacity and capability of this sector to meet the rising demand.

MOH has also started on several pilots to enhance home healthcare services. One such pilot is with the Home Nursing Foundation (HNF). HNF works with the hospital team to facilitate a smooth transition for patients newly discharged from the hospital to home. Once the patient is at home, HNF will coordinate with other service providers to provide for the patient's care needs in the community. HNF has served over 300 patients since its inception in August 2010.

MCYS and MOH are currently studying the provision of home based social and health care needs for our frail elderly, with a view to promoting ageing in place, right siting of care and a more seamless transition from hospitals to the community and the home.

On the issue of training for foreign domestic workers, MCYS recognises that they play an important role in supporting families to cope with the demands of caregiving. We introduced the Caregiver Training Grant in 2007. Families may use the grant to train their Foreign Domestic Workers (FDWs) to acquire core care skills. Between January 2010 and September 2011, 2,311 informal caregivers of our frail elderly had benefited from the grant, almost half of whom are FDWs.

CEL has partnered NTUC Eldercare to offer structured hands-on training for FDWs, including training on communication skills with the elderly, given the potential language barrier between our elderly and the FDWs. CEL is also partnering TOUCH to implement in-home training of FDWs which allows for customisation based on individual household needs. Since the start of the pilot training programmes in April 2010, 300 FDWs have been trained by NTUC Eldercare and TOUCH.

MCYS would like to encourage more employers to send their FDWs for training which will benefit both the frail elderly and the caregiver, as the numbers that have attended are still small. Caregivers need to have some basic skills so that they can provide better care to the elderly, as well as minimise physical and emotional stress and strains on themselves.

We believe that everyone can do their part to make ageing in place, meaning in the community and at home, a reality for our elderly. And MCYS will do our best to initiate and support these initiatives so that our frail elderly too can live in peace and with dignity in the twilight years of their lives.

On the training programme for caregivers including domestic help, the take-up rate as the Minister of State mentioned earlier is low. This could also mean that they are not aware or they have no time. Sir, I would like to see whether MCYS could work with MOM to look at accessibility of maids, and to see if we can have a training programme for them even before they are deployed to the homes. If the maids are not physically and mentally able to take care of the elderly, transitional care and other costs can be high.

I want to thank Mr David Ong for the suggestion. It is a very useful suggestion and we would certainly look into it and work with Ministry of Manpower to see how we could do that. I agree entirely with Mr Ong that it would be better for us to prepare a FDW who is coming in for the specific purpose of taking take care of a frail elderly beforehand rather than after the person has already been employed and then gets caught up with her work, household chores as well as other care-giving responsibilities. It is a lot harder to pull the FDW out to go for training. We will look into his proposal and work to see how we could achieve that.

4 Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song asked the Minister for Health what percentage of Singaporeans currently draw from their adult children's Medisave accounts to pay for their own healthcare expenses.

Sir, in 2010, there were around two million working Singaporean CPF members, of which 80,000, or less than 5%, used their CPF to pay for their parents' healthcare expenses. If we exclude older CPF members from the denominator, the proportion will be slightly higher, but it will still be around 5%. A total of $732 million was withdrawn from Medisave accounts in 2010 to pay for direct medical expenses. Of this amount withdrawn, 18% was withdrawn to pay for the parents' treatment. Out of the total amount of Medisave withdrawn for the elderly's healthcare expenses last year, about 45% was from their children's Medisave accounts.

Sir, family support is an integral part of our healthcare financing framework. It is also an important second line of defence. But MOH is mindful of the burden and the responsibility borne by the younger generation in supporting the healthcare expenses of their elderly parents. The Government has from time to time provided top-ups to the Medisave accounts of the elderly. Between 2005 and 2011, nearly $1 billion was distributed to elderly Singaporeans this way. Workfare also helps older, low-income workers build up their Medisave by providing additional contributions over and above the normal CPF contribution rates. Nevertheless, I believe more can be done to help the elderly, especially those in the lower and middle-income families, and we are exploring ways to help them.

Mr Speaker, just one supplementary question. Given that the Government has put forward this principle of self-reliance to Singaporeans, does the Minister feel that this situation, where a lot of elderly have to draw from their children's Medisave accounts, is a departure from this principle of self-reliance, because the children will also have to build up their own Medisave accounts for the future?

Mr Speaker, I thank Mr Giam for the question. In fact, self-reliance is a very important underlying principle of our healthcare financing framework. But to ensure good health for Singaporeans, everyone has a role to play. Firstly, at the individual level, each one of us must take personal responsibility for our health. If we do not adopt healthy lifestyle, if we are not careful in our diet and eat laksa everyday and so on, I think no one can help us keep ourselves healthy. So, we have to take responsibility for our own state of health, and we also have to make it our personal responsibility to save up for rainy days, in case we fall ill one day.

But beyond the individual, family also plays an important role. Mutual support in the family will provide a second line of defence and this is part and parcel of our family values. This is what our society is about and it is important for us to continue to encourage mutual support within the family. We must not weaken that value.

And beyond the family, I think society, as a whole, also plays an important role. Just about three to four days ago, on Tuesday, I attended a concert called "Rays of Hope". The concert was organised by the National Cancer Centre of Singapore (NCCS). The concert was to raise funds for the young cancer patients. I think the society also plays a role. The doctors come together, raise funds for their patients. This is another very precious value of our society that we should try to preserve and, of course, the Government itself will also play its role. In fact, we spent about $2.2 billion a year providing subsidies for our patients.

So, I think this is part and parcel of our broader sense of self-reliance. At the individual level, we try to achieve sufficient savings for ourselves. Beyond the individual level, the family achieves self-reliance through mutual support. And beyond the family, society as a whole achieves self-reliance by helping one another. The Government, at a national level, achieves self-reliance by providing support for those who need it most.

Mr Speaker, I still remain concerned about the financial health of these children who have to fork out money for their parents' medical treatment. I understand this principle in our values that we have to support our parents, but for those children who are from lower income backgrounds – is there additional help that the Ministry intends to provide to them, to assist them as they assist their parents, so that they do not have to draw down on their meagre Medisave accounts to be able to help their parents.

Mr Speaker, for the lower income, whether they are older or whether they are from the younger generation which Mr Giam was concerned about, the Ministry does help them for their medical needs. First and foremost, we want to encourage as many of them as possible to stay on MediShield, which should provide a basic insurance to cover most of the medical expenses in hospitals. We have provided up to 80% subsidy for our B2, C class wards in hospitals which generally have larger medical bills compared to outpatient.

With the Government subsidy for the B2, C class wards, generally, the patients would be able to afford the B2, C class bills without out-of-pocket expenses, only drawing from the Medisave, MediShield, and so on. Up to about 70% of them would have no out-of- pocket expenses. That means that they are fully covered, in one way or the other. Secondly, among those who have out-of-pocket expenses, the remaining 30%, about one-third of them, receives help from Medifund. So, we want to make sure that all Singaporeans whether you are in the high-income or low-income groups, whether you are old or young, will be able to receive medical treatment that is appropriate for them. We also provide financial counselling at the beginning to make sure that they opt for the right class of ward so that they can afford it. But, at the end of the day, I think it is important for us to emphasise individual responsibility so that we encourage them to save sufficiently for their old age for their medical needs and if they do get into trouble, we have many ways to help them.

Recently, I think the Prime Minister announced a series of initiatives to enhance our financial support for medical care, one of which is Primary Care Partnership Scheme (PCPS) which caters to the older and the lower-income Singaporeans to allow them to have subsidised care at the private General Practitioners (GPs). We have also enhanced the drugs subsidies at the hospitals and our polyclinics to ensure that the drugs will remain affordable to our lower income families.

Sir, it is heartening to hear from the Minister that there are many means to help the people who need healthcare in Singapore. And it is also heartening to hear that the Government will be there as a last resort, in the form of Medifund, if all else fails. Can I ask the Minister what percentage of applicants for Medifunds is rejected?

I do not have the exact number on hand but I believe that most of the applicants who qualify would have been given the Medifund. Those who do not qualify, the hospitals will advise them. But even beyond Medifund, for those at the margins, we give a lot of flexibility to the individual institutions. Usually, there would be a Medifund Committee. These committees will evaluate application on a case-by-case basis. Even for patients up to middle-income, if they find that certain treatment or certain drugs are really beyond their reach, the hospitals have the flexibility to award them with Medifund support. And beyond Medifund, in fact, hospitals also have programmes to raise additional funding from philanthropists, from donors and from well-wishers. The example I gave just now – the NCCS concert programme – is an example of initiatives by the doctors who decided that they could do something to help these patients beyond Medifund and therefore they went ahead to raise funds. So, at the hospitals, at our institutions, there are many programmes. Some are funded by Medifund, some are funded by their own initiatives. Through all these programmes, we try to help our patients to ensure that they can afford the appropriate treatment.

5 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the punitive, legal and enforcement measures to reduce illegal moneylending activities have obtained significant success; and (b) in view of the growing use of aggressive harassment techniques against innocent neighbours of recalcitrant debtors, whether the Ministry will consider making it an offence to borrow from loansharks to deter demand for these loans.

Sir, from January to September this year, there were 10,439 unlicensed moneylending and harassment reports. This is 24% lower than in the same period in 2010, that is, a reduction of about 3,200 cases. This reduction can be attributed to the punitive legal measures introduced in the Moneylenders Act last year, as well as the greater level of community vigilance, and effective Police enforcement. Over the same period, the number of persons arrested rose 24% to 1,492 persons.

The Member has asked about aggressive harassment tactics. The number of cases involving aggressive harassment tactics remains low, accounting for less than 0.5% of the total number of cases. The Police have apprehended the perpetrators in nearly 80% of these cases. In all such instances, the Police will press for stiff sentences against the perpetrators, including caning.

Mr de Souza's suggestion to make borrowing from loansharks an offence, as Members are well aware, has been raised and debated several times in this House. Opinion is divided on the matter, not least because the circumstances of each borrower are very different. It is not conclusive that criminalising borrowing will significantly diminish the loansharking situation, although it might deter some borrowers

Our current focus is on the plethora of other means to tackle the problem. The Police will continue with its stringent enforcement efforts and leverage on the enhanced legal measures. Police will also strengthen its partnership with the community and grassroots organisations to safeguard the neighbourhoods. Education is key in addressing the aspect of demand for unlicensed moneylending. In that regard, the Police will work with stakeholders like MCYS, the Registry of Moneylenders, and the National Council on Problem Gambling. Public education campaigns will highlight the alternative avenues of assistance and also warn those who may be inclined to work for loansharks of the serious consequences of doing so.

I would like to point out that the Ministry and the Police will closely monitor the effectiveness of these measures before assessing the need, if any, to go further. I want to assure the Member and this House that we are certainly prepared to introduce tougher measures if the situation warrants it.

I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and also the Home Team for their concerted effort in reducing the figures by 24%. Especially in light of the fact that with two casinos, to have to reduce that by 24% is indeed a feat that should be applauded. Thank you for the effort!

I have three supplementary questions. First, there is a lot of talk that gambling addiction fuels the borrowers to borrow from loansharks. Given that the Minister is from the Home Affairs Ministry, what more can be done to deter a culture of gambling setting root and therefore consequently reducing those who turn to unlicensed moneylenders? Second, how could both the supply and demand aspects of the causes of the crime be further studied so as to reduce the numbers? For example, if the decision is not to criminalise borrowing, then would the Ministry consider levying a charge of aiding or abetting harassment where the borrower purposefully gives the wrong address and as a result, causes an innocent neighbour to be the victim of harassment? Would there be a charge of aiding or abetting harassment there? That is one other way of handling the demand. The third and final point, Sir, is the use of school children. I think there were reports about how brazen moneylenders have used innocent school children to be the runners. How will the Ministry ensure that this is deterred and they suffer a stronger brunt of the law as a result of their actions, ie, the people who use school children and not the school children who are pawns in all of this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for his supplementary questions. I also want to preface my response by acknowledging the fact that the Member has been very actively pursuing this matter in this Parliament over several years. Several of his suggestions were, in fact, incorporated in the amendments to the Act last year.

The Member asked about gambling addiction and what the Ministry of Home Affairs can do to deter a culture of gambling. I notice from the Order Paper, fortuitously, that there is a question on this later for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports. That is really where the central task of addressing it from the social perspective lies. I think what the Home Team agencies will do, and have been doing assiduously, is really to ensure that there is a tough regime in terms of the crimes that can be associated with this, and then we enforce that with diligence and stringency. That will be the strongest way of ensuring that we are able to contain the criminal aspects. I think the actual social pathology is an area that is differently addressed and it has got a wide range of issues as the Member will well acknowledge. It is not just the Government's effort but also will involve many other parties – VWOs and, of course, homes as well.

The second point is on the supply and demand aspects and what else can we do to reduce this further. The Member specifically mentioned this point about whether we can make aiding and abetting harassment a crime. I think the Member is also aware in the amendments we introduced last year, that there was the point about addresses, in particular. One of the offences, in fact, is really to give the wrong address to the loanshark which would lead to harassment being directed at the neighbour. That attracts a penalty of up to one year imprisonment. I think that is the starting point there. Also, it is an offence if you do not update your address within 28 days in your identity card, and that has a fine of up to $5,000 and jail of up to five years. So, there are certain deterrent provisions and it is really targeted where it should be. It is not so much at the overall borrowing activities but it is specifically at the activities that could create additional problems for people around them.

Finally, the point on school children and what we can do. First of all, there is a fairly comprehensive effort undertaken by the Police, together with MCYS and the schools, to communicate to children in schools and beyond on the kind of dangers it poses and what they ought to or ought not to be doing in this regard.

The Member made reference to some of the recent enforcement actions, and what the findings were. The indication was that most of the time they were involved in the distribution of things like name cards, pamphlets and flyers advertising easy loans from loansharks. They were generally ignorant of the involvement in illegal activity and were enticed by the opportunity to make easy money. I think notwithstanding that, we need to send a strong message to the youth, first of all, that there are serious consequences to be involved in such activities and they should be clear that before following up on such offers, they should do their due diligence and be careful and talk to their parents, and so on. Secondly, I would say that we have also introduced the offence in terms of recruitment which I just want to spell out the specifics – it is a jail term of up to seven years and fine between $30,000 and $300,000. I think that again is a fairly deterrent provision in the law and the Police are committed to enforcing it.

I want to sum up, in response to the Member, by saying that at the end of the day, this aspect of using the youth is something that is reprehensible and the Police will be very rigorous in their enforcement in this matter. But, at the same time, the message to our youth must also be unambiguous.

Sir, supplementary questions. I would like to ask the Minister: since the amendment of the Moneylenders Act, was it effective in terms of deterrence, and in terms of helping the Police in enforcement? While I noted that he reported that the cases have been reduced, what I want to know is how many new loanshark cases are reported to the Police. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister whether this activity of borrowing from the loansharks is related to casino gambling habits. Thirdly, is there evidence to suggest from the ground that those legal moneylenders, in cooperation with illegal moneylenders, transfer some of the debts to them and use illegal tactics against borrowers? And lastly, I would like to know what other additional enforcement actions or strategy that the Police have. Because the ground reaction that I have is that the problem does not seem to be solved. It is not going away and, perhaps, it may be coming up more.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Aljunied for his four supplementary questions. Let me take them in turn. The first is, what is the deterrence afforded by the enhancements to the legislation in the Moneylenders Act. If the Member heard my comments earlier, there has been a reduction in the number of reports. It is not just in terms of enforcement. Enforcement has increased and that has resulted in more apprehensions. But there has also been a 24% reduction in the number of reports – harassment and moneylending activities − and that is a reduction of about 3,000. The current level is about 10,000, with the assessment that this is obviously something that we want to continue to bring down, and that is why we have a range of efforts in place.

Secondly, is the borrowing activity related to casinos. Well, if you look at the history of this whole phenomenon, it was relatively low if you look at the incidents of moneylending in 2006 and 2007. About the time of the economic downturn, it spiked in 2008 and 2009. The casinos actually started operations in February and April of 2010. As I have just given Members the statistics, actually the numbers have come down between 2010 and 2011. There are many factors at play here: firstly, the enhanced measures and the Police enforcement; secondly, the economic conditions have changed; and then of course the advent of the casinos in itself, whether it is, in fact, the cause de facto, which we cannot establish with certainty. My response to the Member would be that, yes, we have casinos in the environment today, but I do not think we can establish a clear causative link. It is early days on this, but we are tracking this aspect quite closely.

Thirdly, is there a transfer of activity or interconnection between the legal and illegal moneylenders. This is obviously a boundary condition. The Minister for Law will be addressing the point on legal moneylending shortly. I will just say that clearly, the Police in its enforcement pays very close attention to this because you do not want illegal activities masquerading under the cloak of legality, and that is something that we always monitor. But, at the end of the day, you have to work within the boundaries of what is provided for legally and in terms of enforcement as well.

Finally, on additional enforcement measures, as I have responded earlier to Mr Christopher de Souza, we have put in place a range of measures – enhanced penalties, stricter enforcement, working with community organisations, education. So, it is a combination of measures that have been put in place. There seems to be some traction, so we want to observe this. At the same time, the Police are allocating more resources towards enforcement on the ground. I think we hope to see greater improvements in the coming period.

Sir, the feedback that we frequently received is that CCTV is an effective way to deter such harassment. Indeed, it gives quite a lot of assurance to families that have been harassed by illegal moneylenders. But the reply from the Police is always that it has not sufficient budget for the CCTV. Will the Ministry consider providing a larger budget for the Police to install more CCTVs at places where the harassment takes place?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for the suggestion. In fact, this is an area that the Police are looking at. In terms of whether we can allocate greater resources, it is something that we hope to be able to give further information on in due course.

6 Mr David Ong asked the Minister for Law (a) how many complaints against easy credit (moneylending) companies have been registered to date; and (b) whether the existing safeguards on interest rates for loan amounts above $3,000 or loans to persons with an income above $20,000 per annum, and penalties for late payments are sufficient to protect the man in street from chalking up insurmountable and often spiralling debts.

Sir, since 2009, the Registry of Moneylenders has investigated a total of 105 complaints against licensed moneylenders. The Registry has also investigated many breaches that were discovered during regular and ad-hoc inspections and audits.

The Registry takes stern enforcement action against moneylenders who are found to breach the law. To date, seven moneylenders have had their licences suspended; six have had their licences revoked; and four have been prosecuted in court. Warnings have also been issued for minor breaches.

Mr Ong also asks if the existing safeguards are sufficient to protect a person from chalking up spiralling, insurmountable debts. Sir, for the benefit of the hon. Members, I will list some of the safeguards that have been legislated. But before that, please allow me to make a fundamental point. Some individuals do incur insurmountable debts with serious consequences for themselves and their families. This is a matter of concern to the Government. At the same time, there are limits to what the Government can do to protect everyone from getting into a financially difficult situation, or from getting himself or herself into debts that he or she cannot repay.

In the last two years, more than 2,000 persons became bankrupt, borrowing from banks and credit card companies. These companies do due diligence. Yet the borrowers get into financially distressed positions due to a variety of factors. The same goes for people who borrow from moneylenders. The solution is not to outlaw the moneylending industry or impose rules such that moneylenders cannot lend to people who need to borrow – by definition, they lend to people who need loans. If the Government controls the moneylending industry too much, people who can only borrow from moneylenders may resort to borrowing from loansharks.

What the Government can do, and has done, is set out a framework that can work for the majority, allows reasonable access to credit and tries to protect the borrowers within reasonable limits. How we should draw the framework depends on judgements we make on what will and will not work, and the way the market works in practice. We thus need to constantly review the rules and, where necessary, amend them, to make sure that they are working.

For instance, the purpose of relaxing the rules relating to advertising back in 2009 was to allow the consumer who needs credit, to more easily compare the terms between different moneylenders and choose the best one for his needs. However, having seen how licensed moneylenders have become aggressive in their marketing, we have now considerably tightened the rules on advertising, as we do not want advertising to drive demand for moneylenders.

This is not an end state. We are continuing to monitor and review what is happening. Where we see the market not functioning effectively, and if we believe that consumers can be better protected without cutting off access to credit, we will implement the necessary measures.

I will now set out some of the rules that protect borrowers. First, moneylenders are not allowed to charge borrowers who earn less than $20,000 a year, an interest rate of more than 18% per annum for unsecured loans of $3,000 and below. Second, moneylenders are not allowed to grant unsecured loans of more than $3,000 to such borrowers. Third, moneylenders are not allowed to grant unsecured loans exceeding two times the monthly income of borrowers who earn between $20,000 and $30,000 a year; or exceeding four times the monthly income of borrowers who earn between $30,000 and $120,000 a year.

Sir, I have set out what the Government can do. Ultimately, however, borrowers will have to exercise some judgement – they should assess whether they can repay the loan, and also not take up the loan if the terms and conditions are unreasonable.

Sir, I thank Ms Sim Ann for the reply. Given that many who come to these so-called licensed credit companies are in need of money and are desperate, they would probably agree to any term that is on the paper. Worse, they would borrow from multiple credit companies. If they take a loan of $5,000 from each company, and they could easily chalk up a $20,000 loan from four moneylenders. As the interest rates are not capped for those who are earning above $20,000 a year, I think we want to look at how to protect, not so much the borrowers, but the immediate innocent of these borrowers – their families, wives, children, parents and grandparents. I hope that the Ministry can look at an interest rate structure for those earning above $20,000 per annum because they will be exposed as they would agree to anything when they sign.

Sir, I thank Mr Ong for raising his suggestions and concerns. Indeed, we are monitoring the industry very closely as well as public feedback and we are reviewing the various aspects of how the industry is working. This includes, for instance, the example that he raised: borrowers going to multiple lenders. We will be reviewing how best to strike a balance between protecting the interest of borrowers and yet at the same time maintaining reasonable access to credit.

7 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in view of the doubling of new cases of preschoolers diagnosed with developmental problems from 2005 to 2010 (a) what is the number of such children being placed on early childhood intervention programmes for the past five years; (b) what is the current number of children on the waiting list and the average waiting time before such preschoolers can be placed on these programmes; and (c) what are the enrolment figures at Special Education (SPED) schools for this group of preschoolers in the past five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MCYS shares Mr Ang Wei Neng's concern for the development of our young children, especially those with developmental challenges. Over the last five years, MCYS, the National Council of Social Service and the disability sector have worked together to provide more places in the Early Intervention Programme for Infants and Children (EIPIC). We have expanded capacity by 40%, growing from 1,350 places in 2006 to 1,900 today. The number of centres also increased from nine in 2006 to 14 today.

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness among parents on disability and developmental delays. At the same time, the MOH-Child Development Programme (CDP) has enhanced its capability and capacity on detection and diagnosis at a younger age. The number of pre-school children diagnosed with disability and developmental delays has almost doubled from about 1,300 in 2005 to 2,500 in 2010. Together, these factors have contributed to more children and younger children seeking intervention services.

For these reasons, there is still a shortage even though we have increased EIPIC places significantly. We now have about 500 children on the waitlist. The waiting time to enrol is on average six months. We recognise that it is important for the children to receive intervention services early, and are taking several steps to expand capacity urgently:

First, we are working with the Voluntary Welfare Organisations to open new EIPIC Centres. We have just opened a new centre last month with another new centre by April next year.

Second, we are working with existing EIPIC Centres to increasing their capacity by expanding their physical premises where possible, and increasing their manpower. To support them, my Ministry has introduced a new "Place-and-Train" scheme to allow centres to hire EIPIC teachers and therapists ahead of enrolment.

Third, MCYS and the Centre for Enabled Living have begun on a pilot this month to tap on selected private sector providers for EIPIC. We are starting with a small number of providers to evaluate the feasibility of tapping on the private sector for EIPIC in the longer term.

Sir, with these efforts, we will increase the number of EIPIC places by 700 more places by April next year. This should bring down the average time taken to enrol a child to three months. Incidentally, three months is also the period taken for the centre to work with the parents to assess a child's specific needs and discuss them with the parents before enrolment.

About 300 children enter SPED schools annually at the school-going age of seven years. Under the Enabling Masterplan, the committee will be studying how to enhance the transition process from EIPIC to SPED school for our children with developmental delays.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive reply as well as increasing capacity for the Early Intervention Programme. I note the Minister said that 2,500 children were diagnosed with developmental delay in 2010, but every year, about 300 to 500 of them enter the SPED schools. What happens to the rest? Have they received the Early Intervention Programme and become normal? Or did they not go to the SPED schools but went instead to the normal mainstream schools?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer to Mr Ang Wei Neng's question is that for those people who have gone through the programme and they are deemed to be able to join the normal schools, we will allow them to go to the normal schools. For some of our children that have gone through the programme, they may not be ready for the normal schools. They will then join the SPED schools. For another group of children, if they continue to need a bit more help to prepare them before going to the schools, we will continue to have them in the programme.

Sir, the Minister said that the Ministry is working with the VWOs to set up more centres. I would like to just ask for clarification. In working with the VWOs, does it mean that the Government is going to give more support to incentivise this group and to sustain their efforts?

Sir, allow me to clarify the framework which the Government is at the moment using to support the VWOs. First of all, for all the children that are going to the EIPIC Programme, there is a baseline subsidy of $300 for them. On top of that, we provide means-tested subsidies to help the children from the lower-income group up to the family with the 50th percentile income. For the VWOs that are in this sector, we will do what we can at the backend to support and help them build up the capacity. We are working with the VWOs to make sure that the services provided to the children in need remain affordable, particularly for those in the lower-income group.

Sir, I want to thank MCYS and commend MCYS for implementing and launching the hybrid funding formula in Early Intervention – the $300 fixed component plus the means-tested component. That is gracious and very appreciated by parents. I want to ask a supplementary question. Could the Minister consider looking into two key concerns in this space – one of which is the lack of scalability of the early intervention system, not just in trained manpower, but also in the management of early intervention, the whole works, in terms of the process and the system. The second concern is in making sure there is due diligence of the providers, as MCYS considers opening up more centres and also to extend this to the private providers. I think it is important that there is due diligence and that we do not look at capacity, just in terms of physical capacity, but also in terms of the actual intervention method so that it will really help the children and not harm the children

Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Ms Denise Phua for her suggestions and we fully agree with her suggestions. The first issue raised was scalability. Indeed, this is a challenge, not just for the EIPIC sector, but it is also a challenge for the larger social service sector. One of the issues with the social service sector is that there seems to be a certain optimal scale which we can provide the services that retains the personal touch and yet balances efficiency considerations. We are studying the models of other countries to see if there are other ideas that we can adopt that can allow the scaling up, without the intensive use of manpower resources.

At the same time, we are very cognisant that when dealing with children with special needs, inevitably we cannot be too efficient because there is a certain person-to-person interaction. The child-teacher ratios cannot be too high in order to give them the quality help required. The other challenge, in terms of scalability, is the management attention. Unlike a normal school where we can have a higher ratio of students to teachers, for many of these special needs places, we need a lot of management attention, a lot of teachers' attention. So, we must be careful to make sure that as we scale up, we do not lose this personal touch given to the students with special needs.

On the second suggestion regarding due diligence, we completely agree with Ms Denise Phua's observation that as we expand, in terms of building greater capacity, we will never, never want to sacrifice this, in terms of the quality given to them. At this point in time, we would also acknowledge that in this sector for early intervention, there are many programmes in the market which purportedly help the children. Some are more effective in some areas; others are more effective in other areas. So, in expanding our capacity, we must put in due diligence to ensure the quality is not compromised. It is on this basis that as we expand the service to include some of the private sector providers, we want to make sure we do it at a progressive manner that MCYS, together with NCSS, and the other stakeholders in the disability sector are able to go in, look at the programmes, audit some of the programmes and make sure that they are indeed relevant to the people that we intend to help before we continue to scale up.

Just for information, indeed, there were many private sector providers who were very eager to come in to join this programme. But we have taken a progressive approach to do it systematically, to expand the capacity systematically rather than to bring in everybody at the same time without the necessary control measures put in place. So we thank Ms Denise Phua for her suggestion.

8 Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower whether the Dependants' Protection Scheme will be extended beyond the current age of 60 years which has remained unchanged since the scheme started in 1989.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the hon. Member of Parliament, Mr Patrick Tay for his question.

The Dependants' Protection Scheme (DPS) is an affordable term insurance scheme aimed at providing young dependants with a sum of money to tide over the initial difficult period in the event of an insured member's permanent incapacity or death. DPS is especially needed when a breadwinner has young children and when an untimely death could mean the loss of many years of future income. The need for DPS declines as a breadwinner nears his retirement age as he would have built up his own savings, and his children would probably have begun to fend for themselves. In the event of any untimely death, he would have his own savings (including CPF savings) which could support his remaining dependants.

Moreover, extending DPS beyond age 60 would also mean substantially higher premiums. It would be better to safeguard this money for their retirement needs instead of allowing the purchase of further cover. Setting the age limit at 60 is to balance the need for insurance protection for his dependants versus his own need for adequate retirement savings. Further, members who wish to purchase life insurance beyond the age of 60 can still do so from private insurers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may thank the Minister of State for his reply. In view of the increasing life expectancy of Singaporeans in general as well as the fact that a lot of their CPF savings, like what he shared earlier, are tied down with housing, inadvertently if there is an occasion where the CPF member passes away, that may well cause severe financial hardships on the dependants and loved ones, further exacerbated by the fact that many of us do have children later in the years and, at the age of 60, some of us may still have children who are school-going. Therefore, my question to the Minister of State is whether, at this juncture, though he said that he is not reviewing it, his Ministry will consider reviewing it in the coming years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this issue actually has been debated quite extensively in the last Parliament and the concerns raised are not dissimilar to what the hon. Member of Parliament has indicated. As I mentioned, the challenge is really balancing between the insurance needs as well as retirement needs. And importantly, there will be significant increase in premiums after the age of 60. Let me explain why. The premiums have been kept largely affordable. Between the ages of 25 and 60, the total premium paid by an individual for coverage would amount to about $4,000. After that age, premiums go up, and they would have to pay between $800-$900 each year, several times higher than their current premium of $260, which is for the age of 55 to 59. Therefore, the premiums would have gone up and the total premium for the coverage from age 60 to 65 alone would cost another $4,000. In that sense, we do feel that individuals may want to consider perhaps at that stage, where their children are a lot older, place more of the emphasis on retirement needs. However, on his question of whether the Ministry would consider, I think this is something that we are open to consideration. We do note the extensive debate raised previously and if, indeed, this is something that there is a need for that, we would be open to reviewing extending the age beyond 60.

9 Mr David Ong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Manpower (a) what pace will the Ministry take to tighten the quota for foreign workers in Singapore; and (b) whether a more customised approach can be taken for SMEs, especially those in the food and beverage and food manufacturing industries which are facing more problems with the foreign worker quota, foreign worker levy and attracting Singaporeans to do the job.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as part of our effort to prevent an increasing reliance on foreign manpower, especially low-skilled workers, we have been increasing the foreign worker levy (FWL) for Work Permit and "S" Pass holders progressively since July 2010. As announced previously, the levies will continue to be raised in six-monthly intervals up to July 2013.

We have not, in fact, tightened the foreign worker quotas. What we have done, however, is to tighten the entry criteria for the various work passes to raise standards and improve quality. The Government will periodically review the need for further adjustments, while providing lead time for companies to adjust. However, this is not all we are doing to encourage companies to restructure and to reduce their dependence on labour. The more important solution is for companies to invest in productivity, innovation and in upgrading the skills of their workforce. The Government is providing full support for these productivity and Continuing Education and Training (CET) efforts.

We recognise the difficulties many SMEs face in recruiting Singaporeans. The Government has introduced specific initiatives to help SMEs re-engineer their operations and to reduce their reliance on labour. One example is the SME Productivity Roadmap (SME-PRO), a joint initiative by the WDA and SPRING Singapore, which provides a systematic, three-step approach for SMEs to improve their productivity. A dedicated portal provides SMEs access to information and resources to help them take concrete actions to raise productivity. One feature of the portal is an online productivity calculator for businesses to work out their productivity levels and to benchmark against industry levels.

In addition, SMEs can avail themselves of the numerous sectoral-based productivity initiatives that the National Productivity and Continuing Education Council (NPCEC) has rolled out in 16 industries. SMEs that are cash-constrained and require more time to phase in their productivity investments also have the option of converting part of their Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) into a cash payout of up to $21,000 each year. This means that small companies with lower taxable income can enjoy up to $1,750 cash grant for every $10,000 spent on the qualifying activities under the PIC to boost productivity and innovation.

The Government will also continue to work closely with our tripartite partners to facilitate the employment of local residents. For example, we have a significant untapped pool of inactive residents, especially women, who could be encouraged to rejoin the workforce if the jobs offered flexibility. The Flexi-Works! scheme offers a grant of $100,000 to help companies implement part-time or flexible work arrangements. NTUC's Women Development Secretariat also hosts regular job fairs targeted at women who are new to the workforce or who have not worked for a long time and are considering rejoining the workforce. Another local pool of potential labour that companies can tap on is the older residents. The Retirement and Re-employment Act will take effect from 1 January 2012 to provide more job opportunities for older workers who do want to work. Through the ADVANTAGE! Scheme, we offer a financial grant of up to $400,000 to help companies recruit, retain and re-employ older workers. SMEs, including those in the food and beverage and food manufacturing industries, should actively tap onto these assistance schemes to improve their jobs and workplace conditions to attract local residents to join these industries.

Lastly, I would urge business and industry associations, such as the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) and the Singapore Manufacturers' Federation (SMa), to work closely with their members to leverage on these productivity schemes and to share the best practices because there are companies out there who are managing this transition. In fact, I just had very meaningful dialogues with both ASME and SMa over the past two months and I have found their feedback and suggestions very useful. We will continue to engage all our business associations and support their endeavours to help the smaller companies.

I thank BG Tan for his explanation. I have also met up with these SMEs as well. I think most of them are feeling that they are being squeezed out. It is like a noose around their neck. Although they understand the rationale behind the Government's policies, they thought that the pace is a bit too quick for them. They could not find the workers to fill those jobs that were vacated from non-renewal of their foreign labour – some of them are skilled labour. For many, they are grappling now with their business survivability.

In that sense, I hope that the Government can look at customising the pace of implementation for this service industry. At the same time, for SMEs who need to relocate or re-deploy their resources, we also hope that the Ministry could also look at helping them, organise them and assist them, where appropriate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, those concerns raised by the hon. Member of Parliament are the same concerns – indeed, about the noose-tightening and so on, and whether the pace of introduction of these measures could be more deliberate. We are quite aware of these concerns. In the dialogues that we have had, we had shared with them our perspectives as well. We do really have a very wide range of initiatives. I think what is key, we feel, is that the associations could do a lot more. Companies could cluster together because they do share common practices. How do you share the best practices amongst them? And as an association and industry, how do you then help each other?

We have endeavoured to give lead time before these measures kick in and that is something that we will continue to do. In fact, many of these measures were made known prior to this. But I am not always sure the companies register this. One of the feedback, and we will act on this, is to make sure that we repeat these announcements quite clearly to make sure that even though the message is sent out, the receiver would hear it and understand that, because that will give them the lead time to work the transition. But we are mindful of this and we are constantly in touch with the companies. If there are measures that we can introduce or to adjust to help the transition, I think we will endeavour to do that. But an important thing to emphasise here really is that it is about helping our Singaporean companies manage this transition. The emphasis is on transitioning to a much more higher growth productivity in terms of relying on the same amount of labour or perhaps even a reduced number of workers. At the same time, ensuring that the SMEs continue to thrive is important because they provide jobs for many Singaporeans.

Sir, the Minister of State mentioned that the Ministry is tightening the criteria for bringing in foreign workers. I would like to ask whether the Ministry will consider actually setting higher skill requirements to ensure that the employers are responsible in that they are bringing in quality workers, and not just go for quantity. Instead of just tightening the criteria, would the Ministry also step up measures to ensure that abuse by the employers and the unfair recruitment practices will also be curbed?

Mr Speaker, Sir, indeed, I think many of the steps that we are putting in place are aimed at increasing the quality of the foreign workers and foreign talent coming into this country, and the measures are aimed at doing that. At the same time, I think we are also mindful of fair employment practices, which is why at the moment we are undergoing consultation with the various stakeholders on some of the measures, in terms of how do we then encourage employers to employ Singaporeans. So TAFEP will follow up, for example, on allegations of discriminatory hiring practices. So, if there is information, do let us know. We will contact the employers and review the firms hiring and employment practices. Employers are indeed reminded on the importance of having procedures in place to ensure hiring on merit. So TAFEP has experience with other unfair employment practices and we believe that going down this path would yield substantive results. And I think raising awareness, as we have done so at various occasions, would also remind many companies which may not always be very conscious to be mindful of this particular approach in terms of employing Singaporeans.

10 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the number of gamblers turning to the National Council on Problem Gambling for help as a result of casino-related gambling debts has risen between 2008 and 2011; (b) whether the Voluntary Welfare Organisations recorded an increase in the number of casino-related and problem gambling cases; and (c) what plans does the Ministry have to ensure that the ill-effects of gambling arising from casino addiction are stopped.

Mr Speaker, Sir, MCYS shares the concerns of many Members in this Chamber on the issues related to problem gambling. Problem gambling is a multi-faceted problem as studies have shown that problem gamblers participate in a range of gambling products. The gambling participation of problem gamblers is an issue that MCYS closely monitors.

We have previously conducted two gambling participation surveys in 2005 and 2008. The earlier studies indicated that both probable pathological and problem gambling rates among Singapore residents are between 1% and 2%. We are conducting our next survey, as we speak, and will share the findings when ready next year.

The opening of the casinos in 2010 has two possible effects. One, it creates new demand for casino gambling, and two, it substitutes previous demand for casino gambling. Even before the local casinos opened, demand for casino gambling existed as shown in our 2008 gambling participation survey where about one in 10 respondents reported participating in casino gambling overseas.

Although there is demand for casino gambling even before the local casinos opened, it is now easier for local gamblers to visit the casinos. Coupled with our public education efforts to encourage help-seeking, it is not surprising that more individuals and families are coming forward to seek help for gambling-related problems.

We see more individuals and families coming forward to seek help − this is the first step to recovery. There are counselling and treatment services at the Tanjong Pagar Family Service Centre and the National Addictions Management Service (NAMS) respectively. The total number of clients seen by these two agencies was 304 in 2008, and has been increasing. From January to August 2011, the number of cases seen was 568.

Individuals and families can also utilise casino exclusion measures. In terms of casino exclusions, as at 30 September 2011, there were 750 Family Exclusion Orders, 28,600 Third-Party Exclusions and 29,000 Self-Exclusions in force. The number of casino exclusion cases has also been increasing since the IRs opened.

The National Council on Problem Gambling (NCPG) has also engaged other legal gambling operators to implement exclusions. For example, individuals can already apply to exclude themselves from jackpot rooms in Singapore. These include those run by SAFRA and NTUC. They can also exclude themselves from the Telebet accounts of Singapore Pools and Singapore Turf Club. Families that have requested for casino exclusion for their family members are informed of these other exclusion options. There are, however, gambling forms such as 4D and Toto for which exclusion is difficult to enforce as the gambler can easily circumvent any exclusion by asking someone else to bet on his or her behalf.

Voluntary Self-Exclusion is available to both Singapore residents and foreigners. Employers of foreign workers can facilitate the applications for their workers to voluntarily exclude themselves from the local casinos. They can do so via the NCPG website or in hardcopy by hand or by registered mail.

Foreign workers may also apply for exclusion in person at the NCPG office or the Migrant Workers Centre. As at 30 September 2011, we have 22,700 Self-Exclusions by foreigners. This is encouraging but we can do more and NCPG will continue to monitor the take-up rate for exclusion by foreign workers.

NCPG will continue to strengthen gambling counselling and help services. The Council is currently looking into providing a wider suite of services in terms of integrated credit, legal and financial advisory services. The integrated services will better equip families to minimise the harm, especially financial harm, from heavy gambling as well as problem gambling.

My Ministry will continue to closely monitor to ensure the efficacy of existing social safeguards. We are prepared to strengthen the safeguards, if necessary, especially to protect the vulnerable groups in our society.

I like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and for realising that there is indeed a lot of terrain to have to combat where gambling is concerned. My supplementary question is one to do with self-exclusion. I think self-exclusion requires a sense of discipline on the part of the person to say I do not want to gamble. Some addicts do not have that discipline. Neither do people who are attracted to the lure of gambling have or may not have that discipline. So rather than be over-reliant on self-exclusions, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would see how we can deter or reduce the lure of gambling, for example, advertisements put in the papers by the casinos of their latest gadgets or gambling machines. Alternatively, a reduction on their ability to advertise big wins. My supplementary question is based on discussions with NGOs who have disclosed to me their dealings with problem-gambling addicts and that the solution is really to reduce the lure of gambling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for his comments. Indeed, we agree with him that self-exclusion requires much discipline on the part of the individual. But we also know that not every individual will have the necessary self-discipline because if he has it in the first place, he may never get into trouble at all.

Beyond individual self-discipline, I think it is equally important for us and especially for those people that get into harm's way, to have the support of the family and the society, which is why for all the pathological gambling cases, all the problem gambling cases, it is so important for us to have the supportive framework that includes the closest family members, the society and friends. One of the ways where we can do this and improve upon this is that when we see somebody close to us who displays signs of being troubled by gambling-related issues, we should quickly highlight this and assist the person to get help as soon as possible before the problem becomes worse. And this is the same line of defence that we would like to have beyond the individual to the family to the society. All of us will need to play a part and work closely to prevent this problem from getting worse.

We also agree that we have to deter this lure of gambling and the glamour that seems to come with it, with misleading advertisements. Indeed, we have in place measures to make sure advertisements do not target our local population. I am sure we will all recall that not too long ago, there was an operator who targeted some of our people from the heartlands and we had taken decisive measures to stop this. With a recent change, any advertisements will come under MCYS to allow us to have a more direct influence over these. And we will not allow operators to misrepresent with advertising of those rare big wins to lure people in. All these are necessary measures and there will be many more of such issues that we must handle to educate our people on the dangers of gambling.

Indeed, from the feedback of the VWOs, in order to reduce gambling, we have to take a comprehensive approach that must include education from a young age to the dangers of gambling, to the wider issues of how we can help family members detect signs that their family members are getting into trouble, or even help to educate the rest of our population to look out for signs of problem gambling amongst friends and colleagues in the workplace. Prevention is better than cure. When we see something is not going right, we should all work together to try and provide help as much as we can before the person falls deeper into problem gambling.

We are concerned with this issue, with or without the casinos. As I shared with Members just a while ago, even before the advent of the casinos, we already had 1% to 2% who suffer from pathological or problem gambling. We are watching this very closely and we want to continue to ensure that we have a situation that we can manage, although we may never be able to eradicate gambling from society totally.

Sir, two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister: for those 568 who sought help, what is the success rate? Have they been able to eradicate their gambling habits? Secondly, I have a different view from Mr Christopher de Souza: I wonder if the Ministry would promote this exclusion – whether it is a family exclusion or a third-party exclusion – more intensely in the community so that we can get more of our residents to be on this exclusion list and then, to prevent them from going to the casinos.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we thank Mr Liang Eng Hwa for his questions. On the first issue of the success rate, I think I will not want to be complacent because the way we look at the issue is that even if a person has "recovered" at that moment in time, the person can always relapse or succumb to it again unless we continue to provide the same support at the individual, family and society levels. We have quite encouraging stories of people who have come forward to seek help and they have gone on to a better life. But from my own personal experience, I know that gambling is not a problem that might just go away because someone has sought treatment at that point in time. It is something that we have to be continually watchful of.

A recent programme on Channel NewsAsia was very illuminating. There was this story of a person who got into trouble, went to seek help, got out of trouble, repaid all his debts, got married, lived a happy family life. And one day, he was just tempted to go in to the casinos and he fell into the trap again. So, we have to be very, very conscious about this and never, never be complacent that just because someone has recovered, he will move on from there. We have to watch this very carefully −

Major General, one minute left, please.

On the second issue of exclusion, yes, indeed we are expanding our efforts to encourage people, especially those from the at-risk group, to voluntarily subscribe to self-exclusion. We are working with employers to facilitate self-exclusion for foreign workers, even at the point of time before they enter Singapore, that is, when they apply for the permits. With this in place, we hope to continue our efforts to educate our people and provide the necessary support to continue to ensure that we manage this problem to the best of our ability. But it is a never-ending challenge.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answer to Question No 12 on the Order Paper is reproduced in the Appendix (Pg 517). Question No 11 has been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17th 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, I speak in support of the motion. In the last few days, Members have highlighted issues of concerns to Singaporeans: housing, healthcare, education, transport, the care of the elderly and the low-income, amongst others, and made many important suggestions on the way forward. I also thank the many MPs who spoke in support of MOE's focus on the student-centric values-driven education. I appreciate your many good suggestions which MOE will study together with other inputs. I was tempted to name every Member who had spoken but, at the last count, it was 20. I am encouraged by your support. I want to assure the hon. Minister for Finance that I will not ask for a bigger budget unless it is necessary. We will do what is best for the whole of Singapore.

In the last few months, I have met many parents, teachers and students. I have learnt a great deal, so please allow me to share some of this. I was encouraged to see students at our pre-university seminar so engaged in re-imaging Singapore, while those at the recent polytechnic forum freely shared their ideas, such as aspirations about the Singapore Dream. I have also met many different groups of students, including those in my constituency and at kopi chats. They asked me deep questions. How do we fulfil our aspirations? How can we contribute to Singapore? What kind of society will Singapore become? What is Singapore culture and what is the ideal Singaporean? I very heartened by their passion and thoughtful questions. As many Members have pointed out, the success of our education system is vital to Singapore's success. But the students' questions raised an even more fundamental point: they cannot fulfil their aspirations unless Singapore succeeds as a nation, and success has to go beyond the material to providing a deeper sense of fulfilment and well-being for all Singaporeans.

So, while this House has been and will continue to debate the specifics of many policies and programmes, the fundamental question remains: how can we best ensure the survival and success of Singapore, and improve the lives of Singaporeans? This is not a question that can ever be answered once and for all. It is a question we need to keep answering from one generation to another, from one government to another, from one year to another.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister highlighted the key challenges ahead and expressed deep confidence in our future if we continue to work towards an inclusive society, build a vibrant economy and have constructive politics. Listening to the Prime Minister, I think the best words to describe the style of government we seek is "citizen-centric government", which engages and works with citizens to improve the lives of all Singaporeans, based on values such as meritocracy, multi-racialism, hard work and self-reliance, creating opportunities for all to succeed. Economic growth, never the end goal, has enabled us to achieve holistic development as a nation − in our people and our social bonds, our defence and security, our environment and our heritage.

Taking a step back, the most critical challenge that the Prime Minister raised is for Singapore to embark on a new creative phase in our nation-building journey. This involves drive and vision, a spirit of innovation and imagination, a spirit of excellence and teamwork, a spirit of hard work and inclusion, so that we may continue to find and create new opportunities and make new breakthroughs in order to continue to improve the lives of Singaporeans. This also involves forging a new consensus about the core values and ideals that we subscribe to as a nation. We are a plural people. A modern, urban, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society on a small island. Our diversity can be a tremendous strength, but do we have a sense of unity as Singaporeans tied to a common destiny even though our views and our concerns, our doubts and our fears may be different? It is critical that we do.

Indeed, this question of shared values and ideals that the President referred to may be the more important enterprise in our nation building because if we do not get our domestic ship in order, there is little hope of our succeeding to navigate the challenges and opportunities of a volatile world.

The Prime Minister has spoken at length on the critical need for good government and to deepen the trust between the Government and our people. Implicit in what he said and what many Members of this House have said, is also the importance of getting three key relationships right: the relationship of self to others; the relationship of Singapore to the world; and, the relationship of the future to the past. We need to build a consensus about the values, ideas and ideals that underpin these relationships as they will frame our policies and national dialogues. Please allow me to elaborate.

Over the centuries, societies grappled with how to value the individual and how to value the collective. Some societies regard the individual as supreme and, indeed, some believe that societies exist to enable the individual to fully express himself. This allows diverse views and creative individuals to flourish. This respect for the individual underpins key social institutions, such as the rule of law, the rights to property, democracy and the market economy. Yet, an excessive focus on the individual – his rights, his needs, his wants, his aspirations, his achievements – will ultimately be detrimental both to the individual as well as to society. Such a person is self-absorbed and self-centred. He attributes his achievements to his own brilliance or diligence. As one cosmetic advertisement puts it "因为我值得", that is, "Because I deserve it" or "I'm worth it".

Such a cult of individualism also breeds an "us versus them" mentality, because while the successful in such a society may look at the weak or unsuccessful as "losers" who deserve their fate, the unsuccessful will resent and feel unfairly disadvantaged. This may give rise to a culture of envy, blame and a mentality of entitlement. A society of self-centred individuals is one which must, in the end, be highly stratified, fragmented, with a culture of cynicism and instant gratification. Such a Singapore would lose its exceptional quality of discipline and unity, which has, since Independence, allowed us as a nation to take difficult and tough choices in the near term in order to succeed and prevail over adversity in the longer term.

Matters are even more serious when we deal with groups. A close-minded focus on the uniqueness and rights of certain groups or causes will trigger and provoke deep divisive forces within a plural society. The risks of conflicts along lines of race, language or religion will never go away. As our society becomes more diverse, there may be new cleavages based on the advent of different interest groups, each holding different views, advocating for different causes, clamouring to advance their beliefs − often at the expense of others. The line which separates vibrant diversity and fractious fragmentation is a thin one.

We must therefore embrace both the individual and our collective. We must respect the individual and affirm the worth of each citizen in an inclusive way. Each of us is unique – in temperament, strengths and abilities. Singapore society must harness the unique strengths of each individual and protect the weak and vulnerable. Our values and ideals must include a commitment of the successful to help the less fortunate, to leave no man behind.

Let us recognise and enable bright and creative individuals to do their best works − the visionary leaders, entrepreneurs, inventors, scientists, thinkers, writers, artists, whose ideas lead to breakthroughs in society and which benefit us all. Let us also recognise the different aspirations, strengths and abilities of our people. As the Malay proverb goes, "Tukang tidak membuang kayu" or a craftsman never throws away any piece of wood. Just as every piece of wood has its character, everyone has his strengths and intrinsic worth. In our education system, we recognise the different potential and abilities of all our students, provide different pathways to allow each to go as far as possible. We celebrate their achievements, big or small, in different arenas.

I recently met students from our polytechnics and ITE who had just returned from the World Skills Competition in London. It is also known as the Olympics of Skills. I am very proud of their achievements. One student, Shunner Leong, won the Gold Medal in Beauty Therapy, while another student, Noel Ng, won the Medallion for Excellence in the Hairdressing category. Talking to them, I am deeply impressed by their knowledge, self-confidence and aspirations. And after days of intense debate in this House, if Members feel that you need a good haircut or a beauty therapy, I highly recommend them to you.

We must have good schools in every neighbourhood. For children with special needs, let us help them to achieve their best and to lead meaningful lives, as Ms Denise Phua and Ms Low Yen Ling so passionately argued for.

Beyond recognising individual differences and strengths, we must find practical ways to make our diversity positive and productive. A good school is one that develops each child according to his strengths. A good organisation, as Peter Drucker noted, makes individual strengths productive and weaknesses redundant. A good society harnesses the diverse strengths of each individual to enable each to be more than he can ever be alone and, at the same time, protects the weak and vulnerable. How do we achieve this?

First, let us celebrate teamwork. While heroic acts of individuals capture our imagination, it takes a team to accomplish anything significant. Steve Jobs could not have brought the iPhone or iPad to the market without the collective efforts of designers, engineers, technicians and many others who toiled behind the scenes. No football team has ever won by fielding only one super player.

I believe Singapore will continue to throw up unique and outstanding individuals who will make a disproportionate impact on the world stage. But Singapore goes beyond individuals. We are well-positioned as an innovative nation because we can harness the power of large-scale innovation that requires collaboration and teamwork and a drawing together of sophisticated systems. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the premium that comes with an excellence at a systems level.

Second, we must enlarge and deepen our common space, and have a unifying purpose based on shared ideals and values. Diversity is a strength only when our common space is not only large but also growing, and when it is based not only on shared experiences and daily interaction, but also on shared purpose, ideals and values as well as inter-personal and trusted bonds woven through mutual respect and consideration between individuals, groups and communities.

Third, let us cheer and spur each other on. We must celebrate success not just of ourselves and our own children's, but also those of fellow Singaporeans and their children. We must not begrudge those who have worked hard and done well, or seek to cut them down like tall poppies. Instead, we should find avenues for our children and ourselves to be the best that we can be and, at the same time, encourage and recognise others when they in turn try to be the best that they can be. As Confucius said, "己欲立而立人，己欲达而达人", that is, "The benevolent man establishes for others, achievements he wishes for himself. He brings others to reach goals which he wishes to achieve for himself."

Fourth, those who are successful should not forget what they owe their success to and give back to the broader society. Let us promote a spirit of giving and make volunteerism, philanthropy, corporate social responsibility and social enterprises a way of life, a part of the Singaporean DNA. For in giving, we receive.

I thank the many individuals and foundations who have so generously donated to our schools, institutions of higher learning, and the thousands of professionals who served on their boards, councils and school advisory committees. Tens of thousands of parents are serving in our parent support groups. Their efforts will help us make every school a good school. Many others serve as community and grassroots volunteers, in various special schools, volunteer welfare organisations and other charitable causes. Many Singaporeans donate generously to Community Chest and other causes.

They have a sense of joint stewardship for Singapore society. The success of Singapore and the character of our society depend not just on the Government, but on every Singaporean. This is why MOE seeks not just to develop each child to his or her full potential, but also to prepare the active citizen, concerned about the public good and for others in society.

Fifth, as Mdm Halimah Yacob reminded us yesterday about the pitfalls, we must not treat those we help as helpless beneficiaries, but to look to what they can contribute. We must not diminish their sense of worth and dignity. A few days ago, I was delighted to present a certificate of service to a 72-year-old lady who was serving those more elderly than her at the Kampong Senang Home. One of my Tampines residents in his 50s, struggling to bring up his grandchild as his daughter had just lost her husband, declined any help despite my persistence. I was glad that he eventually accepted a bursary for his other child for his study because the child had done well. These Singaporeans remind me of the moving image of the Japanese quake victim who apologised to her rescuers for the inconvenience she caused. I admire their sense of personal responsibility and ruggedness, which we must cultivate even as we grow a society that aspires to leave no one behind. A caring society and rugged individuals must go hand-in-hand.

Finally, let us temper our competitive instincts with an abundance mentality. There are some goods which are "exclusive" – if I have it, you cannot have it. Yet there are many others where my enjoyment not only does not deprive you of it, but actually enhances yours. A telephone system is valuable when many more people have access to it. There are many areas where we can all enjoy more – good books, music, knowledge, nature. Civic virtues, like keeping our streets clean, raise the standard for all.

The more gracious, kind and giving our society is, the greater our sense of joy and well-being. There is something in the spirit of man which derives its greatest pleasure by contributing to the lives of others. Indeed, this is what makes teachers so special – the further in life their students get to, the greater is the evidence of their own success and their sense of joy!

In short, let us open our hearts – to respect and appreciate everyone, to strive and cooperate with others, to celebrate our collective achievements, to create new opportunities for the future, and to cultivate new sources of fulfilment in life. Let Singaporeans be known to be a people with an abundance mentality – an abundance of helping others succeed, an abundance of kindness and giving, and an abundance of gratitude. In this way, we can value the individual, affirm his worth, as well as value the collective and build a cohesive society.

The second set of relationships is between Singapore and the world. We need to value the global, and value what is ours, what is local.

Lord Palmerston, English statesman of the 19th century, once said, "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." It would do us well to take this to heart and understand that independence and success for Singapore lies in being uniquely relevant to the world. Our existence as a country and a people must be beneficial to the world.

We must stay open in learning from others but, equally, we must be bold to be different and unique where that would be right for Singapore. We must think through issues thoroughly, and not just copy and say, "why wouldn't we be like country X", or "let's do what country Y is doing". Certainly, we must be humble to learn, but, surely, Singaporeans must be the ones who understand Singapore's context, constraints, vulnerabilities, capacities, capabilities and opportunities best.

What will make us distinctive? In essence, it is about building on and turning whatever we have into strengths.

In earlier years, we promoted tolerance and understanding in our multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-cultural society. We have important safeguards against extremist elements. Today, few nations have achieved our level of racial and religious harmony. Let us continue to harness this heritage, so that our children can connect comfortably with every race and culture in the world. Let our Inter-faith Dialogue be a model, let us be a voice of reason and responsibility. Let us strive to be a nation where diverse people and good ideas can flourish, because we are not torn by deep vested interests or sectarian conflicts.

Because we are small, we naturally look outwards, learning from and appreciating the best the world has to offer – whether it is in cuisine, music, the arts or the sciences. We access the great ideas of science and the great works of art that speak to the human condition, across time and space. It connects us with people of the world, past and present. By encouraging our children to learn their mother tongue and other languages, they acquire another window to access their cultural heritage of the past and the cultural offerings of the world.

Building on this, let us celebrate and promote our local cuisines, our local arts, music and literature; give opportunities to our budding writers and artists to capture the idiosyncrasies and flavours of Singapore. I would love to see our teachers and writers creating stories for our students, stories that they can instinctively resonate with. I applaud what the NAC would be doing to develop our arts.

Let us encourage our companies, to transcend the constraints of our small markets, by innovating. The old adage that necessity is the mother of invention is best illustrated in our water constraints. Our water problem has stimulated innovative companies. Our architects are well placed to design for compact living, our engineers well positioned to provide green urban solutions. Let us make Singapore a city that works, so that it may be a crucible for innovation.

And small though Singapore is, let us value and preserve our natural heritage – our Bukit Timah Nature Reserve has more species of trees than even the whole of North America, unbelievable that may sound. I am glad our Bukit Timah Nature Reserve is now part of the ASEAN Heritage.

By embracing our local heritage and by staying open to what the world can offer, we can deepen Singaporean's sense of identity and self-confidence. It allows us to be a Singaporean rooted in our country, yet global in outlook, equipped to reap opportunities in the world. It makes us different and distinctive.

The third set of relationships is with respect to time. To live well in the present, we need to know the past and have a sense of the future.

There is an ancient saying by the famous poet Avaiyaar,"தொன்மை மறவேல்" "thonmai maravel". I hope Vikram will approve of my pronunciation. The literal meaning is "Do not forget the past". We should value the past, treasure our culture, and have a sense of where we come from.

Our fortunes and our history are inextricably intertwined with those of our neighbours and our world. The likely shift of the economic centre of gravity towards Asia will bring about new changes, and our young must understand our past to appreciate the broader forces at work.

In the 1840s, when Singapore was thriving as a port, pundits predicted, including our own business leaders, our decline when Hong Kong was ceded to the British. In the 1960s, critics called the Jurong Industrial Estate "Goh's Folly". Yet, we have defied the odds.

I opened the MOE Heritage Centre in September. It traces the history of our education system over the years. It was touching for me to see how, in the past, despite the meagre resources, clans, missionaries, and local Malay and Indian communities did their best to support parents and educators to give the children a good education. It was instructive to see how our education system evolved as our economic and social circumstances changed. One teacher told me she could not believe we raised the achievements in Mathematics for our students within a few short years, once we all put our minds to it. Many teachers came away feeling very inspired.

A sense of history gives us not only the perspective of how we got here but also the confidence to forge ahead. I applaud MICA for embarking on a collective memory project to celebrate our 50th Anniversary of Independence, and MICA and MND for preserving and conserving our heritage sites. These are critical, for emotional bonds among our people come from shared memories, especially memories of happiness, of crises and of triumphs. We should do more to understand our history and honour our pioneers and our earlier generation, as Mr Seng Han Thong and many others reminded us.

At the same time, we must seek to leave a legacy for our children. We must leave enough resources for them, and the best gift we can give them is a good education. As a small nation, we have to make our way in the world as it is, not what we wish it to be. Globalisation, technological advancements, changing demographics and shifting expectations will profoundly transform the world around us. We can expect new challenges but also new opportunities.

The future belongs to the nations that can stay ahead and respond effectively to the rapidly changing environment, and are ready for the future. This demands deep thinking and sound long-term policies. So even as we work through immediate issues, let us not lose sight of the future.

Let us build our capacity, as a society, for long-term planning, for the sake of future generations. It is not good enough that we have survived and succeeded up to now.

Survival and success are inextricably intertwined in the case of Singapore. We have to keep working the ingredients and adjust the formulas that will assure survival and success for the coming generations.

I am optimistic that we will succeed in our next creative phase of nation building, with a citizen-centric Government, driven by shared values, committed to working with citizens to improve the lives of all Singaporeans. At the same time, Singapore's success in the next phase also depends on the character of our society and what citizens do to uphold the public good. I believe Singapore will succeed if we have both good Government and exceptional Singaporeans.

Singaporeans with the determination and creative impulses to succeed, a sense of responsibility and appreciation for others, a mentality of abundance; Singaporeans with a strong identity, rooted in Singapore, yet global in outlook; Singaporeans with a sense of their own history, and a sense of confidence and optimism about the future.

I call on Singaporeans to continue to boldly open our hearts, and expand our vision; and to embrace seemingly contradictory values in framing these three key relationships.

When we have the trust between our Government and our people, and the right relationships between self and others; our nation and the world; our past and our future, we will have an inclusive and supportive society, an enterprising and creative people, and a resolute and resilient nation. We will have created the conditions for all Singaporeans to continue to pursue their dreams and aspirations.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion of thanks to our President.

Last Monday, the President spoke of the need to build an inclusive nation that all of us can be proud of. He spoke of what Singapore had achieved, and urged the nation to unite to build our future in a new environment.

Indeed, Singapore has done well. In the 46 years since our Independence, Singapore has achieved tremendous economic success. We did not grow our economy for its own sake, but to let our people improve lives, and aspire beyond bread and butter.

I remember in 2009, when we were hit by the recession, I could sense deep anxiety and uncertainty all around. Many of us were worried about jobs. Some of my friends were even advised to take long, unpaid leave so as to keep their jobs for as long as possible. Stories of other Singaporeans being retrenched or counselled out were unsettling and all that we could do was to keep our heads down and worked hard. Then within a short span of time, in 2010, our economy was on the up again. All of a sudden, friends around me started to talk about looking for new jobs that promised to be even more exciting. Dreams and aspirations slowly crept back into the conversations.

What this showed me was that our economy must remain strong so that we can continue to bring bread back to the table. It also showed me that once we achieved that, we can then have the capacity to think and act on achieving the higher order things in life.

So far, Singapore has done well in ensuring that our economics and politics are right, and we should continue to do so. But as we continue to strive for growth, I am confident that we have the capacity to do more to help those in need. As the Prime Minister had set out in his speech yesterday, one of our key objectives should be to strive for a society in which no one is left behind.

Our system gives everyone opportunities to rise according to his or her own talents. But it is not enough to create opportunities for those who are able. We must also help those who are vulnerable. Singapore must be judged not just by the heights achieved by the most capable amongst us, but also by how high our society is able to lift those who need more help.

This goal will require all Singaporeans to work together. The Government does not have the sole responsibility to do so but it has a large responsibility − to help and uplift the destitute, the elderly, the disabled and the less fortunate. There is much that has to be done, but today my speech will focus on helping our elderly.

I pay particular attention to elderly issues, because one in three residents in MacPherson is aged 50 years old and above. But our entire nation is also ageing.

When Singapore first gained Independence in 1965, we were a young nation. The earliest reported median age of our population was 20 years old in 1970. Today, this median age has almost doubled to about 38 years old. Our population age pyramid is therefore inverting and we need to embrace this reality that more needs to be done to take care of older Singaporeans.

The older generation of Singaporeans made Singapore what it is today. We have a moral responsibility to take care of them, to help them enjoy fulfilling lives in their silver years. We will all grow old, some sooner than others. This is a harsh reality of life, but we can make it less harsh.

Therefore, I will speak on two key issues pertaining to older Singaporeans, the first being healthcare.

We have a comprehensive healthcare system, but healthcare remains a major concern for many Singaporeans. The elderly, in particular, deserve more help because they face particular challenges.

First, we need more health and medical care as we age, and seniors take a longer time to recuperate. Studies have also shown that seniors above the age of 65 years are about two to three times more likely to require healthcare.

Second, the elderly tend to have low income or no income. To save money, some may postpone or forgo sorely-needed medical treatment. Worse, with shrinking families, elderly parents with chronic illnesses have fewer children to help shoulder the burden.

Just recently, I met an elderly couple during a block visit. The husband suffers from renal impairment, hyperlipidaemia and mild dementia. He could hardly get off his bed. The wife suffers from diabetes and white blood cell disorder. However, both of them are not receiving or visiting the doctors to receive the medical attention that they need because they are worried about high medical fees. This is despite the subsidies, and despite their Medisave, which is actually depleting. Their only child, a son, is a low-income worker, and is unable to contribute much. Shockingly, the elderly lady even said that she is prepared to let her husband die. I am now working to get them help from Medifund.

This case shows that healthcare costs can weigh heavily on many elderly. This may even deter them from seeking treatment early, increasing the risk of complications that may cost them more later and, worse, endanger their lives. Some elderly may also not fully understand the range of different schemes available to help them. Many cannot tell the difference between Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. Sometimes, on probing an elderly Singaporean's healthcare difficulties further do we then realise that they could have benefited from MediShield and Medifund much earlier.

I applaud the enhanced subsidy schemes and MOH's recent pledge to improve financing policies to help needy patients. This will no doubt ease the mind of more elderly Singaporeans. But we should continue to monitor and review such schemes to meet the changing needs of our population and make available new essential treatments. We should also strengthen the communications of available help schemes to our elderly Singaporeans. For instance, financial counselling and advisory on payment options and financial assistance schemes should be offered to elderly patients upfront, without them having to ask, so that they, or their caregivers, could make a more informed decision.

We now have improved financing policies, but still, we hear cries for more support and I think we can do more. Specifically, just like how Singapore citizen children in Government primary schools need not pay for primary school fees (miscellaneous fees not included), might this House also consider taking the bold step of providing free basic healthcare to elderly Singaporeans in public healthcare settings?

In a time where the term "new normal" is abuzz, perhaps it is also time to re-consider the type of social compact we want for this era. I fully appreciate that we should uphold the principle of self-reliance and the value of family support. They remain cornerstones of our society. But just as importantly, our society has a duty to take care of those who have done so much for Singapore. The question to ask ourselves then is: How much is this generation of young Singaporeans willing to give of ourselves, to support the older generation, especially those who came from the founding generation of Singapore citizens?

The President highlighted that we want a fair and just society that ensures the well-being of every citizen. Therefore, we must be fair to those who have contributed and be just in caring for those who need more help, or have less access to resources. Perhaps, this is an area that should be considered. And if it would be considered, calibration of details can be explored further.

Mr Speaker, I will now speak in Mandarin on another issue concerning older Singaporeans.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 527 for Vernacular Speeches.] Many older Singaporeans, especially those who have not reached their retirement age, hope to continue to have a stable job. Among them, some may enjoy working and want to keep active; some have no choice but to press on as they need to survive and support their families. Regardless of the reason, it is important that we must ensure ample and fair employment opportunities for older Singaporeans who wish to work.

Unfortunately, many older Singaporeans face a greater challenge than others when looking for a job. According to a report released by the Ministry of Manpower and Department of Statistics, the median unemployment period for an older Singaporean was 12 weeks, four weeks longer than the median unemployment period for all citizens. Many of these older Singaporeans who wish to work but cannot find a job for a long time become what is known as "discouraged" workers. They believed a job hunt is futile.

A few months ago, I came across one such "discouraged" worker. He is a MacPherson resident in his late 50s and was not English-educated. I had seen him around MacPherson a couple of times, and one day went up to chat with him. Through our conversations, I found out that he used to work as a driver, but had been unemployed for a while. Despite that, he would still put on his work clothes every morning, leave the house and then roam around. Why is this so? Because he did not want his wife to know that he was unemployed and worry about him. He also told me that he had been applying and going for job interviews, but to no avail. There were instances when he almost clinched a job, but then he had to declare his age, and afterwards, he would be greeted with "We'll call you back". They never called him back.

He is still looking for a job and we are trying to help him through the CDC. Still, it is tough-going and more needs to be done.

I believe his case is not unique in Singapore. If we want to build an inclusive society, where all Singaporeans can progress together, then we need to do more to help people like this resident of mine. Such efforts cannot be solely dependent on older job-seekers. Employers and the Government must give their strong support too.

Older workers have to upgrade themselves to become employable. Sometimes they have to retrain for a completely different type of work. The Government has introduced various programmes to encourage workers to upskill and retrain. This is heartening and I support these initiatives. But I would urge the administrators of such job programmes to be more patient with older workers, who may need more time to complete. It is not easy for someone who had been working 30 years in one field to switch to a completely different one. For those who never had an English education, this can become even more challenging. They need to be gently counselled to become willing to make the transition, and gradually guided to gain confidence to take on new and different jobs.

Employers and the Government should work more closely together too. For practical reasons, the Government has tightened up the control over foreign workers. Hence, older workers will become a precious human resource. Employers should therefore change their mindset and attitude and see these workers as human assets with rich life experiences.

The Government had also rolled out programmes to encourage employers to hire older Singaporeans. For instance, the Advantage! Fund is a financial scheme offered to companies to redesign jobs and adapt working environment in better enabling older Singaporean workers to do their work and achieve their potentials. Hence, I hope that the Government will continue to encourage employers to make the necessary adjustments through a comprehensive policy framework.

I believe through the collaborative efforts of the tripartite partners, we can help the older Singaporeans who wish to work to have a steady job and income. They should not need to worry about the future.

(In English): From older Singaporeans, let me now turn to young Singaporeans. In his Address, the President spoke extensively about engaging the young. He urged the young "to work with citizens, young and old, to improve on what you have inherited, and keep on transforming our nation for the better".

Indeed the young are doing so in many different ways. In MacPherson, young people have come up with initiatives to make the district a cleaner, greener place, to help the less fortunate by giving their homes a fresh coat of paint, to cultivate the arts by coming up with Singapore's very first community art gallery, to save stray cats and even to push for plans for the rejuvenation of the entire estate. I am sure that all over Singapore, there are youths similarly involved in such ventures.

We need to empower and challenge our youths more. We need to create opportunities and provide resources for young Singaporeans to hone our skills, gain precious experience and contribute positively and tangibly to our society. We should engage youths beyond forums and dialogues, instead to take it further and involve young people to co-create and achieve our vision of Singapore.

Some have expressed concerns that young people do not know the lessons of our history and the realities of life. They say that we have romantic notions of what Singapore can become, and risk losing the qualities that have led to our success.

There is no need to worry. MOE's National Education lessons have been successful. We may not have experienced the actual historical events but we understand that our forefathers had made many sacrifices to bring Singapore to where it is today. We know the challenges of our geopolitical circumstances and we do not forget the lessons of our history.

But we also sincerely believe that Singapore can be better. We believe that Singapore can be a fairer place, where individuals can aspire to do their best regardless of their family background. That Singapore can offer more opportunities, especially for those who do not take the straight and narrow road, but who have different talents in a multiplicity of fields. That Singapore can be more inclusive, so that all can share in the benefits of our development.

Hence, while young people know that earlier generations have done a lot of good for Singapore, we also want to be able to forge our own path ahead. There is a ferment in our society. Young people are supporting different causes and expressing diverse views on a range of issues.

The Government and society need not over-react to the loud and sometimes strident debate, especially on the Internet. Sure, there should be guiding principles and even a code of conduct. But robust debate or even disagreement on issues shows that young Singaporeans are genuinely concerned about the future of Singapore − our Singapore.

We should let things take their natural course. Young people will gradually figure out for ourselves the way forward, by trying out new ideas and working out which sacred cows can be slayed, and ultimately pushing out the boundaries of what Singapore can achieve.

Our Government and society should continue to invest in education, to prepare the next generation for the world of tomorrow. They should also emphasise values, for values will anchor us as a society even as global tides of change sweep past us. They should also build strong institutions, to help sustain the qualities that had enabled our nation to succeed.

But then the Government and society must also have the confidence that young people will rise to the challenge; to make mistakes but pick ourselves up, to be good stewards of Singapore, not to leave it the same, but to mould it according to our beliefs, and take our nation to new heights of excellence. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 528-529 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the President concluded his Address at the Opening of the Twelfth Parliament with an emphasis on maintaining Singapore's uniqueness. I think, besides what was mentioned in the President's Address, the uniqueness should also include our cultural and linguistic diversity. Singapore has all along been a multi-racial society ever since Independence. The different languages and cultures have made our cultural scene very colourful.

However, with the standardisation of the education system and the teaching media, the languages and cultures of all the three ethnic groups are affected to some degree. There are major changes in the use of Chinese. Starting from the 1960s, various policies implemented within just one generation have led to the extinction of dialects in the Chinese society. Replacing the dialects is Mandarin. Now, the trend is going towards "keep English, abandon Chinese". We see the percentage of Chinese students speaking English at home surpassed that of Chinese students speaking Mandarin at home. This seems to have become an irreversible trend.

Currently, the Chinese language in Singapore is at a key transformational stage. With the rise of China and the change of external environment, we feel more and more strongly the importance of the Chinese language. Although we have implemented the bilingual policy for many years, young people educated under this system are generally not outstanding in their bilingual performance. Perhaps, these so-called bilingual, bicultural young people can communicate in Chinese on a daily basis. In terms of speaking, they have reached the upper middle level. However, they have lost the ability to read and write; many of them cannot read Chinese newspapers or literary material.

In addition, the rise of the Chinese Internet will create more challenges for these young bilingual people. Indeed, what Ms Sim Ann said is true. The Chinese language has a strong vitality and it will not be rendered redundant by the Internet and computerised input. The Chinese language has become more "lively" in this platform. A good example is the birth of "hot" Internet words, such as "the Rich 2nd generation 富二代(fu er dai)" and "the Official 2nd generation 官二代(guan er dai)". Mixed together with words from real life, they draw a vivid picture of the society.

Many young Singaporeans created high-quality English websites, discussing politics, society, economics, culture and other topics, but how many of them enter the Chinese Internet world? We can understand and speak Chinese, but if we cannot read and write, are we not becoming the illiterate in the global Chinese Internet world? In addition, among the participants of those seemingly hot cultural activities, language competitions and Chinese cultural courses run by schools and universities, how many are Singaporeans?

We always say that being bilingual gives us an advantage in the global competition. If we look at it honestly, we see that our Chinese language has become an oral language. Then how likely can we win this competition? Currently, are we just living on our past gains?

To reverse the "English first, Mother Tongue second" trend is already not possible. What we can do at least is to deepen and widen the Mother tongue learning experience.

We always emphasise how successful bilingual education has brought us competitive advantages and bilingual education seems to become an important Singapore brand. Why then, after English became the dominant and the first language of Singapore, the standard of our students' Mother Tongue started to languish? What is more puzzling is that our bilingual education system can do nothing but go into a retreat mode.

In this situation, I think we should adjust the emphasis of our bilingual policy. In other words, it is time to shift the emphasis on English to Mother Tongue. Otherwise, once Mother Tongue education disintegrates, our bilingual policy will only exist in name.

I hope, when it comes to the weightage of Mother Tongue and the implementation of Chinese education reform, MOE can also pay attention to cultural heritage, besides pedagogy and using new interactive media. While emphasising the daily functionality of the language, we should also cultivate the understanding and appreciation of the culture.

The language policy of this little red dot will not impact the world's language landscape, be it Chinese, Indian or Malay. However, our language policy, especially Chinese, will definitely affect our next generation's global competitiveness. In the near future, in the Chinese-speaking world including China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, more and more youth will master both English and Chinese. Even in the West, the number of youth learning Chinese is increasing every year. Youth in these countries will have the best of the East and West in terms of culture and information, because they are bilingual or even multilingual. They can roam free in the real and virtual worlds, East and West. By then, our youth will not only lose the advantage they had, but also will be in an inferior position. I think a government that cares about its people should worry about this. We should also think about this when discussing the future direction of policies.

(In English): Sir, in his Address, the President stated that our shared goal is to create a better life for all. Sir, we share this goal. We also agree that economic growth is basic to improving our lives. I do not think anyone of us here expects money to drop from the sky. Singaporeans are pragmatic and mature enough to understand this.

The President's Address also provided a broad outline on achieving a better life for all, from the young to the old, from the lower income to those doing exceptionally well.

All these are aimed at achieving a happy and fulfilling life for all Singaporeans. It is therefore puzzling that some PAP MPs made a fuss when Ms Sylvia Lim said that the Government should bear in mind that happiness should be the ultimate aim of its policy goals. Besides normal economic indicators, we should consider other indicators reflecting the happiness and well-being of a society, as articulated in the United Nations resolution initiated by Bhutan and supported by Singapore. In Bhutan's case, they use Gross National Happiness (GNH).

The President described the situation after the General Election as a "new normal". Should the Government not view indicators, such as GNH, as a "new normal", in addition to GDP and GNP? I hope that this is not a sign that the Government's memory of the people's reactions to its policies during the General Election is fading.

In the President's Address, a promise was made to our senior citizens that "you can spend your silver years with peace of mind" – a promise which I take to heart. Yes, this is what our senior citizens deserve. It is only fair that those who have contributed to the progress of the nation, who have moved Singapore from the Third World to the First World, should be recognised and treated accordingly. This is what a responsive and responsible government should do.

To ensure that our senior citizens will live with peace of mind and dignity, the Government must provide affordable healthcare and adequate housing as well as appropriate retirement financing. This will require more Government expenditure.

When MPs from the Workers' Party raised questions related to these issues in this House, they were met with criticisms from the PAP. We were often warned about the dangers of a "welfare state". We were reminded that there is always a trade-off in any policy. This makes me wonder whether the promise to our senior citizens in the President's Address will remain as a promise worth less than the paper on which it is given – until the next general election.

While I agree that we should be mindful of the pitfalls of a welfare state, I think it is high time that the PAP MPs refrained from using this as a "red herring" to kill debate on alternative solutions and mechanisms to those proposed by the Government.

In this regard, I was glad to hear the Prime Minister yesterday make the commitment to strengthen our social safety nets in healthcare, housing and CPF. I hope our senior citizens will see the Prime Minister fulfil his pledges to make a real difference to their lives.

Sir, indeed, we should be fully aware of potential trade-offs in policy. We should also be on guard against viewing trade-offs only from the Government's perspective. We should always assess trade-offs from the people's perspective, especially those who are severely affected by the policy. However, the Government has often used €˜trade-offs' as and when it suited them.

When the Government allowed two casinos to be built here, it highlighted the benefits to our economy over related gaming and social ills – never mind the trade-offs. When the Government decided to go ahead with hospitalisation means testing without a transparent safety net for the sandwiched "not too poor, not too rich" group, it spoke about subsidising those who needed it most.

To shorten the long queue for subsidised rental flats, the Government's expedient solution was to disqualify more people from applying. They were told to live with their children, regardless of how that could affect family relationships and, as a result, some elderly people suffer emotionally. The Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday that the issue of higher demand for subsidised rental housing was not straightforward, but it needed attention.

However, Sir, the general feeling among Singaporeans during the General Elections and even now is that the Government is more concerned with paying its Ministers well than about the welfare of the people. I think that the Government must ask itself why Singaporeans feel and think this way.

I believe, Sir, the answer lies in the policy "trade-offs" expounded by a Member on the Government bench. It seems to me that more often than not, the policy trade-off was biased against the people, especially those who are adversely affected.

The policy "trade-off" is nothing more than a political assessment by the Government. The assessment is whether people can withstand it – or as we say in Malay, "boleh tahan" – the impact of the policy. But when the people "tak boleh tahan", the Government will "kena" and get hit during the election. This is what happened during the recent election in May.

The Government should also thank the Opposition parties for making tremendous efforts despite the lack of resources to allow Singaporeans to exercise their right to vote and express their views. The Opposition parties have also enabled the Government to awaken to the problems on the ground that it had thought were manageable.

I am happy to note that the PAP has done some reflection on the ground reactions and the Government has responded to some of the concerns of the people.

We have seen a spectrum of policy changes since the election in May even before the opening of Parliament. We also saw various Ministers at work – including the Minister for Transport taking public transport – and the swift response from the Minister for National Development on the usage of railway land. I am also happy to note the shift in the focus of our education philosophy. In this regard, the announcement in this House that the MCYS is now not only looking after the "in risk group", but will also be focusing on "at risk group" is a positive step. I am of the view that this proactive approach in social services is the right direction.

Sir, all these developments after the GE augur well for the future of Singapore. They reflect the dynamism of Singapore as a nation.

I am also pleased to note that although the political system is not a level playing field for Opposition parties, the political will and maturity of the voters mitigated this unfair system.

Here we are, in this House, the Twelfth Parliament, which we hope is the beginning of a "First World Parliament" befitting a First World nation, Singapore.

While the lack of resources and information may hamper the Workers' Party from developing alternative policies, it will not deter us from doing our best to contribute to the debate in Parliament on behalf of our electorate and the people of Singapore. We will scrutinise policies for any loopholes or gaps that are likely to affect our people adversely. We will be the voice of the people in the House so that the Government will always consider their concerns and needs in any policy trade-off.

I urge the PAP to step out of the shadow of the doom and gloom of certain pitfalls of western liberal democracy and work towards a First World Parliament in our own way, the Singapore way, to build a better life for all Singaporeans and a prosperous Singapore, based on justice, equality and happiness for our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member Mr Low for agreeing to the many new changes that this Government is introducing. I also noted he spent a considerable amount of time claiming the credits for all these changes. My question is, in what way does he think that the field is not level for the Opposition party?

Sir, first of all, I do not think we want to go all the way to debate the political system. But to cut it short, to simply put it, the GRC system is one which has not given the Opposition a level playing field.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I will reply to the Member in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 530 for Vernacular Speeches.] I was quite surprised to hear Mr Low's comment on our bilingual policies just now. Recently, I made an important speech on the Mother Tongue policy. I wonder if he had read it. In the speech, I talked about, one, the importance of Mother Tongue; and, second, the efforts made by MOE over the past decades and our plans and policies in the next step.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 531 for Vernacular Speeches.] What I am talking about is the current situation of our Mother Tongue. Many young Singaporeans under the so-called bilingual education can only listen and speak but they cannot read or write Chinese. Among the four skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking, we usually can only master listening and speaking. This is why I feel we need to do more in this area. I also know MOE has put forward many new ideas under its current reform. Therefore, I hope MOE can put more emphasis on Mother Tongue education and see how to improve our Mother Tongue standard from different angles. Our younger generation should not only be able to listen and speak, but also read and write. A language that its learner can only master listening and speaking skills will end up similar to a dialect, and it will not be able to carry the responsibility of passing on our cultural heritage.

Sir, I just want to seek a clarification from Mr Low. Does the hon. Member Mr Low actually feel that only the Opposition MPs are the ones who scrutinise Government policies and they are the only ones who reflect the needs of the people of Singapore? From what I see from the last few days of debate and from my experience in the Eleventh Parliament, that does not seem to be so.

Clarification, Sir. Sir, I am not saying that only Opposition MPs scrutinise policies. I am saying on behalf of the Members of Parliament from the Workers' Party and, in my speech, I did not say that only the Workers' Party had been scrutinising policies. I noted that even some PAP MPs wanted to be more opposition than the Opposition. I think that is good – good competition, I welcome that. And, yes, I noted PAP MPs are also equally vocal in some of the issues, especially Ms Denise Phua who is very passionate about special needs education.

(In Mandarin): [P lease refer to Pg 532 for Vernacular Speeches.] After listening to what Mr Low has said about bilingualism, I had many thoughts and feelings. I agree that listening, speaking, writing and reading are all very important when we learn and promote the learning of the mother language. Just now, he mentioned a lot of points that the Chinese community is very concerned with when it comes to the topic of learning the Mother Tongue. I think that our effort to pass on the culture and language, especially in Singapore's unique situation, has been continuous from one generation to another. I hope Mr Low will agree, besides pointing out the problems we are facing today, that our efforts and actions from the past decades are actually very important. Looking forward, I think the future is still bright.

I noticed that Mr Low's Mandarin has always been very good, yet at the same time his English has also improved tremendously in the past few years. I am sure he also noticed that in the past few days we have many MPs who spoke in Mandarin in this House. I respect him as my senior. I am younger and I think there are many MPs in their 30s who can speak Mandarin well. There are even younger ones than me. Ms Tin Pei Ling just now also spoke in Mandarin very fluently. In this environment, let us all do it ourselves and I think this should set good examples for others.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the other Members of the House in thanking the President for his Address at the Opening of this Twelfth Parliament.

Being the last of the new MPs to speak, I find that there are not that many new issues to talk about. After the Minister for Education, Mr Heng Swee Keat, talked about education, I thought, "Well, there goes half of my speech", and after fellow parliamentarian Ms Tin Pei Ling talked about youth, I thought, "There goes the other half." I do not think I would be able to deliver anything earth-shattering or that would have profound impact on our economy or the GDP. I do not proclaim to be a patriot or leader to speak on behalf of the people. Neither do I call for new legislation. But I wish to speak based on my personal experience and observations, and I hope that I am speaking not just from what is up here [points to her head] but from what is in here [points to her heart].

Our society has achieved commendably on many fronts. We have come a long way since Independence and made a name for ourselves globally.

The President has talked about inclusivity in our society, and while there are significant achievements that we can be happy about, there are some areas that we can still improve on. I wish to focus on two – our education system and our youth.

Let me first address the issue of Normal (Technical) education. Our education system has evolved from survival to efficiency to ability-driven, both in approach and provision. We have seen how our students have reaped the benefits from our education system and how we have managed to nurture knowledgeable and skilled Singaporeans who are highly-regarded in the workplace.

Skills and knowledge are well-catered for and honed in schools, but more can still be done to ensure that resources are more equitably distributed to non-elite schools or what we used to call "neighbourhood schools", which may not have the kinds of facilities or resources that the elite schools do, partly due to the latter's' strong alumni network and more affluent home backgrounds of the students.

The Ministry of Education has announced the setting up of two new specialised schools for Normal (Technical) students. While the details are yet to be revealed, I hope that the introduction of these two new schools will not mean that all Normal (Technical) students will be taken out of mainstream schools and "hot-housed" separately. I fear this goes against the essence of inclusivity and integration in our society.

Sir, what I believe can be done instead is to ensure that teachers teaching Normal (Technical) students in mainstream schools are specially trained, specifically in motivational and counselling skills. When I was a secondary school teacher about a decade ago, I had the opportunity to teach Mathematics to a Secondary 3 Normal (Technical) class. After a few attempts at teaching them about integer powers and how to write an index notation for integer powers, I decided that they did not quite care how much I knew, until they knew how much I really cared for them. So that was when I decided to put the books aside and focus on them as individuals.

I talked to them, got to know about their home backgrounds, their problems and their aspirations. But there were times when I felt that it was very difficult because I had 38 students in the class, and I felt that I did not quite know how to make them trust me and open up to me. If only I had been specially trained to work with them a little better, I think I could have been a better teacher to them.

It seems that little has changed from then until now. Some of my in-service students in NIE – these are current school teachers – have shared with me that it is not easy to get teachers to teach Normal (Technical) classes in schools. Those who do find that they are somewhat overwhelmed with the amount of effort and skills that are required of them.

Sir, I hope that Normal (Technical) classes in mainstream schools can be made somewhat smaller; more specially-trained teachers can be deployed to these classes, while more relevant courses and programmes, such as computer graphic animation or digital music, for instance, can be introduced to them so that we can maximise their potential during their school years. This is pretty much like what we did for the Gifted Education Programme back then. If we could do it for the top end of the academic stream, why not for the other end?

Sir, let me now address the issue of values-driven education. The MOE has also announced its re-emphasis on values-driven education in schools. This is indeed a step in the right direction, and some of my fellow parliamentarians have agreed and talked about this at length.

However, while its intent is noble, its implementation probably needs a little bit more careful planning. As we know, values are not as easily taught as they are caught. When teachers have to complete teaching the syllabi in order to adequately prepare students for high-stakes examinations, and when they are appraised based on the performance of their students in these examinations, we cannot quite blame teachers for focusing on examination-based achievements and drilling for examinations. Teachers may substitute lessons meant for Civics and Moral Education to teach Mathematics or Science, or force fit a National Education message in a lesson just so they can fulfill the requirement to do so. Through all these, students may form the impression that CME or NE is probably not as important as examination-based subjects.

I hope that the MOE will work closely with teachers to adequately address how values-driven education can be more effectively weaved into the curricula, and that it is not an additional item for appraisal or additional workload for teachers.

I also hope that MOE can look into how we can focus less on summative assessment modes, such as high-stakes examinations, and more on formative assessment modes, such as project-based learning and evaluation of the learning process rather than just the outcomes, so that we can provide a more holistic and sufficient learning environment in schools where students do not need to turn to tuition in order to succeed.

We need to bring our students' learning away from tuition teachers and tuition centres that tend to regard education as a commodity and back into our schools where teachers are there because they see education as a necessity where, to them, teaching is a calling, where they care and they believe that they can lead and inspire our students. We need to re-align the value of learning to the learning of values, skills and knowledge, and not learning for grades.

Sir, having proposed these, I must also urge partners to work with schools and the MOE. In particular, parents have a very significant role to play – to be more involved in their children's education, to work with teachers to ensure that the education their children receive in schools is complemented by a conducive supportive environment at home, and to focus on their children's holistic development and celebrate the learning process, rather than summative grades and examination-based achievements.

Community and industry partners also have a role to play in providing an authentic learning environment for students. Much can be explored and done in this respect, such as providing more opportunities for service learning or internships, for instance, to nurture values such as compassion, resilience and responsibility.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me now address the issue of engaging our youths. Our youths, aged between 15 and 35 years old, are an important group for us to work with. Making up more than a quarter of our resident population, our youths are the future of our nation. Through dialogues and interactions with youths, I found that they are deeply concerned about social causes and feel strongly about social justice.

For instance, there are many youths who are strong advocates of animal welfare. I met a young lady, Gracie, just a couple of weeks ago in Ang Mo Kio. She asked me about the fate of stray or community cats in the estate, and wanted to be sure that these cats are not culled or put to sleep. She felt that there are residents in the neighbourhood who take care of these cats and see them as companions.

Clearly, Gracie feels passionately for stray or community cats. This is an example of causes that should be encouraged and supported. Hence, I urge our youths to be proactive and work with the Government and other agencies to address their social causes of interest.

Our youths have a strong sense of social justice and will stand up for those whom they feel have been disadvantaged. There are several youth volunteers in my constituency who feel passionately about helping families in rental blocks in the estate. Although they have been informed that the Residents' Committee of the area is working closely with needy residents in these blocks to extend the necessary assistance, through their own house visits, these youths felt that the residents need more help.

They are now organising a free medical health-check for the residents so that those who require further medical attention can be referred to the relevant agencies for proper follow-up. On top of that, they are starting a reading programme for pre-school children from these families where, for an hour each week, they will be reading to and with the children to hone their reading skills before they start primary school. I strongly support their initiative.

The perception of social justice is from both experience and information obtained – be it observed, heard or read. Hence, it is essential for the Government to share relevant information with our youths to help them understand current situations, policies and initiatives. The widespread use of the World Wide Web and social media by youths somehow points to these as the main sources of information for them. As the President has mentioned and as we have heard these past few days here in Parliament, we recognise there is substantial misinformation in the Web and on social media platforms. If left ignored and little is done to disseminate accurate information, this may lead to the wrong perceptions being formed by our youths. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 533 for Vernacular Speeches.] Here, I would like to mention that I had written my Malay speech on my own and I hope that my ability in the Malay language can be said to be satisfactory. In short, I can be said to be quite bilingual.

Our Malay/Muslim community has achieved admirable progress and also achieved excellence in many fields like education, the arts and business. For example, more of our students have qualified to enter post-secondary educational institutions, the number of polytechnic and university graduates has increased and we have more Malay professionals, compared to 20 or 30 years ago.

Much has been done but more can still be achieved by our youths, especially since this number accounts for less than 40% of our Malay/Muslim community.

I would like to urge our youths to contribute to the betterment of society – whether it is the Malay/Muslim community or Singapore society in general. Although some may regard young people as green horns, or young and inexperienced, their young age should not hinder them from making a contribution towards the community's progress.

The gap between those who succeed and those who are left behind should not be allowed to widen. This is not only the responsibility of the Government, but it is our shared responsibility ‒ especially among the successful youths.

I am concerned with the group of young professionals who readily segregate themselves from those left behind in society. This should not happen. Once I asked an acquaintance of mine whether she would like to join me in volunteer work. She said that between her job and her responsibility in taking care of her children, she does not have time to contribute to society.

This is quite distressing because our community's progress depends on us all. Let us not behave like the palm sugar tree in a bush, which lets go of its own shoots, that is, being self-centred in society.

Successful young people will be an inspiration to others, should be ready to share their experiences with those who are still struggling, and spend their time and energy to help the needy. Ensuring the community's progress is not done just by criticizing and debating, be it during dialogues or in weblogs and other social media platforms. Contribution to the community's progress requires us to find solutions together and implement initiatives directly.

Here, I would like to suggest that the Government continue to give more support to young people who wish to help the needy, whether through funding or providing seed money, in order to implement youth-led projects or by organising events together. The Imagine Fund at the Central CDC is a good example of such support.

The Government should also ensure that it has a two-way communication with the young people, especially in explaining policies, and providing further understanding of the impact or complexities that might arise from the implementation of the policies.

Before I end, I would like to once again call on our young people to work with the Government and its agencies, so that we can carry on with our cause to uplift the community.

(In English): I will revert to English now. Sir, before I end my speech, please allow me to address what Member Mr Yee Jenn Jong mentioned on Wednesday. He suggested that political education be included in our school curriculum. He also said that our young undergraduates are not politically savvy enough. First of all, in my humble opinion as an educator, the introduction of political education should not precede values, character and citizenship education. Political education is one rather specialised component of citizenship education. As Sir Bernard Crick, a British political theorist, pointed out: citizenship education is defined as a fostering and development of moral and social responsibility, community involvement and political literacy. Hence, if we introduce political education in primary or secondary schools, I fear that it is rather premature. It is akin to teaching simultaneous linear equations before teaching them the BODMAS Rule or the four operations in Mathematics.

In addition, the major opinion by educators and parents in the UK, for instance, is that political education has the tendency to be partisan and that there should not be any politicisation of learning in schools. As for Mr Yee's perception that our young undergraduates are not politically savvy enough, I would urge him to accord them more credit and interact with them more because they are not as apathetic as he thinks.

On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion and thank the House in earnest.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. Recently, MICA celebrated the opening of the Sun Yat Sen Nanyang Memorial Hall on the 100th Anniversary of the 1911 Xin Hai Revolution. Some Singaporeans asked, "What is the significance of this event to Singapore, and why are we celebrating it?" There are many, many reasons why this is an important event to us. I would like to share with the House one of the reasons – a personal one.

In one of the many meetings that Sun Yat Sen had in Singapore – organising the support for his cause – he noted that women were absent and he directed the community leaders to focus on "educating your women, empowering your women". Several years later, the community leaders heeded his call, started several schools, and they hired a young lady from China to head Nanyang Girls' High School. The lady stayed on and dedicated 40 years of her service to educating women, including my mother. This lady was my grandmother. So, without Sun Yat Sen, the school might not have existed, my grandmother might not be here and, clearly, my existence would have been in doubt. The significance of the 1911 revolution is that it marked a new beginning for Chinese women – liberated Chinese women from having to suffer the excruciating pain of binding their feet, being subjects of their father, their husbands and, when they are widowed, the sons. It sets the historical context of the development of women in Singapore, which is the main theme of my speech.

I was born a year after the Independence of Singapore, and it is therefore very convenient for me to draw on my personal life story to illustrate the development of the social status of women in Singapore. The Singapore that I was born in was one with serious economic problem – high unemployment rate. Only four out of 10 women could read. Forty percent of the girls born in the 1950s did not receive any formal education, twice the rate for boys. It clearly showed that parents were placing more emphasis on educating their sons, at the expense, sometimes, of their daughters. Many older Singaporeans remember growing up in families where the womenfolk are always around: mothers stayed at home to look after their children and unmarried daughters stayed at home to take care of the siblings and household chores until they are married off.

By the time I am ready for school in the early 1970s, my cohort, the post-Independence cohort, had been more fortunate. In the early 1970s, nine out of 10 girls received formal primary education. Had I been in a co-ed school, out of a class of 40, 20 would be boys and 20 would be girls.

Over the next 12 years, six out of 10 in my cohort went on to attain secondary level education, and two out of 10 went on to attain pre-U and poly education. Literacy rate improved significantly from six in 10 to nine in 10 in one generation. I was fortunate to be the one in 10 that had gone on to university.

The gender ratio in the university was slightly in favour of the men. In a typical class of 20, there would be nine female students versus 11 male students. In my class in the School of Accountancy, I remembered having 17 female students and three male students. So, clearly, women were doing well in school, and families were supportive of their education. Women in Singapore already had an equal chance of getting into university as men in the 1980s. Notably, the post-Independence generation of women delayed their marriage by two years, compared to their sisters a decade ago.

The picture in the workplace, however, tells a very different story. I started working from the 1990s. I got married a couple of years later at 25, which happened to be the median age of marriage for women then. By then, only seven out of 10 women remained in the workforce. Three out 10 had left the workforce by the time they married.

Surveys have shown that gender-ratio equality in the workplace is maintained only at the entry level. In other words, we had the same number of men and women only at the entry level. As we move up the corporate hierarchy, the number of women is significantly fewer than men. We are under-represented three to eight – three women to eight men – in the senior positions. Similarly, women only made up 7% of boardroom positions in listed companies in Singapore.

There is no doubt that women are dropping out of the workforce earlier than men, and are not progressing as far as the men. The trend is not surprising. The share of family responsibilities rests disproportionately on women. Women are expected to undertake the primary role in caring for the husband, children and the parents. And whilst we are fortunate to have the support of domestic helpers, women are often expected to be the one making career adjustments to suit the family circumstances. Many chose to take a slower pace in their career, some chose to drop out of the workforce completely.

The younger generation of women, on the other hand, is postponing marriage and parenthood. With good education, good jobs, women are excelling in the workplace and enjoying financial independence and satisfaction from their jobs. They are delaying the drudgery of marriage, if it means having to sacrifice their lifestyle choices.

Should we, as a Government and a society, do something about it? From a society viewpoint, the well-educated and capable women form a rich pool of talents. Societies that educate and empower their women progress at a faster pace than those who do not. So we want our educated women to contribute meaningfully in the workplace. At the same time, we want our younger women to marry and have children. We are all familiar with the problems of low fertility rate and ageing population. So we should, as a Government, as a society, do something about it. But what do the women in Singapore want us to do about it?

Firstly, women today do not want to see marriage and parenthood as a steep cliff from which they take the leap of faith. They do not wish to see employers writing them off once baby is on the way; neither do they wish to rely solely on the promise of their spouses to provide for them for the rest of their lives. They want a workplace where employers, recognising the multiple roles that they play, manage their career with flexibility over their life phases. A female employee choosing to work part-time when she is caring for a young child should not be excluded from training opportunities and career progression opportunities. Ambitious women want a comeback after slowing down for a few years.

Although more employers are now introducing flexible work arrangements in recent years − about 35% of them do offer some flexible work arrangements, women want to see more companies offering more options – more part-time work opportunities, flexible work hours and tele-commuting arrangements. Employers – one in four – who give time-off for staff to attend to unplanned personal urgent matters get a thumbs-up.

I strongly encourage more employers to introduce flexible work arrangement, especially given the current shortage in manpower. We have a pool of 30% to 40% untapped "womanpower". We need favourable employment conditions and practices to keep as many people meaningfully employed as possible.

Many women whom I have met told me about their concerns for their children's education, and I would add to Minister Heng's list of 20 speakers now, who will speak on this issue. They have found the system to be highly competitive and felt compelled to take time off for their children's education. Many education systems in Asia are competitive but, in Singapore, competition comes early with a high-stake examination – PSLE – at 12 years old. Peer pressure cause parents to head towards award-winning enrichment centres, tutors and coaches for their children.

Sir, having spent three years in MOE, I would, more often than not, explain to them the policy considerations. They generally understand the policy intent but, nevertheless, find it emotionally very tiring to cope with it. Coaching their children for PSLE is probably one of the most frequent reasons for working mothers to take leave from work. I know because I used to do it. Does pressure from our education system affect fertility rate? Well, Sir, I certainly do not think that it helps, if our mothers are staying up at night thinking about it.

Secondly, many women who have stopped work want to re-enter the workforce when their children have grown older or when family circumstances have stabilised. We should help them. Many women hesitate about the first step of going back to work due to lack of confidence or relevant skills. The Government should do more in training and getting them ready for work. The typical "place and train" scheme needs to be augmented by pre-placement courses to help build up their confidence. Many women also need to transit into full-time work again. Having responsibilities at home, they prefer jobs near their homes, or more flexible work arrangements for a start. We need companies to offer transition arrangements, such as part-time work, "internship" for mature workers, perhaps, to help transit women into the fast-paced jobs that they were used to. Job-matching programmes targeted specifically at women should be encouraged.

Thirdly, on a different note, many women have asked for more Government policies to be child-centric, rather than family-centric. Women I spoke to uphold marriage as an important institution in the society and believe that the family structure of having an intact family – parents who are married to one another – is the optimal one to raise a child. But the reality that they see is that the number of single-parent families in Singapore is rising and we are struck by the predicaments that they face.

There are three groups of single mothers that many women and men have spoken up for. The first is the Singaporean divorcee mothers. The second is the widowed and divorced non-Singaporean mothers with Singaporean children. And the third is women who bore children out of wedlock. These women and their children are caught by our policies. And one key problem is housing. The lack of subsidisied accommodation has become the albatross around their necks. They have to fork out market rent each month, leaving them with very little to pay for food and other needs of the children. More often than not, the women and their children are caught in a poverty trap. The Government should re-think our policies and move towards a child-centric one. They are Singaporean and we should help raise them as one of our own, in a stable home environment.

Sir, the 1911 revolution liberalised Chinese women. Fifty years on, under the PAP Government, girls were educated, women could work and get equal pay as men, polygamy was abolished and married women were given legal status. Women today have equal opportunity in education as men. They have choices. The more the society facilitates women in assuming the multiple roles that they have – as an employee, as a wife, as a mother, as a daughter – the less we will have to choose one over the other. Young women of today want to have a good career, financial independence and a happy family. Yes, we want it all, just like the men do.

Sir, while women have made significant progress in Singapore, we clearly can do better. I urge all to help each and every woman realise their potential, so that our daughters and our granddaughters can and will scale greater heights in Singapore and, as stated in the President's Address, "enjoy meaningful and fulfilling lives". [Applause.]

Sir, I rise in strong support of the President's speech and his emphasis on inclusive and quality growth. Sir, I was in Barcelona in June this year and I was surprised to see that the Catalonia Square, which is a main square in the centre of Barcelona, was being occupied by many protesters. Of course, it was filled with a row of toilets as well. And when I asked how long have they been there, the answer was "months". I was actually transiting – I was going to Bilbao – and when I arrived in Bilbao, I asked them what was going on. And they said, "Well, even in Bilbao itself, our main square has been occupied." So, what is going on, and it is all young people? The answer was, "Well, you see, the unemployment rate of young people in Spain has reached an unprecedented rate." Twenty-odd percent is considered common; in some places, it is even 50%-odd, and many of these are well-schooled, well-educated. So, I asked, "What do they do and how long do you think this will last?" The answer was, looking up in the sky, "wa meng ti" – in their own language.

Sir, obviously that movement itself has spread to now what is known as the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. The sense of income inequality, of lack of jobs, lack of opportunities, unfairness, food, water, fuel insecurity, global inflation and the ballooning world population that has crossed the 7-billion mark this year, truly stress-tests our old-world order, which is falling apart. Is Singapore agile enough to pass this test, or even take advantage of the morphing world order? Our future depends on what we have built up yesterday, what we decide and do today and, of course, our future quotient. To succeed in the "new normal" at the global and national levels, leaders in the private, public and citizen sectors need to switch from thinking about incremental changes to transformational, systemic change.

For sure, we cannot resolve problems using the same paradigms that created it in the first place. So, when President Tan spoke about inclusive, quality growth, it tugged at my heartstrings. Not only because it has been my pet parliamentary subject for the last five years, but also because it holds the promise of this urgently needed transformational change.

Sir, we may think of economic growth as giving us the wherewithal to "enjoy life", but Singaporeans have reflected that it is not a sufficient condition for the sense of progress or well-being. One may ask, "Is 14.5% GDP growth not good enough?"

Sir, if growth means more foreign workers to ride the crest of an uptake in the economy, it also implies more crowded public transport, higher housing prices and competitions in schools. It means a congested city at short notice, ignoring the human considerations and time needed to adjust. Counting the happy moments of the day against the unhappy ones for your average Shenton Way worker would mean taking into account the following: waiting for the third or fourth train to get to work; jostling with hordes of people in the station to make it to work on time; thinking where to find an affordable meal with a seat to enjoy; feeling trapped in the best-paying jobs one can get to afford the mortgages; keeping up with one's peers in the rat race of life; and struggling how to fit family time into this picture.

Reading the papers, this worker would also feel anxious about their future, as the world faces the threat of another protracted downturn. Today, the people "occupying" Wall Street are saying that they have lost faith in the "market" and the absence of the "invisible hand" in its promise to serve the needs of the common man.

So it is important that this Government aims well beyond the GDP measure of growth, which is only a snapshot of a country's domestic output at a point in time. It does not give the granularity we need to understand, first, if the growth properly trickles down to that of the common man; and, second, whether it contributes to his or her sense of progress or well-being.

But, Sir, I would also like to note that this is not the first time that the subject of GDP vs GNH or other development index has been invoked in this House. In fact, for years in this House, myself and a few other Members had repeatedly called for a new measurement matrix of our national progress. So I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the other Members 各方英雄"ge fang ying xiong" in this House for joining this call. However, I have also learnt over the years that, sometimes, it is not just the frontbenchers who do not agree with the views of the backbenchers, but that we must back it up with considered alternative solutions and come together with the Government as one team, one Singapore team, sit on the same side of the table, to walk the talk, and not just talk and talk. So, I rise to give a few suggestions on how to operationalise it, and I will be happy to work on it if the Government accepts my proposal.

Recent in-depth studies of quality growth point to the need to recognise at least three other types of "capital", in addition to the economic capital, and these, together, will sharpen the country's external competitiveness, and simultaneously foster the cohesiveness and well-being of the society.

They are, first, personal capital which refers to a person's philosophy or value system, mental and physical health, hopes and aspirations. The second: social capital, which refers to one's social connectedness and the community's wellness. And, third, environmental capital, which refers to environmental security, food, biodiversity, and so on. In short, it is time for our national measurement system to move from measuring just one aspect of the national asset and our economic capital to an integrated, holistic measure of all four "capitals".

Well-being is no fluffy stuff. In fact, people and communities with a higher sense of well-being are more adaptable and resilient. These are the exact future readiness traits needed for a more volatile and fast-moving world. And if growth in Singapore is conceptualised in the manner set out, we can continue to ensure our citizens have little affinity to the disillusioned "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. We can continue to buck the trend and progress.

So how do we do this? I have a few suggestions. One, I suggest that we compile the "The People First Report". Instead of deciding on what are some of the priorities of the people, perhaps we should commission a report that draws on the best minds at the conceptualisation level, and invite all citizen inputs at the measurement level to this question: what do Singaporeans really want at the four levels of "capital" and well-being that I have described earlier? And it should take a life-cycle approach and a segmented orientation as outlined in the President's speech. A school child may have a very different concern from an adult, from a homemaker and, of course, that of a senior citizen. And, clearly, the report must incorporate the challenges and opportunities of being an ageing society. It should also end with some notion of a new social compact that incorporates the roles that citizens, communities and businesses can and should play alongside with the Government. This should be sign-posted and measurable indices drawn up to tell us if we are on- or off-target so that we can adjust our strategies along the way.

Taking a leaf from the recently published Report on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress by Nobel Laureates, Professors Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean-Paul Fitoussi, they have incorporated ideas about achieving economic well-being, social capital, developing human capital, counting environmental impact and quality of life domains that matter to the ordinary person. And if we can arrive at a solid document, it can feed into discussions of our budgetary objectives. It will force a whole-of-Government approach to public policy as different domains will have to work towards these higher-order goals. And if we are able to come up with a compelling vision, I think that the business and people sectors will be equally energised and inspired to achieve the same goals in their own special way.

At this point, I would like to highlight a breed of organisations that directly achieve the sort of inclusive, quality growth that we aspire. And, of course, these are the social enterprises and innovators. For example, we have a restaurant chain called Eighteen Chefs. It was started by an ex-offender, Mr Benny Seto. Benny got out of prison and wanted a second chance and a shot at the Singapore Dream. But he found that he was still in prison when the doors of employment were shut tight on him. He loves to eat, so he decided to pack his bag and head towards Jamie Oliver's Restaurant 15. Jamie Oliver is a young British celebrity chef, and Restaurant 15 gives ex-offenders and youths-at-risk a shot at a job and to learn how to run their own restaurants. Benny worked hard and started Eighteen Chefs, mimicking Restaurant 15. In so doing, he has now created a chain of restaurants that has jobs for both normal people and ex-offenders. He helps to close the gaps between them, allows the marginalised to be perceived as able, contributing citizens, and live a full life as a dignified Singaporean. Imagine the trickle-down effects of this on his or her family, how his neighbours and community look on him, and how this precious citizen can contribute to our GDP again.

Sir, there are many Bennys in this sector and in many industries. In the UK, the development of the third sector has now pervaded all fields and all walks of life, and social enterprise takes the form of big serious businesses that attempt to solve national concerns. In Singapore, check out our very young Singaporean scientist, Dr Adrian Yeo, who won the Don Quixote Fund Award for his water-treatment technology. He wants to effect a sustainable change in how the world lives, and people like him should be given every opportunity to turn their clean technologies and dreams into ongoing business concerns. But what we need is a policy framework at the heart of Government that supports individuals and companies like these across the boundaries of the typical business and social sectors.

So, perhaps, one, we could recognise the need for a third sector and grant start-ups, or donations, or even preferential treatments, grow it like a strategic industry because it is strategic through our inclusive and quality growth objective. And allow hybrid regulations to operate within this sector so that they can grow faster and also remove the obstacles that are currently in place.

Secondly, we could also augment Government procurement systems to take into account the social and environmental impact of their vendors. They should set in order a chain of change in the rest of the sectors. It would also tie in the calls made by other hon. Members of the House for setting aside low-cost sourcing for best sourcing practices. Of course, this will raise the barrier for entry for ordinary businesses and therefore, it is important to also allow the right amount of lead time before the system kicks in.

Sir, at the end of the day, social enterprises and all companies that are socially responsible should be rewarded for their efforts in creating inclusive and quality growth in our country. People work for a living but live for a cause or causes. And there is more to life than just job.

Last but not least, on anchoring ourselves. Sir, in the "new normal", new actors connected via the social media will emerge at an unprecedented rate to reshape reality. The "new normal" will be complex, multi-dimensional, unanticipated and fast-changing. We can be easily confused, but all is not lost if we can anchor ourselves to a core value system, shared norms and collective destiny regardless of race, language, religion or political beliefs and forge a sense of togetherness and turn this into positive forces that drive our future.

As a born and bred Singaporean, I am committed and have spent 10 years of my prime life working on the ground. I also have confidence in my fellow Singaporeans because during this period, I have witnessed how Singapore overcame 9/11, SARS, water crisis and the two financial crises in the short 10 years or so. We are resilient but we have to keep building our economic, social, personal and environment capital so that we can have a more inclusive and better future. Let me end on the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are in harmony."

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 534-535 for Vernacular Speeches.] For many years, Singapore's development has received much attention from the world. For example, China is very interested in Singapore's "software" expertise in economic, social and sustainable development; they study and learn carefully how Singapore did it.

Generally speaking, Singapore is a country that has made great achievements. The life of the people has been improving continuously. Just now, Mr Low said that the Singapore Government does not care about the interests of the people and only cares about the Ministers' self interests. I do not agree. I feel his view is wrong. Singaporeans, as well as people outside of Singapore, can see that the Government has worked diligently and stayed uncorrupted for decades. All these years, we care for Singaporeans and do our best to serve the people. I can say without doubt that we stayed true to our hearts. The country's development is like rowing a boat against the current; if we do not go forward, we will go backward.

Although Singapore is now performing very well in various aspects, looking ahead, Singaporeans still worry about their future. The older people worry about whether they can have a good retirement life and young people worry about whether they can have better lives than their parents. Today, with this new Parliament, people would have new expectations of us. They hope our Parliament and our Government will be better and more effective than before.

Just now, Mr Low said that recently, the Government launched new policies that are welcomed by the people. He said the Government did so because of the Opposition party. In other words, the Opposition is taking credit for the good work of the Government.

Mr Speaker, some MPs cited Shakespeare, and some cited Confucius. I am not a learned man. I want to tell you a mystical story. This is the story of the magical lamp, the genie and the three wishes. There were two men, one by the name Gouxin (勾心) and one by the name Doujiao (斗角). Guxin and Doujiao were arch enemies. One day, they were walking along the beach and they found this magic lamp. They rubbed it and the genie came out. The genie said, "The two of you can have three wishes." After some argument, they decided that Gouxin would have two wishes and Doujiao just one. Doujiao said, "My wish is simple. I will just get double what Gouxin will get! Therefore one wish is enough for me. Whatever he has, I want double that." The genie said, "Fine! I can fulfil your wish." Then the genie asked Gouxin, "What is your wish?" Gouxin said, "OK. I want all the best things in the world." Genie said, "Fine!" and boom, he had everything. Gouxin was very happy. He had everything in the world. Yet, when he saw Doujiao, he became not so happy. Why? He was happy because he had all these good things but Doujiao would have double what he had. "I have all these good things but Doujiao will have more than me!" The genie said, "You can have your last wish now. Think carefully about it." Gouxin thought, "What should be my next wish?" Then he told the genie, "I have thought about it. My wish is, 'please beat me half dead'!" You see, these two people came across the genie and they can have three wishes. This is a good thing. However, because of their bad nature – Gouxin Doujiao (meaning in-fighting), one ended up dead and one half-dead. A good thing turned into a bad thing.

I think this GE is perhaps like this story. Singaporeans found a magical lamp. Unfortunately for this lamp, no matter how you rub it, no genie comes out. Under this circumstance, Singaporeans hope the next five years will be better. We want the future to be better, but we cannot rely on the genie to fulfil our wishes. I feel that, for this new Parliament and the new Government, the responsibility to Singaporeans will be to treasure today's Singapore, because it is very difficult to achieve what we have done so far. At the same time, we must understand there is a long way ahead of us and it will become more treacherous. This better future will not be achieved through words, but through our actions.

I sincerely hope the Opposition can change their usual ways. Just like Mr Seng Han Thong has pointed out many times in Parliament, the Opposition has only views but no alternative suggestions. I hope the Opposition can change. They should not criticise every time they see policies people do not like or take the credit for polices that people like. This kind of opposition is like a "Gouxin Doujiao" opposition, not beneficial for Singapore's long-term development.

At the same time, I hope our new Government can also change the usual ways of doing things. We will continue to be a good Government. At the same time, we need to improve communication with our people. Before, we serve the people silently, humbly and sincerely; but for the sake of Singapore, we cannot do that anymore. It is not that we will boast about the good things we did for the people, but that we want people to know why and what we did for our people. I hope, in the future, the Opposition can be a very good Opposition and the Government a very good Government. Let us put Singapore's interests first. Only by doing this can we have a bright future, even though we do not have the genie.

(In English): Sir, a new Parliament and a new Government bring new aspirations as outlined by President Tan in his Address. The line that caught my attention was about building an inclusive nation that we can all be proud of. The journey of building a nation is long and one without any end. And my preoccupation, what I lose sleep about is: how do we stay competitive in the future? How do we stay cohesive as a people in the future? And how do we create and build a better Singapore for Singaporeans?

After the GE, a friend told me. He said, "Swee Say, I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for the Government." I said, "Why so?" He said, "Everything that you do, if they are unpopular, the Opposition would just keep criticising you. Anything the Government does that is popular and welcomed by people, the Opposition members will then just claim the credits." I said, "What gave you this impression?" "Oh! Just go to the blog. Go to social media." So, for example, I was told, I have not seen it myself, that one Workers' Party Member, I think on his blog or Facebook, he explained the reason why bus fare went up by only 1%, why Minister Khaw Boon Wan decided to build more HDB flats and Minister for Education decided to expand the capacity for university education. He said, "All these is because of the Opposition. As a result, the Government has become more responsive."

I was not sure whether I should believe what he said because I have not seen it myself. But today, I must say that I believe in it about three quarters, because today I need not have to go to any Facebook or new media to find out what he said. Today, I heard it personally from Member Mr Low Thia Khiang, because Mr Low in his address earlier basically claimed credit for everything, all the positive changes that have taken place since the General Elections. But I told my friend, I said, "Look, it doesn't really matter how the Opposition parties play with politics", because I said, "At the end of the day we are in politics not to play with politics because what is at stake is the future of the country and the life of people." I said that as far as we are concerned, there are two things we need to do.

One is to be hard-headed in making sure that we will remain competitive as an economy for a long time to come. Joblessness is not something to be taken lightly. In 1988, during the Asian Financial Crisis, unemployment at that time was about 3% to 4%. I was asked this question as a union leader: Why is NTUC so concerned about 3% to 4% unemployment rate compared to many countries. I told the reporter who asked this, "Unemployment could be 3%, 4% but to the person who is unemployed, unemployment rate is 100%." People who are unemployed are under tremendous stress. In 1999, I was in France. The unemployed workers in France on welfare, unemployment benefits, were on strike. They were on strike because they were demanding for holiday allowance. Of course, many people criticised these unemployed workers and said, "Look, you are unemployed, you are receiving unemployment benefits, and yet you dare to ask for holiday allowance." And the response from the leaders of the striking force was, "Do you know that we unemployed live a life a lot more stressful than those who are employed because every day we wake up with no idea how to spend the day and there is no end to that kind of suffering." Therefore, speaking as a member of the NTUC, as a member of the Labour Movement, I would urge this House not to take growth lightly, not to take joblessness lightly.

In the USA, for a long time, there is a line they repeat, as a half-hearted joke. USA is a land of Cash, Wonder and Hope. Why Cash? It refers to Johnny Cash. Why Wonder? It refers to Stevie Wonder. Why Hope? It refers to Bob Hope. Later on, as the years went by, Johnny Cash passed away, Bob Hope passed away and, recently, Steve Jobs passed away. So, today the slogan in USA is: USA today is a country of no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs. USA is today going through a jobless growth. The IMF recently has just said that unemployment is now a developed country's problem. In other words, it is not just restricted to the USA. Many developed economies are facing the same problem.

Singapore is, today, in terms of per capita income, in the same rank as the OECD countries. We should not take our job creation in Singapore lightly. Remember, our workers talk about higher cost of living, and are pushing for real wage increase. But just imagine if a worker has no job, even if you can push for 10% wage increase, as far as he is concerned, his wage increase of 10% of zero is still zero. In other words, there is no way an unemployed person can cope with any higher cost of living. And this is the reason why the labour movement, joined forces with our tripartite partners to ensure, to urge, to mobilise the ground to enhance our competitiveness.

Two to three days ago, the hon. Member Mr Gerald Giam, if I am not wrong, criticised the Government and the Labour Movement for urging our workers to pursue "cheaper, better and faster". I think I explained in this House before and I do not mind saying again that there is a big difference between "cheaper, better, faster" workers versus "cheaper, better, faster" products and services. What the NTUC, what the tripartite partners are calling for, is to pursue "cheaper, better, faster" products and services, pursue a "cheaper, better, faster" economy, not a "cheaper, better, faster" workforce.

On Facebook, right now, there is a company that said it offers two out of three of the following services − "cheap, better and fast". Only two out of three, and not three out of three. What it means is that if it is cheap and good, then it cannot be fast. Cheap and fast, but it cannot be good. Good and fast, but it cannot be cheap. So, two out of three. Some Facebook friends then asked me, "Mr Lim, why are you asking for all three, three out of three? Isn't that unrealistic?"

A company in Singapore produces precision optics. They have eight production lines – if I can recall correctly. Each and every of these production lines is designed by engineers from Germany. So, the engineers in Germany will design the production lines, bring them to Singapore, install them here. Eight of the lines were done that way. Our Singapore engineers operated the lines for a few years. One day, they convinced the management that why not allow us Singapore engineers in Singapore to design the ninth line. After more than one year of persuasion, finally approval was given. Our Singapore engineers designed the line and I saw it myself when I went to the factory for a visit. The line was designed cheaper than the eight lines designed by the German engineer, is able to produce better products, better quality, lower reject rates. But, more importantly, it produces output at a pace that is much faster than the German line. The line designed by the Singapore engineers is what we called a "cheaper, better and faster" line.

Our challenge is not to keep doubting ourselves – that why are we pushing workers to be cheaper, better, faster? Whether three out of three is possible? Instead, we should ask ourselves: If we are not able to achieve cheaper, better, faster products and services, will there be a future for the Singapore economy, for the Singapore workers?

On the issue of foreign workers: it is a tough subject. The labour movement has to take a position on foreign workers. We have always mentioned that foreign workers are not our enemy because foreign workers are here to perform a useful role, a supporting role. My colleague Yeo Guat Kwang, a couple of weeks ago, made a statement that we should train, we should require the skills upgrading of foreign workers for them to work in Singapore. Many people criticised him, saying "How can you advocate the upgrading of foreign workers?", including I think Member Yaw Shin Leong. I think it is important that we ask ourselves: are we better off having two unskilled foreign workers in Singapore or are we better off having one skilled foreign worker in Singapore? If the one skilled foreign worker can do the job of two unskilled workers, we will be able to reduce the social cost of foreign workers in Singapore and yet at the same time take advantage of their contribution to the Singapore economy.

Likewise, what about foreign PMEs? The labour movement lately has been advocating the need to have more protection for our PMEs. But does this mean that the labour movement is advocating a no foreign PME policy? It cannot be. Just yesterday, there was an article in The Wall Street Journal about Rolls Royce, one of the world's leading companies in many areas, including aircraft engines. The article said Rolls Royce is powering ahead in high-wage countries, at a time when their competitors were going for the low-wage countries. And one of the high-wage countries that Rolls Royce believes in is Singapore. They are investing billions of dollars in building the latest factory in Singapore. The factory will be opened sometime next year, but the Chairman and the management are so excited. They invited the unions and the NTUC to visit the plant. I took up the invitation. It will be what I call the factory of the future in Singapore. What they did was to take all the best features from all their factories in other parts of the world, including UK where their headquarters is based, and put them in Singapore. They put all the best practices, all the best ideas here. This factory in Singapore will be handling their most coveted technologies, at the same time using the most advanced production processes not seen in Singapore, not seen in this part of the world, and they will have the best team of people to handle the plant. Guess what? EDB, WDA supported by the NTUC, we are working with Rolls Royce to train 500 people to get ready for the plant. Of course, Rolls Royce cannot just depend on the 500 Singaporeans to run the plant because there are many areas we do not have the experience yet, we do not have the expertise. But what Rolls Royce is doing is to bring the latest technology to Singapore. They will bring the latest expertise to Singapore, but it will go through a process called "glo-calisation". They globalise their operations to Singapore, at the same time they will localise expertise over time here. This is what we are talking about. When the Labour Movement talks about Singapore first, we are not advocating Singaporeans only policy because at the end of the day, that will only hurt us. What we are advocating is a concept of "CORE-calisation". In every sector of the economy, there should be a core of Singaporeans being nurtured to lead the future development of those sectors.

While we are hard-headed in keeping Singapore competitive, I believe we should become more soft-hearted in helping Singaporeans to stay cohesive – to work, live and play together. Food – what Singaporeans are looking for would be cheaper, better, faster food. I am very happy that Dr Vivian Balakrishnan announced the construction of new hawker centres. Housing – what Singaporeans are looking for are cheaper, better, faster public housing. Cheaper because the price is stable, affordable; and better because better designed; and faster, no need to wait too long. Minister Khaw Boon Wan's assurance two days ago has gone down very well. Likewise, public transport. The public are looking for cheaper, better, faster public transport. Same for healthcare. Cheaper, better, faster healthcare and cheaper, better, faster education too.

My point is that "cheaper, better, faster" is a concept that should not be taken lightly. It is a concept I firmly believe in. It is not a concept that I just dreamed up of. After all the years at EDB, walking around the world to look for investments, I can say that being cheaper, better, faster is the most effective secret weapon of Singapore, and I think we should apply that to the social arena as well.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will we succeed in our vision of building an inclusive nation that we can all be proud of? I would say that there is no guarantee. The future is for us to create and it is still there waiting for us to create it. But I believe that we have a better chance of succeeding if we are prepared to apply whole-heartedly in strong alignment. How can we make this happen? I believe that all of us in this House ought to strive to be political leaders, not politicians.

Mr Low Thia Khiang earlier said that he understood that there are trade-offs in Government policies but he said that the trade-offs of the Government are between the interests of the people and the Government. He even said that we are watching the pay of the Ministers more closely than we look after the interests of the people. So, he is implying that along the way, in all these policy trade-offs, the Government would think about how to save some money for Ministerial salaries and bonuses, and so on. Now, to accuse the Singapore Government, the PAP Government, as a team of Ministers, led by the Prime Minister, as individuals who are only interested in our self-interest, and that we come to politics to enrich ourselves, to take care of our interests at the expense of the people − I am at a loss for words to describe my feelings inside.

I came into politics not to enrich myself. I came into politics because in 1992, there was a software transfer project between Singapore and China. I was one of the most fortunate persons in Singapore to have spent about two years working at close range with our former Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew. And I learnt at first-hand how he explained his vision of nation-building to the Chinese leaders. And I say that that is the reason why I entered politics and I am very sure I speak for all my Cabinet Members as well.

Sir, let us not be politicians and keep worrying about votes. Let us be political leaders worrying about the future of Singapore, worrying about the future of Singaporeans. Let us put Singaporeans first, put Singapore first. Not PAP first, not Workers' Party first.

Fifty years from now, many of us in this House will be dead and gone, especially those who are more than 50 years old today. [Laughter.] But remember this: 50 years from now when some of us are dead and gone – by then Singapore would still be less than 100 years old – 96. For a person, 96 is old, about time to say bye-bye. But for a country, 96 still represents a very young nation. What we have to do is not to worry about our personal interests, or the interests of the Party, but let us make sure that Singapore will be a nation that is always progressing, always succeeding because it is the only way for a small nation like Singapore to survive. On that note, Sir, I support the motion in thanking the President for his Address. [Applause.]

Sir, a clarification. Sir, I would like to clarify that it is not my intention to imply that the Ministers are here to serve for their own interests or for the money. I did not imply that in my speech, so do not put words into my mouth. [Interruption.] No. I said there was a perception. [Interruption.] Whether I believe it? Is that the question? Okay. That depends on who I am listening to. If I listen to what the Prime Minister has said yesterday, I do not think the perception is correct. But if I listened to some of the other Ministers, or even maybe Mr Lee Yi Shyan who spoke about the Government's expenditure, that it should safeguard, yes, I would think what are you keeping the money for? Why do you need to save so much money but on the other hand let the people suffer? So, there is a trade-off in policy, and the question of how much the Government is prepared to spend. So, it is a mixed feeling.

Sir, the Minister mentioned just now that I claim credit for what the PAP is doing. Sir, I have not claimed any credit in my speech. On the contrary, Sir, I actually commended the PAP's resilience in response to the ground's reaction after the election, and I said this augurs well for Singapore. I have not claimed any credit that the Workers' Party has made the PAP do that. Who should really claim the credit? Probably the voters. They have voted us into Parliament, we now have more Opposition Members. And perhaps, as a result, the PAP took a serious look at what was happening. So, this is a positive situation. I do not think I have claimed any credit on that.

I think he also mentioned about a Member of the Workers' Party in his speech – I really do not know who he is, I have just checked – if he gives me the full name, I will be prepared to take a look. On his clarification about "cheaper, faster and better workers", I would say that, perhaps, we should start seeing better, faster Ministers at work? And maybe we can expect cheaper after the Ministerial Salary Review is completed?

Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Minister in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 536 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, just now the Minister said that the Opposition party only knows how to criticise. However, he should know that we can only make progress if there are criticisms. And he should not see the criticism from the Opposition as a bad thing. If I say PAP should listen to criticisms, he should not think that I am bad-mouthing the PAP. I think this is typical PAP mindset that whatever the Opposition says, it is always wrong.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Pg 537 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, I wish to clarify. What I said was that the Opposition should not just know how to criticise only. This is very different from saying Opposition should not criticise. Although my Chinese is not very good, I can make a distinction between the two. In other words, do not criticise only. Yes, you can criticise, but be constructive at the same time. Just like Mr Seng Han Thong said, you should not only have views, but also solutions. This will be much better.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Address by the President of Singapore. In his speech, President Tony Tan said, "For those who do exceptionally well, we hope that you feel a sense of responsibility to your fellow citizens and will contribute much to society which helped you blossom. By helping others, whether through public service, volunteerism or philanthropy, you will strengthen our social compact."

It is thus in such a context that the President and subsequently the Prime Minister yesterday described an inclusive nation, so that it is not only that growth is inclusive in that it will benefit all citizens, but also that all citizens, who can, will continue to build our country together.

The President also referred to strong families as the building blocks of a resilient society. Thus, the triumvirate: strong families that transmit sound values to and nurture the next generation and care for each other, able citizens in civic society who contribute to the welfare of others or take on initiatives to, say, promote the arts, sports or environmental issues, and a democratically elected parliament and government that debate then execute policies for the good of country and countrymen. They are all fundamental and the cornerstones of our society.

I urge all of us to keep watch over these, even as we shift and adjust, and not to lose the sight of these fundamentals. So, even if we must extend more support to single mothers, we must not inadvertently destroy the institution of families. Even as the Government must do more to help the disabled, we must not unintentionally discourage philanthropy, charity and self-help initiatives. Even as we become more plural in Parliament and society, we should ensure the heads, hearts and soul of our nation remain united and are in harmony.

Let me describe one of these mini triumvirates in action through the Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP). Mr Speaker, when an inmate is imprisoned, his family is often the one that suffers the most, they struggle to cope with life with the imprisonment of their loved ones. Prisons, thus, reaches out to the inmates' families to support them and, in addition, Prisons provides programmes and support to enhance the bonding between offenders and their families so that they are able to support the offenders during their rehabilitation and reintegration. Assistance provided by Prisons include information about referral services and referral services for families that need help, befriending, counselling as well as case management to help offenders' families maintain their stability and resilience.

But what awaits the prisoners upon release is an environment that cannot be pre-scripted by State apparatus. The community awaits the return of a prisoner upon release willingly or otherwise. Therefore, the Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP) was launched in 2004, and aims to garner support and acceptance from the community towards ex-offenders and their families, with the message of giving them a second chance in life.

Indeed, Prisons and the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) alone will not be able to provide all the initiatives and support necessary to help offenders and their families. While Prisons focuses on the core rehabilitation and counselling programmes, we rely heavily on our community partners and pool of volunteers to provide other programmes, especially through the expertise that the volunteers bring, doled out with no less care and passion. Let me share some examples of volunteers.

Specialist volunteer: Mr Gazali Saad, Director of Rhema Events and Arts Services Pte Ltd, led his employees to come forward and volunteer to set up the annual Yellow Ribbon Community Art Exhibition at the Singapore Art Museum. They are all going to impart inmates with a series of exhibition management workshops, equipping them with the knowledge and skill to eventually become art handlers in this specialised area.

Advocate and employer: Mr Jimmy Ler, Managing Director of Logwin Logistics. He sponsored our activities and adopted the art pieces. He encourages his business contacts to employ ex-offenders.

Advocate: Mr Mohd Daud from Daud Creative Barber, he never fails to show his support for the Yellow Ribbon Project by getting his customers to wear a Yellow Ribbon during the month of September. Indeed, the Government can always pass a law to make everyone wear a Yellow Ribbon during September, but nobody will wear it with enthusiasm.

The Government can facilitate to keep families together and help them tide through their difficulties, but it is only the community that can open its heart to them, to accommodate to the various needs of the returning ex-offenders, and thus give the ex-offenders the best chance to rehabilitate and to reintegrate.

I would like to take this opportunity to say my heartfelt thanks to all the YRP volunteers and Prisons volunteers who have come forward to show their support and acceptance of offenders and their families, and for giving them a second chance in life. For those who feel passionate about the Yellow Ribbon cause, I would like you all to come forward, too, to do your part to help the offenders and their families, and contribute to a safer Singapore.

My salute, too, to all volunteers of all forms in all outfits who sacrificed their time, talent and sometimes their own money to their various causes and have made Singapore a society with soul and a bigger heart. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 538-540 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, the spirit of volunteerism and gotong royong is not new to Malays in Singapore. Even our own intellectuals have long been organised and united. Our community's intellectuals were so concerned all the time with the community's well-being, especially that of the needy. They quickly come together if they feel that there is something wrong that should be fixed quickly.

Some of them also work together informally for charity. This includes the contribution of young teachers, as related to me by Mr Yatiman Yusof. At that time, in 1965, before there was Mendaki and there were no structured tuition classes. Mr Yatiman, together with eight friends, who were mostly still trainees at the Teachers' Training College, held tuition classes for more than 500 secondary school children during the weekends. This was held at the Tanglin High Malay School in Newton. The students were helped to prepare for their examinations. They paid 50 cents for the cost of buying chalk. Among them were former teachers like Mr Ambri Famli, Mr Abdul Latif Omar, Mr Haider Ali, Mdm Morni Sulaiman, Mr Murad Salim, Mr Sukaimi Kegan and Mr Sulaimi Sardi, with the late Mohamad bin Said as the supervisor. In fact, NIE lecturer Dr Abbas Mohd Shariff was also actively involved with them. Until now, some of them are still helping the community, among others, with programmes like ROPE Mendaki, to help mentor at-risk young Malays to take the PSLE.

The Young Women Muslim Association (PPIS) was formed in early 1952 by 22 ladies who were determined to help women facing challenges due to divorces, family violence and, for some, life as a single mother. Currently, it is an organisation with a professional staff of 100 people and operates 14 activity centres. Volunteers continue to be a pillar for the organisation, which helps over 300,000 clients.

The same goes for the Malay Youth Literary Association (4PM), formed in 1948, which has long been doing linguistic and community work. The organisation is a pioneer in the effort to uplift at-risk youths in ITEs and schools.

Similarly, other Malay bodies, including Prophet Muhammad's Birthday Memorial Scholarship Fund (LBKM), Association of Adult Religious Class Students of Singapore (Perdaus), Singapore Malay Teachers' Union (KGMS), Council of Malay Cultural Organisations Singapore (Majlis Pusat), Singapore Writers' Movement '50 (ASAS 50), Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (Pergas), Islamic Theological Association of Singapore (Pertapis), the Muslim Missionary Society (Jamiyah) and many others I have not mentioned have been contributing for so long and have done so much good for the community. Let us not forget the Indian Muslims, with all their associations that worked together under one Federation. They align their missions and objectives according to the times and changing needs. Now, some of them are well-known as forerunners in inter-religious efforts; some have produced international humanitarian bodies like Mercy Relief; some have flown our flag in the fields of debate and culture in our region; and some are entrusted by MCYS to help members of the community who are left behind.

This is the unique characteristic of our Malay/Muslim community which we should encourage and preserve. The sense of ownership for our community's issues is our strength. It should be kindled and the tradition of organisations helping the community continued with the setting up of new bodies like Mendaki and the Association of Muslim Professionals (AMP).

Hence, I am proud of the support from the Malay community and Malay/Muslim bodies to help ex-inmates recently in the Yellow Ribbon Programme. If the ratio is one volunteer for more than 100 inmates during early 2010, I am told recently that it is one in 29. This is a spectacular achievement, all due to the concern of the community who are always ready to help, especially when called upon. In fact, the community proved responsive and won the battle against drugs when it was spearheaded by the late Harun Ghani in the mid-1990s. I am sure that the community and organisations will respond when called upon once again.

Mr Speaker, the spirit of gotong royong, volunteerism and working in organisations will bring three major benefits, especially in community work.

First, it provides a direct benefit to those being helped. Those being helped would surely feel relieved that their burden is lightened while they obtain the drive to achieve a better tomorrow. The effect is that not only many will get help, but many of those who were once helped, now want to give something back to the community. This includes those who had once lived in children's homes and have received good education, like those from Jamiyah and Pertapis.

Second, those who are actively volunteering know the benefit of doing something good for others. Being a volunteer provides its own satisfaction because those of us who live like a candle whose flame will surely die, are able to light a thousand more candles before we leave this world. An organisation can be a place and a ready group that can develop expertise and abilities in specific fields. It can also be a vehicle to gather our talented young people so that they can serve the community in an organised and well-guided manner. More importantly, those who are active will recognise the blood, sweat and tears needed to run the organisation's machinery, to obtain funds, and to help those in desperate circumstance. As for those actively involved in inter-racial organisation and efforts, they will be experts in using modes of communication for each other's benefit and respect differences in opinions and culture. They will ultimately be members of the community whose minds are mature and views are balanced. They will no longer be those who only know how to criticise because they know it is easier to criticise than to do something well.

Thirdly and finally, some of those who are active will be chosen to be the organisations' leaders after they have been successfully tried and tested. When things calm down, they will bring fresh changes and will be experienced to safely steer the organisations through stormy weather. These are the people who do not complain of being unwell when under pressure, complain of being tired when they are busy, or give up when facing major challenges. They are like sailors who know how to navigate their vessel and are able to reach their destination even when going against the wind.

From this organisation culture, the Malay/Muslim community managed to produce so many of its leaders. Many have left us now. I am unable to mention all of them. Some are still fresh in our memories, like the late Ridzwan Dzafir, who had recently passed away. The same goes for stalwarts like Haji Mofradi from the Alexandra Welfare and Sports Association (Perkasa); Mr Mohd Yatim Dohon from 4PM; the late Mohd Yusoff Ahmad from Majlis Pusat who championed efforts for our community's welfare; the late Cikgu Mohamed Simen who, together with Haji Wan Hussin Zoohri and Haji Sidek Saniff from KGMS, was among those who, from early on, had increased our community's awareness of the importance of mastering the English language and joining the national mainstream. The late Haji Yaacob Mohamad and the late Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff set aside political differences and worked together to form and set up the LBKM. Haji Abu Bakar Maidin always championed the missionary and welfare movement, and the late Ustaz Syed Abdillah Al-Jufri and the late Ustaz Haji Embek Ali should be remembered.

I myself owe much to the late Ustaz Embek Ali, who mentored me and my friends, to work together to uplift the community in Perdaus. It was his advice that reminded me not to look down on the efforts of other organisations, because all the work done is equally important and equally tough. It was due to him that I realise that it is inappropriate to tell other leaders to have introspection and look inward, or that they should think of changing themselves before being able to change the people's fate. Our leaders already have had so much life experience.

Mr Speaker, I am heartened because many Malay/Muslim organisations presently continue to play an active and major role in our community. Most of them have a youth wing, demonstrating that they are youth-friendly. This is a good sign that the tradition of having organisations will last in our community.

But I am concerned that the new media can also enable anyone to participate in discussion of issues faced by the community, as if this is the latest movement to change the community's fate. On the one hand, it is healthy because it signifies the concern among netizens. It is not surprising that because they are so absorbed, some feel that it is enough to be labelled as being concerned if they are active in Facebook. Many Malays in the cyber world have also forgotten how to behave as Malays because some are vulgar and discourteous when giving their views.

Some also hide behind fake identities, which is a culture foreign to us, and some like to spread disinformation as long as it is interesting. This does not happen when Malays face each other because they will act civilly. We must all be careful so that the spirit of gotong royong and volunteerism does not disappear due to the euphoria in the cyber world.

I urge the cyber community to be active also in our organisations in the real world. The organisations will surely be happy to accept members and the cyber community's wish to be involved will be fulfilled. By taking part in community work, they will experience a paradigm shift. They will surely be more profound and bring benefit during exchanges in the cyber world, and this will enrich and improve the debates.

These are among the challenges faced by our community in the future. Our community's organisations must be kept relevant so that they will become the catalyst for the community's development, by becoming an attractive platform for our youths and will not be overtaken by individualism that arises from the new media. Hopefully, it will continue to produce community leaders who have been tried and tested, respected, mature and can cooperate wisely in order to continue uplifting the community. Each of them will be an asset because they complement many types of leadership, be it civic or political, that are needed by the community in the future. With families that are strong and morally sound, and organisations that are always concerned, as well as an efficient and fair Government, we can overcome whatever challenges faced by our nation, and become a successful and credible community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to make a clarification on what the Member Mr Low Thia Khiang mentioned just now. I think I need to make this clarification because otherwise my point about trade-offs can be misinterpreted and then, therefore, a lot more other people will be misled.

What I said exactly was this: I said we are operating within very tight parameters in an already highly optimised system. If we build more flats, we will forgo more open spaces; if we build more roads, we will have fewer parks; if we intensify building at MRT locations, it will also mean denser living; if we allow property values to appreciate, it would mean a bigger gap between the existing property owners and the aspirants.

Sir, I said nature is full of inherent trade-offs. So, every policy has its multi-faceted effects so let us be mindful of them and make the best use of them. That is what I said. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion of Thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of the Twelfth Parliament. Our aspiration to achieve a better life for all Singaporeans anchors on several factors which have been discussed by many of our parliamentary colleagues over the last few days. So, let me just touch on two that I feel are important.

First, to improve the lives of Singaporeans, our economy must grow. I had not intended to elaborate on the importance of economic growth because I think this has been talked about quite a bit over the last few days. But I must echo what Mr Lim Swee Say had said. Because there was overtone that we kind of assume that if we want more growth, we can turn on the tap and more growth comes. Or if we want less growth, we can turn off the tap. Being in the GPC for Finance and Trade and Industry, our Members work very closely with the Ministry and the agencies, and I will tell you that much time is spent not on the amount of growth but what needs to be done in order to ensure growth. The policies, the investments, the priorities and the trade-offs. I just want to remind this House that growth is not guaranteed despite the fact that we have growth. I was heartened to also hear from everyone about the importance placed on how we grow, who benefited from the growth, and that is heartening because we are talking about Singaporeans and how it impacts us.

But I do want to talk on the subject of growth – about the need to sustain it and the need to stay relevant and competitive. The second piece that I want to touch on is an inclusive nation and this point was covered in the President's Address and in the Addenda from many of the Ministries. I will elaborate on an area that I feel needs some rethinking in the approach taken.

As mentioned in the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Addendum, we need to work to sustain our growth by putting in place the necessary infrastructure and improving on our enterprise friendly business environment to remain an attractive hub for global companies and also to be the base that Singapore companies want to continue to use to grow their businesses internationally. I am glad to see the World Bank's report released yesterday, ranking Singapore as the easiest place to do business and this is the sixth year running. And this is not just the easiest place to do business in Asia, mind you. It is the easiest place to do business in the world. But we all must understand that this does not just stay that way. We have to continue to work at it.

There have been several initiatives to address them and I just want to touch on two. The recent Public Consultation of the Steering Committee's Review of the Companies Act and the Code of Corporate Governance is in support of enhancing our corporate governance standard and maintaining a business environment that is favourable for businesses and trusted by investors. Especially for small businesses, this does make a big difference because administrative cost as well as opportunity cost becomes a lot easier to manage. The release of the recent Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA)'s consultation document seeking stakeholder's views on the data protection laws for Singapore is another welcomed move. Now, I must declare my interests because I am working in the infocomm industry.

We are now in a unique position to develop not only a data protection regime that meets the privacy needs of citizens, but to develop a regime that embraces the realities of 21st century computing and services, at the same time promoting responsible information stewardship by data controllers as well as processors. The founder and CEO of the Asia Cloud Computing Association said, "Cloud computing can help accelerate the momentum around trade and economic integration in Asia but to realise this potential, it will require harmonisation of policy and regulatory framework to facilitate effective trade in digital information and services."

Despite the criticism on our model, Singapore has an unmatched reputation as a policy innovator. It leads the region and the world on so many key indices from network readiness, prioritisation of ICT, efficiencies of our legal system, and global competitiveness. But I must say that we lack a comprehensive data protection law and this is an area where we have not kept pace with global regulatory trends and technology developments. To underscore the impact that Singapore lacks a comprehensive data protection law and what it had on the perception of Singapore and the potential of our cloud computing and data analytics ambitions, the recent release of the Asia Cloud Computing Association's "Cloud Readiness Index" rated Singapore as third in the region for our cloud potential. The key area holding us back from being first was data protection.

At the other end of the spectrum, the impact of strict sectorial data protection policies in financial services and healthcare is sending mixed signals to international data customers. On the one hand, we are promoting Singapore as a trusted hub for international data hosting, but on the other hand, we see many of our leading businesses denied of effectively using the benefits of cloud technology even if that data is hosted here in Singapore. Sir, it is therefore pleasing to see the approach taken by the Ministry to seek consultation with stakeholders on their views to ensure that Singapore continues to stay relevant and an attractive hub for businesses.

Our environment and society is changing. The aspirations for both young and older Singaporeans are changing. The Ministry of Manpower's Addendum emphasised the need to focus efforts to improving quality of jobs as the basis for Singapore's economic dynamism and sustained increase in Singaporean's incomes. Many of us are people managers. I must stress, when I heard Member Josephine Teo as well as Mr Lim Swee Say talk about jobs and job loss. I must tell you that as an employer myself and having been in the industry for 20 over years, every single job is important. Being able to continue to grow and sustain the business so that you can maintain that every job is important. In our MPS sessions, when we have people coming in and asking us for jobs, not for handouts, but for jobs, then we will know exactly what is at stake when people talked about "do you grow more, do you grow less?" You will realise how important it is to give our people the ability to sustain a lifestyle, their families and to give them hope.

So, in meeting the aspirations of Singaporeans and motivating Singaporeans to stay relevant, I think that is the job that we have to do. We have to capture, create job opportunities so that people want to sustain the growth, people want to stay relevant and people take advantage of the programmes to stay relevant. As the President in his Address has also said "growth is not an end in itself". He goes on to say "we seek inclusive growth that benefits all citizens not just the lucky few".

From my interactions with and getting feedback from residents, I have had a sense of the sentiments towards Government policies. I must say this because it was said with such heartfelt feeling when I had a dialogue recently and in the midst of a lot of angst from our residents after the GE. But they actually said to me, "Jessica, we must tell you that there is soundness in the Government policies and we have faith in them." But in the same breath, they also shared with me the angst that they felt. I will quote one resident, I think it reflects this. He said, a very simple quote, "I feel unloved." I looked at him dumbfounded. I did not know how to answer that. So, I asked him, "Tell me why. Help me understand why." And he said, "The policies are sound but when it impacts the man in the street, how it hits me as an individual. That is where the Government has to pay attention to." He said, "I am angry, that's why I am here." I told him, "Thank you for coming because you at least told us. It matters to you and you have told us and you are willing to work with us." But I want to express what he said and what he meant by "I feel unloved." He gave me the example of the fact that he and his siblings have been taking care of their sick father. They are middle income, most of my residents are. He said, "We don't qualify for subsidies. We don't actually want subsidies but it is depleting our savings. It is depleting my retirement needs", because he was clearly in his 50s.

So, I would say that this is the middle income group. The very group that the President in his Address has said forms the majority of Singaporeans. The President pointed out that this is the group that has "worked hard to provide for themselves and their families." He pointed out that we need to help them cope with rapid changes and the growing competition in the world.

This is the very group that does not qualify in most cases for support and in many cases does not want support. But there may be times when they need it and the challenge and the mismatch – and I spent a lot of time thinking about it – was really the criteria for qualifications used because of the assets they owned and sometimes the assets are not as liquid as we like to believe they are. Many had shared with me about the hard work they put in over the years to purchase their private properties and these are not big, grand bungalows that we are talking about. We are talking about little terraces and maybe slightly bigger semi-Ds.

But let me tell you this: People say they do not need help but the point is that there are times when people do need a leg up. There are times when sudden crisis hits the family – be it business failure, sudden serious illness or any other unforeseen circumstances. It does not matter whether you are lower or middle income. But because of the pragmatic and efficient way that policies are implemented, it may result in individuals who are doing the right things, trying to be self-sufficient, feeling alienated or denied of support, even when they need it most. This is due to the fact that they do not meet the policy criteria set out for qualifications. I thought about the scene where a typical person seeking help approaches the agency. He comes from a point of need, his or her need. The officer at the agency attending to the request, earnestly; also handling it the best he or she can from the vantage point of "How do I execute this policy in the most fair way by the criteria selected and the rationale selected?" The approach finally of a person coming for help may seem cold and unfeeling. Given the current economic conditions and uncertainties as well as rising cost of living and inflationary pressures, I am concerned that there will be more middle income families requiring help and we need to look at how to help them without busting the bank, if I can say this.

I am not advocating a populist approach as this would not be sustainable. I am not asking us to just give handouts without thinking. What I am asking is that we relook at the criteria for request for support in the middle income group when such situations arise. Currently, while exceptions are made, the process to get the appeals through sometimes requires some level of perseverance and to some extent leads to the angst that are felt.

This brings me to another point on the need for discerning between wealth distribution and programmes to share success with all Singaporeans. Schemes like ComCare, Workfare, Medifund and other targeted programmes do support the lower income and the needy and they are helpful programmes in the distribution of wealth where it is needed.

On the other hand, inclusion is about feeling a part of. So, for example, when a family shares a meal, we eat the same food regardless of station or status. I am quite sure that when we all go home to our families and have our reunion dinners or we have our weekend family dinners with our parents, they do not say, "This child is more successful and that child is less successful, therefore you eat less or you eat more." And in the same way, I hope that as a country, when we want to share the fruits of success amongst our citizens, we should not put too many conditions for qualification. For example, when and if the intent is to celebrate growth, we should not set conditions on qualifications based on income and on housing type. Let me tell you that I am throwing out means testing. While I support the rationale for means testing as a way to focus limited resources for needy Singaporeans by channeling it to those who need it most, I would recommend that the Government continues to target these programmes and not combine programmes.

If the programme's intent is to share benefits of successful growth amongst all Singaporeans, it would be best to keep this simple and not combine wealth distribution initiatives with the programme. I think the recent Grow and Share Package was one of them where it did a lot. We tried to do a lot in that package and we give a lot. But at the same time, it was so complex because it combined both wealth distribution as well as just celebration of success, if I call that for want of a better term. This would mean that if we really look at just sharing wealth there is no need to set criteria and the rest of the programmes to distribute wealth which is absolutely necessary should be targeted and done in a targeted fashion.

We are an improbable nation, a little red dot with no natural resources except our people. It is our people in partnership with the leadership and Government that has enabled us to achieve what we have. While the Government will need to continue to play an important role, to be truly successful and to achieve the bold goal set out for a better life for all Singaporeans and not just the lucky few, it is imperative that our people, in strong partnership with our Government, seize the opportunities, and that the Government work in strong partnership with the people.

While there will always be concerns about competition and its impact on Singapore and Singaporeans, what we must focus on is how we ensure that Singapore and Singaporeans stay relevant and competitive. This will enable our people and companies to seize the opportunities that exist and address the challenges ahead. Our forefathers invested on our people, the infrastructure and the ecosystem. They had faith in our people being able to make the difference.

I would like to touch on another group before I end, and this is the group of youth-at-risk. This is a group that I think we need to pay a lot more attention to, especially in a very highly urbanised city like Singapore. I will tell you a story because I think it tells you not only about the resilience of our youth, but also the support they need. A couple of years ago, a family came to see me to ask for help for their daughter, to ask for leniency. She was caught shoplifting. As I spoke to her, I looked at her and I just could not understand why she got into trouble. So I probed further and I asked her, "Tell me a little bit more about yourself. Why did you do what you did?" In that process of probing, I found out that, actually, it was not just shoplifting. She had dropped out of school a year earlier. A young, bright, intelligent girl. She looked very sparkly. So I was a bit surprised. I asked her what happened. Actually, she got into a lot more trouble during that time. She said, "I got bored and decided that I would drop out." Secondary 3; parents were really nice. People worry that parents are not giving support. But the parents were at a loss. I looked at the parents and I looked at her and, for some reason, instead of saying, "I will write an appeal for leniency for you", which I did finally, I asked her this question – I do not know why I did it, but I am glad I did – "Do you want to go back to school?" Her parents jumped off their seats, and I told them, "Wait." She turned to me, looked me earnestly in the eye and said, "Yes." I said, "Okay. Which school were you in? Do you want to go back to the same school?" She said, "A bit tough because I will be embarrassed." After that, she said, "But I know the place." In the end, we agreed let us try to get her back to the same school. And I was glad that MOE worked with us and got her back to school. I kept track and found out that she stayed on in school. Why I am telling you this story is because MOE was able to get her back in school because we were able to capture that moment.

Just recently this year, I did my house visits and had this man smiling at me when I knocked on the door. He smiled at me, he looked familiar but I could not recognise him. Finally, he said, "Don't you remember me, my daughter?" Then I looked at him again, still could not remember him. Finally, I saw this girl peeping from his shoulder. She was smiling, giving me the smile. I said, "What are you doing now?" And she said, "Oh, I completed my 'O' levels." Now, she is in ITE. She continued her education. She is happy and she is back in the system. Why I am telling you this story is because I think our people are resilient. But at the same time, I think we need to give them the eco-system to support them. We have to find those moments that we need to get them back. In this case, we were lucky. We got it. There is this group of youth – there are many of them – and we need to pay special attention to this group.

So we have come this far and, my point is, we continue to have to. We have heard many speeches saying that our people are important, so we will continue to invest in them, to ensure a better life for all Singaporeans. With that, Sir, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

Order. 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, Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak in support of the motion to thank the President for his Address to this Twelfth Parliament. I know this has been a very long week, so I would like to thank Members for their continued attention.

I would like to focus on inclusive growth for Singapore and for Singaporeans through education and training, and how everyone has a chance to work towards a good life. The Government has invested much in education and training, so that every Singaporean can be "armed" with the necessary skills – our best "weapon" to seek a good living and future for ourselves and our families. Decent work and a good job can also be a source of personal satisfaction, fulfilment as well as dignity. In a country such as ours where human resources remain our best and sole resource for economic survival, Singapore depends on our people to survive and thrive. Work is the best means for Singaporeans to achieve self-reliance while participating in and reaping the benefits of the economic growth of our country.

But with the world moving much faster than before, having the skills to stay in our jobs today is no longer enough. We also need to have the capabilities to meet the demands of tomorrow. Supporting Singaporeans through continuous learning is our way of helping Singaporeans stay employable with the new knowledge and skills sets required to remain relevant in the job market. This is why, apart from Pre-Employment Training, the Government has also invested heavily in our Continuing Education and Training (CET) framework.

But while most workers strive on and seek out opportunities to obtain the skills, experience and qualifications to stay relevant and ahead of the game, there is a group of people among us who are less poised to take advantage of these opportunities ‒ the less-educated and less-skilled. They must not be left behind. The Tripartite Committee for Low-Wage Workers and Inclusive Growth (TriCom), which I chair, was set up in October 2010 to deal with the challenges faced by our low-wage workers. The key focus of TriCom is to help those who missed out on opportunities in school to catch the boat now and pick up the skills needed to earn a good living. The Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) is an alternative pathway that allows those without formal qualifications to be granted nationally recognised qualification and certification based on their workplace skills and experience.

Low-wage workers face unique challenges and barriers to training which keep them from stepping out of the low-income trap. To help them surmount these challenges, the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme was launched in July last year to support them in the pursuit of training for greater income and social mobility. The generous course fee subsidies and absentee payroll support help them to reduce the cost of training for themselves as well as their employers. Training commitment award payments of up to $400 a year to reward them for completing training. There are other specific ways to encourage low-wages workers to take up skills training. The Workfare-Skills Up, for example, provides, among others, mentorship. English at workplace raises accessibility of literacy training as it is conducted at the workplace.

As low-wage workers improve their own circumstances through training, we can help uplift them by providing them with better wages and employment standards. The second focus of the TriCom is on best sourcing because a significant number of low-wage workers are employed in outsourced sectors, such as the security and cleaning services sectors.

Low-wage workers in outsourced sectors are particularly vulnerable as they and their employers typically lack the bargaining power to make a difference to their wages and employment standards. Buyers of outsourced services tend to look to price as the determining factor for services which do not have defining quality and value propositions. For cleaning and security sectors, this is usually the case. When a buyer procures based on the lowest price it can get for the service, it encourages unhealthy price competition that depresses wages and employment standards across the sector as service providers try to undercut one another to win the contract. The Tripartite Advisory on Responsible Outsourcing Practices shows the way forward for service buyers to act responsibly to ensure that the workers of their outsourced service providers are provided with basic employment standards and benefits. The TriCom is revising the Advisory to update the recommendations for better implementation. The revised Advisory and a step-by-step guidebook, which will provide practical tips for procurement officers and management, will be launched sometime next month.

Mr Zainal Sapari has said that the Government and the NTUC have done much to help low-wage workers and urges for more to be done. I cannot agree more. But beyond schemes and subsidies, my hope is to see the betterment of our low-wage workers with the support of a more socially conscious business and social community. The need to change the way that we, as the procurer of services – be it decision makers in companies, facilities managers or the end-user beneficiaries – value the service and hard work of our workers should be looked into again. Driving a hard bargain to reduce what we pay to the service providers and, in turn, their workers, may bring short-term cost benefits and cost-savings, but often result in unseen costs, such as poorer service levels and risks of service disruption and cost to the low-wage workers, as it is the workers and their families who will bear the brunt of depressed wages. We cannot as a society call for more to be done for low-wage workers, but not ourselves play our part as responsible buyers of such services. Cleaning and security services are after all small costs for most companies.

As to whether the Government can cease outsourcing manual jobs, that may not be practical. Outsourcing allows the Government to focus on its core business and tap on private-sector expertise and efficiency. It is not to save costs by depressing wages. Doing away with outsourcing is also not the silver bullet that Mr Zainal seems to suggest. We should aim to uplift all low-wage workers, not just the small number that the Government can directly employ. Mr Zainal will be happy to note that the Government will walk the talk in best sourcing. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will support this. We are studying how the Government can better implement the best sourcing practices in the Tripartite Advisory. I hope that, with the Government taking the lead, the private sector will follow suit too.

As we uplift the vulnerable workers through skills for good employment, the Government is also determined to open the path to opportunities for our young people by maximising their potential through education. Let me now speak on another issue close to my heart – ensuring that every child has the chance to fully develop through education despite their circumstances.

The Prime Minister yesterday spoke about one of our national concerns as Singapore becomes more developed – that students from less well-off families tend to do less well in education. This is a global phenomenon, not unique to Singapore, and it is something the Government is committed to addressing.

We have done this first and foremost by continuously making heavy investments to develop and nurture our young. This is complemented by the unique working relationship between various stakeholders in society. Like the tripartite partnership that has supported the economic growth, we have built a similar collaborative framework in the education sector – between schools, parents and the community – to bring about the best education for our young. For instance, over the past decade, through concerted effort, we have aggressively tackled the issue of school dropouts – bringing it down from 4% in the year 2000 to 1% in 2010. The story narrated by Ms Jessica Tan is one example where schools tried to help. A girl who had dropped out from school one year before that, to come back and get the education that she needs, to be able to be on a good footing for the future.

Beyond that, we continue to do more for academically weaker students. We have put in place learning support programmes to level up those weaker in English and Mathematics at the primary level. At the secondary level, Dr Intan Azura would be glad to know that we have been doing more for our Normal (Technical) students. A new N(T) STEP curriculum, which places stronger emphasis on building students' self-motivation and self-esteem, character development, numeracy and literacy was introduced. New subjects, like Elements of Business Skills with industrial attachment, are well received by teachers and students alike.

We have also provided more resources to Normal (Technical) students. In calculating teacher quota, for example, we give consideration to schools with more Normal course students, by providing additional manpower grants, and an additional Head of Department for N(T) for schools with larger Normal (Technical) enrolment. In tandem with curriculum demands, we have provided more teachers too. Dr Intan may be pleased to know that, for example, subjects such as Computer Applications, Design & Technology, which require closer supervision, are taught in groups of 20, a smaller class size. Many schools also deploy their Allied Educators to support N(T) students.

We have been extremely encouraged by our existing Specialised Schools − NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School – catering to students with different learning styles. Given the positive experiences from students in these schools, we see value in using a whole-school approach to nurture the whole child, hence our motivation to embark on the two new Specialised Schools. This approach will enable us to deliver some of the support Dr Intan has called for N(T) students: create a customised curriculum, execute appropriate teaching pedagogies, and recruit committed teachers with the right skills and attitudes.

Dr Intan has expressed concern that the new Specialised Schools may lead to more segregation. This is a valid concern. We believe that by meeting the learning needs of N(T) students more effectively, we will be able to help them pick up the skills, competencies and values to lead a productive and fulfilling life. In the long run, this will help ensure these students succeed in life and promote a more inclusive society.

I assure Members that the intention here is in no way to segregate N(T) students but to offer them with another option in the education landscape to better support and meet their learning needs. The bulk of our Normal (Technical) students will still be in our mainstream schools together with the Express and Normal Academic students. For these students, we will continue to study how we can improve their learning experiences, including scaling up learning points from our Specialised Schools and N(T) Mark II schools.

While we have in place the programmes and policies to help the vulnerable in our population, overcoming the odds to succeed takes immense personal courage and commitment. I am encouraged by those who have succeeded and done well. Let me cite a recent story published in The Straits Times. Christopher Zhuo grew up in a home environment plagued by loan sharks. The eldest of three sons became the head of household at the age of 18. Determined to turn life around for his family, Christopher worked hard at school, and earned a diploma in business studies before landing scholarships which paid for his university fees. Today, he is a successful trader in the finance industry and has earned enough to buy a hawker stall for his mother. This was published in The Straits Times on 16 July 2011.

But this is not an isolated case − our findings show that of students living in 3-room flats or smaller, one in every two still go on to our publicly-funded universities or polytechnics. We will continue to support students with Edusave, Opportunity Fund and IHL bursaries as well as financial assistance.

Our meritocratic approach and inclusive education system have made it possible for students from disadvantaged families to succeed. In this area, we have done better than most developed countries. In 2009, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the OECD found that Singapore students fared very well out of 65 countries studied, coming in fifth in Reading, second in Mathematics and fourth in Science. However, what was more impressive to me was that the study found that half of our students from lower socio-economic backgrounds perform better than what their circumstances would predict. They are called the "Resilient Students". The proportion of "Resilient Students" in Singapore is twice that of other countries in the study where on average one-quarter performed better than what their circumstances would predict. So, in a nutshell, everyone in Singapore, including the low-income families and their children, can do well in school.

Going forward, we must press on to ensure that no child is left behind. We must strengthen the partnership between schools, parents and the community. As Chairman of COMPASS, over the past few months, I have met many parents who are both concerned about their child's education and supportive of efforts of teachers and schools. As we move towards a Student-Centric, Values-Driven education system, we need the schools and parents to work together to overcome problems of learning and to give greater support to our students. Schools can reinforce values imparted by parents to their children, while parents can provide a supportive environment for their children's learning and to develop important life skills.

We see evidence of this strong collaborative spirit in many of our schools. At St Hilda's Primary School, for example, the parent support group initiated and maintains the Reading is Fun Program (RIFP) and Maths Made Easy (MME) to help Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils who are weaker in these areas. Both programmes involve parent volunteers dedicating time and energy to help our children become more confident readers and mathematicians through fun activities such as story-telling and games. We can reach out and work with even more parents, including those with less academically inclined children, to further reduce dropout rates and encourage even more to progress to post-secondary education.

As we progress with sights set for the future, let us offer the helping hands for those who are vulnerable among us or who have fallen behind along the way. It is my hope for an inclusive society for Singapore – a future where every Singaporean counts and no one is left behind. Sir, may I just say a few words in Malay?

(In Malay): [Please refer to Pg 541 for Vernacular Speeches*.] Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Prime Minister had emphasised yesterday, the Government's priority will be to create opportunities for all our people to progress. In addition, this will be complemented by strengthening our social safety nets so that the vulnerable do not fall through the cracks and can improve themselves and become self-reliant.

Over the years, we have created a society that is more inclusive and we will do even more going forward. Aside from MOE and MOM, the whole Government and community want low-income families to succeed, and have been making concerted efforts to do so.

Today, low-wage workers and their families have a chance to improve their well-being, with a range of programmes developed by WDA and other organisations. Through the Workforce Skills Qualifications Programme (WSQ), those without formal qualifications have the chance to improve themselves and their incomes. To further help the low-income workers, we have the Workfare Training Support Scheme. This is a skills training network to help our workers upgrade their capabilities so that they remain employable.

Many students from low-income families too have made it to the ITEs, polytechnics and universities. There are many bursaries and schemes in place both by the Government and community groups like the LBKM (Prophet Muhammad's Birthday Memorial Scholarship Fund), Mendaki and others, to help them, so that students from poor families can continue to study and improve their capabilities. I hope that low-income families do not lose hope and look for role models that they can emulate to encourage their children to achieve success in studies, as well as in areas of interest that they are good at.

Those who are less well-off should also not lose hope. As the 2009 PISA study by the OECD has indicated, in terms of proportion, there are many more "Resilient Students" in Singapore compared to many other developed countries. These "Resilient Students" are those from low socio-economic backgrounds, who had achieved better than their circumstances would have predicted based on their family's status. Our children must do better than us, and their children even better than them.

As a community, we have seen significant improvements in our educational performance over the past decade. The percentage of Malay students in the Primary 1 cohort admitted to post-secondary institutions improved tremendously from 70% in 2000 to 86% in 2009. The proportion of Malays aged 15 and over with at least post-secondary qualifications has doubled from 18% in 2000 to 36% in 2010. This should encourage and spur us to progress further.

Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister had noted, Singapore's next 10 years will be very challenging. As a community, we must seize the many opportunities available, be it to constantly upgrade our skills or support our young fully to be the best they can be. I am confident that based on our community's achievement so far, we can emerge even stronger, more resilient and successful in the years to come. Mr Speaker, with this, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been so much discussion about the pursuit of Happiness in this House over the past five days. Happiness is indeed an abstract philosophy with so many differing opinions. What exactly is happiness? As strange as it can be, there would not be happiness without sadness or misery. Human beings cannot stay in a positive state forever. This would become his normal state and would not feel happy anymore.

The debate on Happiness has, paradoxically, generated much heated exchanges, disagreement and sporadically some unhappiness. In fact, life is full of paradoxes. Take for example, we have bigger houses but smaller families; more medicine but less wellness; teach less, learn more; and on few occasions during the debate, we became long on quantity, but short on quality.

Sir, happiness, to me, is simply the blessing of waking up in the morning and knowing that I can still live another day to serve my fellow countrymen and spend time with my family and friends. Having said all these, I will do my best to sum up the debate in a concise manner so that I can contribute to the GCH or Gross Chamber Happiness in the House.

Over the last five days, I have had the privilege of listening to the many eloquent speeches of my parliamentary colleagues. During my opening speech, I had said that I would be looking forward to a candid discussion in this House. Having heard some 70 speakers, every single one of them, including the Prime Minister and several Ministers, I am sure we will all agree that the quality of this debate in this House has been nothing short of being robust, constructive and, on some occasions, heart and mind-lifting.

We were also brought on a teleport journey, from the era of patriotic courtiers of Tang Dynasty in feudalistic ancient China, to the perceived Utopia on Earth – Bhutan; and from doom and gloom Europe, back to vibrant and inclusive Singapore. While this House spoke on a wide array of issues, it is clear that all of us can agree on one fundamental tenet – that we as parliamentarians will strive to make Singapore a better home for all Singaporeans.

Over the last few days, many issues were raised by my fellow colleagues. One hot issue that was debated fervently was how to make Singapore a better place by improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of healthcare. With the impending silver tsunami, many Members have highlighted how healthcare policies need to be changed to ensure that the needs of the ageing population can be met. I also echo the sentiment that we should look into ways to help all Singaporeans cope with the rising healthcare costs.

Besides healthcare, the rapidly ageing population entails other challenges. Members suggested ways to help the elderly population stay employed, active and healthy. I am sure the Ministerial Committee on Ageing, chaired by Minister Gan, will look into the issues that an ageing population will face in the future and I am confident that ageing as an upcoming challenge will be addressed holistically and adequately.

Another recurring theme that arose during the debate was public housing. Members had spoken about the need to make public housing relevant to the needs of Singaporeans today. At the same time, we must remember that HDB flats should stay affordable so as to maintain its objective of housing and rooting Singaporeans to the nation. I am sure we can all agree that HDB's job today is much different from 30 to 40 years ago. Today, it has to cater to various segments of the population with different housing needs. I am reassured by Minister Khaw's declaration that his Ministry will build more homes and also address the specific needs of various segments of society, in particular the newlyweds and the low-income families, over the next couple of years.

Members have also spoken passionately about the need to reform and review our education system to ensure that it stays relevant to Singaporeans, including those with special needs. I am particularly impressed by Minister Heng's promise of making "every school a good school" and the emphasis on character development. As we look to meet the challenges in the future, let us, as the Prime Minister had noted in his speech, ensure that our education system stays nimble and flexible towards the new challenges that we will face.

Our transport system has for decades been a model of emulation for many other countries. But as we move towards a new future, perhaps it is time to revisit some of our fundamentals in public transport. There is room for improvement. Members had spoken about making the public transport more efficient and less crowded. And I certainly look forward to a cheaper, better, faster and, hopefully, reliable transport network. Several of my fellow colleagues have raised a pertinent point about transport concessions for polytechnic students and I believe this is something we can consider sooner than later.

The pursuit of economic growth has also been a topic of contention. In particular, Members have asked if doing so was at the expense of Singaporeans for they had to bear with the inadequacy of the infrastructure due to immigration and the inconveniences and discomfort of overcrowding. In order to achieve inclusive growth, Members had given many great ideas to help PMEs, women, low-wage workers and other vulnerable groups.

In reviewing what we had achieved over the past decade, I am quick to agree with Ministers of State Lawrence Wong and Tan Chuan-Jin that the Government had seized windows of opportunities that arose. In fact, it was the result of grabbing such opportunities that had resulted in growths of median income for Singaporeans. It was a trade-off and not a matter of poor scenario planning by the Government, as some Members had alleged. Such trade-offs do not benefit the Government alone but the majority of Singaporeans while adversely affecting some.

After all, as an ophthalmologist, I am perhaps one of the best persons, in addition to Dr Lim, to tell you that hindsight is always 20/20 or best vision of all. Similarly, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, it is impossible to have 100% foresight for we can never be certain of the volatile future and must be prepared for any surprises that come our way. What we can do is to grab the opportunities as they arise and be responsive to the needs of all Singaporeans. We must also remember that only with growth can we have the ability and means to support strong investments in education, healthcare, housing and social assistance programmes for all Singaporeans. We should see economic growth as a means to an end.

With a changing world and an evolving political landscape, we, as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, must set forth to forge a new social compact with the people. This is done in the midst of an increasing influence of the social media and the Internet as a new platform for citizen engagement, which many Members in the House have already spoken passionately about. I am extremely glad that the Government would take a "more open approach" to governing the country, which would include sharing more information with the public and engaging the citizens more. Let us be political leaders, like what Minister Lim Swee Say had alluded to, who work with our citizens for the betterment of all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow hon. colleagues in the House, PAP or otherwise have stated clearly the passionate causes which they will be championing during their term. Let us all leave this session of Parliament remembering that building a better life for all Singaporeans means not only waxing lyrical about policies and legislations but turning words into actions that can benefit Singaporeans of all segments of society, including the marginalised. I am thrilled by Minister Yaacob's speech where he highlighted how technology will be harnessed to close the gaps for people with special needs – with their causes championed, we will build a more inclusive society. I am also delighted to acknowledge Acting Minister Chan's promise to do more to strengthen our social safety net and to ensure that no one will fall through the gaps.

But as we seek to do all these, to make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans, we must, as some Members in the House have warned, remember our history and how we have transformed Singapore from a Third World to a First World country. Our journey together over the last 46 years had not been built on welfarism, nor had it been built on populist policies. As Ministers of State Amy Khor and Lee Yi Shyan have reminded us, while we pursue ways to make growth inclusive for all, we should not forget that we still need to balance fiscal sustainability, fiscal prudence and fiscal management for future generations. Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Singapore. Let us remember that our modernity, our success, our growth, was not an overnight phenomenon but rather a result of years and years of toil, hard work and determination by Singaporeans, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end, allow me to indulge in a short story. This is a story which I used to read to my children when they were much younger. It is entitled The Giving Tree. I am sure most of you must have read it before. It was published in 1964 by Harper and Row. It is a children's book written and illustrated by Shel Silverstein. This book has become one of Silverstein's best known titles and has been translated into more than 30 languages. It reads:

"Once there was a tree and she loved a little boy.

And everyday the boy would come.

And he would gather leaves

And make them into crowns and play king of the forest.

He would climb up her trunk

And swing from her branches and eat apples.

And when he was tired, he would sleep in her shade.

And the boy loved the tree

And the tree was happy.

But soon the boy grew older and one day he came and asked,

'Can you give me some money to buy things and have fun?'

'I have no money,' said the tree, €˜Just apples, twigs and leaves.'

'But you can take my apples, boy, and sell them in the city.'

So he did.

And the tree was happy.

But soon again the boy came back and he said to the tree,

'I'm now a man and I want a house to keep me warm.'

'I can't give you a house', the tree said, 'The forest is my house.'

'But you may cut my branches off and build yourself a home.'

So he did.

And the tree was happy.

And time went by and the boy came back with sadness in his eyes.

'I want a boat that will take me far away. Can you give me a boat?'

'Cut down my trunk and make a boat,' said the tree,

'Then you can sail away and be happy.'

So he did.

And the tree was happy.

And after many years the boy came back, both of them were old.

'I really cannot help you if you ask me for another gift.'

'I'm nothing but an old stump €¦ and sorry I've nothing more to give.'

'I do not need very much now, just a quiet place to rest,'

The boy whispered, with a weary smile.

'Well', said the tree, 'An old stump is still good for that.'

'Come, boy', she said, 'Sit down, sit down and rest.'

So he did.

And the tree was happy."

Sir, metaphorically, I see the tree as our country, Singapore; and the little boy, its people – like you and me. Like many Singaporeans, my siblings and I have benefited from the meritocracy and the social mobility Singapore has offered. My siblings and I, four of us, grew up in a 3-room HDB flat in Tanglin Halt Road. Although there were two bedrooms, all of us squeezed into one. My parents slept on a bed, while the four of us slept on mattresses on the floor. We were contented. We were happy. My father, who had only primary school education, supported all four of us through university locally by sheer hard work and thrift. All of us have decent jobs now, make a decent living, own our own homes and are now parents ourselves.

The PAP Government, like the tree, has done well in providing and caring for its people over the last 46 years. We should give credit when credit is due. We should never throw the baby out with the bath water, as my hon. colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza, aptly puts it. However we should also not rest on our laurels but must continue to do more to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I said this with my hand on my heart.

Allow me to sum up the closing address with this quote from Helen Keller, a deaf-blind activist and it revisits the concept of happiness. She said, "Many persons have the wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." On that note, I would like to thank all Members for supporting the motion and Mr Speaker, Sir, for your patience over the past five days. [Applause.]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

'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.".'

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No 100, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:

Mr Chen Show Mao

Mr Gan Kim Yong

Mr Hri Kumar Nair

Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman

Dr Ng Eng Hen

Mrs Josephine Teo

Mr Lawrence Wong

Sir, the appointment of this Committee will enable the Committee to begin its work of nominating Members to the six Standing Select Committees to the House and the Special Select Committee on Nominations for Appointments as Nominated Members of Parliament.

Resolved,

That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order No 100, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:

Mr Chen Show Mao

Mr Gan Kim Yong

Mr Hri Kumar Nair