Hansard, Friday, 30 May 2014

[(proc text) Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [26 May 2014]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) "That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: (proc text)]

[(proc text) ‘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 Second Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mr Cedric Foo.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the chance to join in this debate. President Tony Tan said in his speech that "the best years for Singapore are ahead of us". Indeed, Singapore has a strong foundation from which to build on. But whether or not the next generation will inherit a better Singapore depends on the choices that, we, as a Government and as a people make in the next few years. Minister Mentor Lee once said "the future is what we make of it".

If we take stock of the last 50 years. Singapore has done well on the security and economics spheres. Our achievements, as a country on these fronts have been nothing short of stellar. Our key challenges now remain: (a) an ageing population; and (b) a widening income/wealth gap.

Clearly in the next few years, the Government needs to address these issues through social programmes and redistribution policies. In doing so, it could take two different paths.

Path One: it yields to populist demands and takes a short-term view. Singapore will lose its competitive advantage over time. Path Two: even as it introduces new social programmes and enhances existing ones; it keeps an eye on emerging trends and uncertainties, and

Page: 9

maintains Singapore's long-term competitiveness, then I believe the future of this nation will remain bright.

The second path, Mdm Speaker, is obviously harder to execute. It requires careful calibration and making the right trade-offs between the short term and the long term. The Government would need the support of its people to first understand the trade-offs and then to make certain sacrifices now so as to secure a brighter future.

There are various pitfalls that other countries have faced in bringing about social programmes despite their good intent.

Singapore will do well to avoid these pitfalls and stick to certain principles and I will highlight four of them.

First, do not erode our work ethos. Our success as a nation so far has been the work ethos of our people. The world is changing. But I do not see a scenario where good old-fashioned work ethos becomes unnecessary for success.

Workfare, introduced in 2008, reflects the Government's philosophy that Employment is the best form of social assistance. Workfare reinforces the values of hard work and self-reliance. In contrast, many of the advanced economies with social welfare policies have, over the years, seen large numbers of citizens on unemployment benefits with greater reliance on the Government.

Secondly, do not burden future generations. One of the defining features of the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) is that the Government is setting aside the entire funding required for the Package, including expected cash outflows in future years, in the current year's Budget. We need to maintain prudent fiscal policies and financial discipline to avoid the pitfalls of a populist Government, seeking to win voters today by promising subsidies that future generations have to bear.

Thirdly, do not fuel over-consumption. The principle of co-payment especially for healthcare reduces the propensity for over-consumption. If services are fully subsidised, over-consumption will inevitably set in. In such a scenario, "tax dollars" will go to wasteful consumption rather than effectively defraying a patient's medical costs. There would also be knock-on effects, including a strain on infrastructure as consumption increases.

When I was engaging residents in a dialogue on the PGP, there was a suggestion that we should make healthcare totally free for the members of the PGP. It is more elegant, it is simple, it gives peace of mind. But if we do that, then, are we really helping the members of

Page: 10

the Pioneer Generation? Because you would increase the tendency for patients to seek a second opinion, maybe a third or a second MRI and so forth. Wasteful consumption and surge in demand may not achieve the ends that we seek.

Fourth, do not supplant family as a first line of defence. Needy Singaporeans require holistic support; money alone is not sufficient. Family members, VWOs, neighbours and volunteers have very important roles to play. Hence, the Government has various initiatives, tax reliefs for supporting parents, higher Housing and Development Board (HDB) Housing Grants for living within 2 km of parents' flat and so forth. The Government can and should augment the efforts of the family but should not supplant it.

Fifth, building social capital. Mdm Speaker, sociologist Francis Fukuyama defines social capital as "a set of informal values and norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them". I spoke of this topic back in 2001.

We need social capital to build cohesion amongst Singaporeans. There was a time when Singapore had very high social capital. It is called the "Kampong Spirit", when neighbours look out for one another and when self-abnegation rather than envy ruled the day. Can we rekindle this spirit of a closely-knit society even as we grow our economy and plug into the global economy?

Mdm Speaker, how we make this shift and the choices we make now will determine Singapore's future. Success is transient. History is replete with examples. Empires rise and fall. Companies thrive and fail. Products gain market share and become obsolete. Even species become extinct. There is no reason why Singapore's current success will be guaranteed or everlasting. No one can underwrite our success – except ourselves. We need to work at it all the time.

So, why does an entity fail over time? It is inward-looking. It ignores the competition. It is overly protected. It fails to anticipate and plan ahead. It is slow to adapt. It becomes a victim of its past success. It is complacent. It loses its "grit, drive and determination".

Madam, if these terms sound familiar, it is because when an entity is at the top of its craft, like where Singapore is now, our guards are down. We hear noises, asking for lower growth. But it is the leaders' duty to look beyond today so as to secure Singapore's future.

Madam, Singapore also needs a new "Vision of the Future" which is beginning to take shape through Our Singapore Conversation (OSC) series. Such a vision is needed to rally us and to define us as a nation and as a people.

Page: 11

The President was right to say that "the best years for Singapore is ahead of us" but this is provided that we make the right choices and take the right path forward. We need to rally the people to take a longer-term view and a more collective view. Our people will do that if they can see the Government addressing their short-term needs. This, we must do and the Government's Addenda for each Ministry spell out how this will be done.

Mdm Speaker, on the eve of Singapore's 50th year of Independence, I join my colleagues in honouring our pioneers who have built this city, literally with their bare hands. They made the sacrifices so that we can enjoy the Singapore that we have come to know. We honour them. Yes, through the PGP, but the best gift yet is to "pay it forward" – to bequeath to our children a better Singapore than the one we inherited. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, every time I return to Singapore from an overseas trip, I would look out from the plane window to try to catch a glimpse of the familiar bright lights of the HDB flats near Changi Airport. As the plane touches down on the airport runway, somehow, I feel this sense of comfort, this sense of happiness that I am returning back to Singapore – my home.

It sets me thinking – what does "Home" mean to most Singaporeans? I acknowledge that "Home" probably means different things to different people.

For me, it is a sense of familiarity. I know that when you step out from the plane, you will encounter clean toilets, the immigration queues will be short, you will be greeted by friendly immigration officers and smiling airport staff, the baggage will come out quickly and everything works efficiently.

But home should be more than just an efficient system. To me, home is also a place where my family members, my relatives and all my friends are. Home is a place where you can move around safely; where the majority of Singaporeans whom you encounter speak Singlish and are honest and friendly. Where many of us have shared experiences like living in an HDB flat, have gone through a common education system, have eaten together in a hawker centre, and, for the men, have served NS and shared NS stories; home is where we can interact comfortably with people of different races and different religions. Some people have argued that they feel like strangers in their own country and some have said that they want to leave Singapore and not come back. I do not agree. It is really what a person chooses to see. There are so many things which a Singaporean can easily identify with as Home.

Page: 12

Next year, Singapore celebrates its 50th year of Independence. As a nation, we have done well economically and we are the envy of many countries. Each time I meet legislators from other countries, they would compliment us on how successful Singapore is and they praise our political system.

But I would be the first to acknowledge that we are not a perfect nation. Sometimes, things do not work the way we hoped they will. Policies which seem well thought through are sometimes poorly communicated or poorly implemented.

I do not believe that we will ever have a perfect nation. But I am convinced that our Government leaders all have the heart to want to make Singapore a better country for all of us. When things do not work well, this Government will set out to put them right. When policies are wrong, this Government will work to change the policies. The Government does not shy away from making corrections mid-stream if the change will help improve Singaporeans' lives.

Prime Minister Lee yesterday elaborated on several of the policies designed to help Singaporeans lead a better quality of life and to improve the social safety net for Singaporeans. My view is that the task of improving the lives of Singaporeans will always be "work in progress" as we try to find the right balance and the right trade-offs to balance the interests of different groups of Singaporeans.

For example, we have to look after the interests of workers who want better pay; and we have employers who want lower cost workers who are willing to work harder. We have to balance the interest of the younger generation who want to buy their first home at a cheaper price versus the existing home owners who are concerned that their homes will depreciate in value. The desire of the 55-year-old worker who wants to withdraw all his CPF funds versus younger taxpayers who are concerned that, in future, they have to bear the financial costs of looking after retired Singaporeans who have withdrawn their CPF at 55 years and, unfortunately, lost their savings due to bad investment decisions. The challenge for the Government is how to strike the right balance.

In the President's Address, he spoke about the Government's plans to address the concerns and aspirations of the people and to build a better future for all Singaporeans. I support the various proposals laid out by the President. In particular, allow me to speak about the need to support strong families and communities, and the need to inculcate the right character values amongst Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, we live in a very competitive society and work so very hard. Frequently, we forget to pause to learn how to appreciate our lives. We forget to celebrate little

Page: 13

successes as we strive for near perfection. We forget to give that little word of encouragement to our children or to our colleagues because we needed to rush to meet a deadline for a project or maybe finish a speech.

In the process, the fabric of the family is weakened as family members spend less time bonding together. We are preoccupied with work even after office hours. It is a ridiculous situation. Our smart phones should be a technological tool for us and help us to become more productive and work smarter. It has, however, become a technological burden for many of us as we are on call even after office hours.

So, I urge the Government to do more to encourage employers not to encroach upon the personal time of their employees. Perhaps, we can take a leaf from the French where the unions and the employers have come to an agreement to prohibit workers from replying to emails after leaving their office – sounds exciting.

The Civil Service, as the largest employer, can take the lead in this respect and discourage staff from replying to emails after office hours, unless very urgent. Perhaps, even encourage staff to eat with their families not just once a year, but once every month. And this is a way in which we can support strong families. I hope Members of the Cabinet are looking at this enthusiastically.

Next, Mdm Speaker, let me speak about values. The President spoke about having values like empathy, filial piety, respect and mutual help to be part of our lives. I would like to add on other important values like kindness, gratefulness, humility, respect for one another. We should encourage everyone to reflect upon their lives daily and see whether they have performed a kind deed each day. Have they been kind to their family members or to their colleagues, or to their domestic helpers, or even to the cleaners cleaning the void deck of their HDB flats? Or have they expressed gratefulness to someone who has helped them during the week? So, I am also glad that Prime Minister Lee spoke on why we should not flaunt our wealth or position. This is the need to be humble and the need to respect others, regardless of who they are.

Unfortunately, values cannot just be taught in schools; they must be caught. As a society, if we do nothing to promote basic character values, our future generation will suffer because many of them are hooked up to the Internet and engaged in social media. I worry each time I read some of the postings on social media. There is little civility, no efforts to be kind to others, no sense of mutual respect in some of these social media posts. Frequently, the comments are full of cynicism. Some may think it is in vogue to bash the Government or its policies. But one day, these cynical behaviour will come back to haunt us as our children who

Page: 14

read these posts lose their sense of bearing as to what is right and what is wrong behaviour.

If we want Singapore to be an endearing home, we need more efforts to promote a gracious and caring society. Perhaps, we can provide more funding to the Singapore Kindness Movement. Ask them to organise more programmes to constantly promote the need to inculcate right character values to encourage graciousness and care in our everyday lives, not just amongst students, but also for adults who must lead by example and who must want to impart the right values to our younger generation. This will make Singapore a more pleasant place for all of us.

One area which I hope to see improvement is for the Government to do more to care and help the vulnerable and to look after the weakest living in our midst. Earlier this year, during the Committee of Supply debate, I had asked HDB to consider allowing elderly seniors who are either single, divorced or living alone to rent a 1-room rental flat. I argued that these seniors are on their own and do not have support from their spouse, ex-spouse or children.

So, I urge HDB to allow an exception for this small group of seniors to rent a 1-room flat by themselves. These are just flats without any room, just a living hall. We should not insist that they co-share the flat with a total stranger at their age. Whilst I understand the need to manage scarce resources, I do urge MND to allot more resources to build up more rental flats just to cater to this small group of single elderly. And indeed, we can also put in more resources to provide more housing options to divorcees with children and even to unmarried single parents who had made a mistake in their younger days. Otherwise, their children would suffer.

Mdm Speaker, we are in a position of strength. We can set aside more resources to help the vulnerable have a better quality of life. Our society will be judged by the way in which we look after the weakest in our midst.

Finally, allow me to speak on education. The other day, my colleague, the hon Member Mr Seah Kian Peng, suggested that PSLE is past its time. I respectfully disagree. The PSLE is a helpful tool to help schools allocate their resources to assist students achieve their best. Not all students develop at the same pace or have the same kind of aptitude towards academic studies.

Thus, for the students who are late developers, it is important for them to be given more help to overcome some of their weaker subjects. For those who do not have an interest in academic subjects, it may be better to assess them earlier and allow them to choose a different path so that they can excel in a different manner. What is important is to ensure

Page: 15

that there are many different upward pathways to success.

So, if a student does not do well in PSLE, he must not think that it is the end of the world. With hard work, he can achieve better in secondary school. And we have many stories of students from the Normal stream who have moved on to the Polytechnic and then to University and who have achieved great success in their lives. Education should really be a training of your mind never to accept that you are a failure and to learn how to persevere. And success should never be measured only by a person's wealth, educational qualifications or social status. We must broaden our perspective to respect everyone, regardless of whether they are rich or poor.

There is, however, one area in our education system which I hope to see some change. Just like adults who work very hard and are very stressed, our young students in schools are also very stressed. Many parents whom I speak to ask, "Why do we give so much work to our children, especially at primary school level?" Sometimes, the child is given so much homework that he has to slog late into the night just to finish the work. So, parents fear that even as they find time, they set aside time for their children, it is their children who do not have time for them anymore. Many parents feel that at a young age, it is more important for the students to pick up character values than to stress them with constant assignments, assessments and tests.

I am concerned that in our desire to develop our children holistically, we may inadvertently take away their childhood. Children should be allowed to explore on their own, to develop creativity in a less structured manner. In today's world, it is really more important to know how to learn rather than just accumulating knowledge. Whatever I do not know today, I would be able to find most of the answers through the Internet.

So, I urge MOE to relook the curriculum of the primary and secondary schools. Let us consider a reduction of the curriculum by 20% to 30%. Make it a policy that every school should have at least two days in a week whereby the students will have no homework to do. Whatever work the students need to do, they must finish the work within the official school hours. This will benefit not only the students who have more time at home, but it will also ease the workload of the teachers who can also spend more time with their families.

Mdm Speaker, when Singaporeans from all walks of life come together to discuss and explore different ways to build a better, brighter Singapore, we can make the Singapore Dream happen. I support the Motion.

Mr Chen Show Mao.

Page: 16

Madam, earlier in this debate, Minister Gan Kim Yong announced that a national conversation will be entered into over the next few months to draw up a national action plan for successful ageing. Issues in lifelong learning, employment, volunteerism, urban infrastructure, healthcare, retirement adequacy and research into ageing will all be discussed. I wish the Minister every success in this important undertaking.

In this connection, the Minister also called for a change of mindset, and I quote, "from worrying about the challenges that come from ageing to celebrating longevity". This is welcomed. For my part, I would like to say again a couple of things that I had said before in this House which I believe would be useful for us to keep in mind as we embark on drawing up our national action plan for successful ageing.

First, in addition to the challenges it presents, the ageing of our population also gives us opportunities as a nation to invest in the human capital of our senior citizens for great social returns. Investing in elderly Singaporeans will reward our society with the economic, social and cultural contributions they are able to make with our assistance. It would also enable us to be inclusive, which is the basis of community and social cohesion.

Economic benefits can be realised from investments made to redesign jobs, workplaces, work processes or even our work culture to allow us to more fully draw on the experiences and the know-how that older workers have to offer in spite of physical bodies starting to slow down, and to allow older workers to remain as productive as or even more productive than their younger counterparts.

The elderly are also a repository of social and cultural capital. With some investment that help keep them close to their homes, we can leverage on our elders' long-standing ties in the community to teach our children traditional wisdoms and values and share stories and lessons. Our elderly can also be employed in schools to teach subjects in Social Studies and National Education, or be encouraged to volunteer to do so.

So, let us continue to invest in Singaporeans even as they age and become elderly. But what forms will such investments take? It is a good thing that seniors themselves will participate in the national conversation about a nation for all ages. It is a good thing that they will express preferences for different active ageing activities and lifelong learning programmes. But whatever these preferences, perhaps, we could look into providing a pillar that will help support investments by our elderly in their human capital. Just like children who need to develop and working adults who need to upgrade their skills, our elderly, too,

Page: 17

do need support and resources to continue growing, learning and developing.

The second pillar. Informal caregivers also make it possible for our elderly to age in place, in their homes, in the community. These are friends and family. In 2010, it was estimated that approximately 8% of Singaporean adults provide regular care to family members or friends, providing on average 6.8 hours of care in a typical way. It appears to me that an important pillar to enable success to ageing would be support we provide to our informal caregivers. It is well-documented that caregivers often suffer declines in their own financial circumstances and their mental and physical health as a result of their caregiving role.

So, as other Members have suggested, support may take the form of leave for informal caregivers or the right to ask for flexible work arrangements or CPF top-ups. Not because we want to monetise the act of caring for their loved ones, but we need to help ease some of the financial strains that may arise from their taking on such informal caregiving arrangements. Many Members believe that providing more support to our informal caregivers is the right thing to do.

And, Madam, as was said on the opening day of this debate, it is not so much what is said but what is done that will be the measure of our progress.

Mr Cedric Foo.

I would like to seek some clarification from the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao. He speaks about ageing issues, the ageing society, and I want to thank him for supporting the effort to engage Singaporeans in a dialogue to see how we may address this. But, really, underpinning the ageing population is the need to bring in immigrants and I would like to seek his views if he sees it necessary for Singapore's long-term future to bring in immigrants.

Madam, I believe our focus should be on the growing of a resident workforce. That includes the elderly workers whom we can help to participate more in our economy. When targets we set for the growth in our resident working population are not met, then I think at that time, the number of foreign workers may be increased so that we are on our path to growth as we have planned. The Workers' Party's position on this is clear. And that is, we will focus on the growth of the resident workforce and when that force is short, the population of foreign workers in Singapore may be increased.

Page: 18

Mr Cedric Foo.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the hon Member for his reply but I was really asking about immigrant inflow into Singapore, to really reverse the pyramid that has now been inverting. Because by 2030, as this House has heard, there will be 900,000 Singaporeans above the age of 65. And because families are getting smaller, Mdm Speaker, we do need immigrants. And I would like Mr Chen's comment on whether he welcomes immigrants and whether he would rally the support of Singaporeans to bring about these immigrants so that they are on our side, they help us compete, they help us stabilise our society.

Madam, I have worked, as you know, abroad for many years in my life. And I thank foreigners – foreign governments and foreign friends – for the opportunities that I was given to work in their countries. Of course, we have nothing against immigrants coming to Singapore. But we are talking about an orderly growth within limits. And, hopefully, we would have debated and agreed on it. And that is not inconsistent with what we have said on immigration and on foreign workers in Singapore. I would like to ask Mr Foo if that is what he had in mind by asking the question.

We have debated this issue of an ageing population robustly. The Government has put up a plan under Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I have been trying to explain also to my residents why we need to do this. On the economic front, if we allow the society to age, our tax base will narrow and there is no guarantee high taxpayers, talented people, will remain in Singapore. We hope they do and we will work hard to make sure that they do but there is no guarantee of that.

On the security front, our battalions will have to be smaller. On the political front, people will vote for ageing issues. I mean the old in our society when they start to outnumber the young, would ask for even more healthcare, and where does this leave future Singaporeans?

We discussed about constructive politics, how Members from different parties should come together and enlighten the population, the populace, the voters about the trade-offs. But so far, we have not heard the Workers' Party, hand-in-hand, if they believe in this policy; to reach out to the people, to support immigration. And listening to Mr Chen, I am still not very clear whether the Party and himself support bringing in immigrants.

You cannot do this overnight because you need time for them to assimilate. You cannot wait until the labour participation fails and then decide to bring in a deluge of immigrants to flood Singapore. We need to do this gradually. We need to plan ahead. We need to do it in

Page: 19

a consistent, "assimilable" way.

Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mdm Speaker, on the issue of immigration, I thought we have stated clearly. Many a time, I believe the Party's Members have repeated the position of the Workers' Party. The Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party. We make it clear here. We are not anti-immigration. We welcome immigration which can contribute to the well-being of Singapore and to the economy of Singapore. We welcome foreign talent but "talent", "real talent", not immigrants who are taking away the jobs of Singaporeans or taking away opportunities Singaporeans could have been served. So, I think let us make it clear here. We are not anti-immigration. What we are saying is that we got to have quality immigrants.

Secondly, we have to keep the Singaporean Core strong. I think it is too simple, too simplified to assume that when the immigrants come to Singapore, they would integrate with Singapore and Singaporeans, and be part of Singapore. It is not that simple. In the Population White Paper, we had debated a lot on this. We have set out the Workers' Party's position clearly. I hope Members would go and read our White Paper; it is published on the website, so you understand our position. We are not running away from the position.

Minister Lawrence Wong.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to the President. We have had a fruitful debate over the last few days and Members had touched on many issues: on population, immigration, the elderly, as Mr Chen mentioned just now. I would like to talk on another spectrum, another part of the population spectrum, on youths. And as the Minister for Youth, I fully agree with what the President said, that it is our young people, in particular, who must carry the torch faster and further for a brighter Singapore.

During the debate, several Members expressed concerns about the future that young people will have in Singapore. I have met and engaged with many young Singaporeans in the course of my work at MCCY and the National Youth Council or NYC. Some of them are, indeed, anxious about the future.

Page: 20

Nowadays, before you even reach mid-life crisis at 50, there is quarter-life crisis at 25. So, I meet young working adults agonising over whether they have made the right life choices. Perhaps, some angst is not uncommon at this stage of life, more so when there are so many choices available. In a way, it is also an opportunity for reflection and self-discovery, leading to stronger resilience and life skills. But what inspires me more is that I see a strong sense of idealism and enthusiasm amongst our youths to imagine the kind of Singapore they want for their future and to go about making things better for themselves and their fellow citizens. Members need not take my word for it alone.

Let me share a story. Many Members would know that we are starting the pilot-run of the Youth Corps this year in June. We spoke to one of the applicants, Nur Huzaima Binti Mahrom. She is 28 this year, so, perhaps, she has made it through her quarter-life crisis. She works at a copywriting firm and I quote what she told us, "Are young people happy? Well, they are happier than the older generation of today but they are at a stage when they are still figuring out what they want to do in life and feel the pressure to do so early. They are confused but they hope for a brighter future. So, I would say it is happiness mixed up with anxiety. "When I was young I wanted to be many things: a flight stewardess, a doctor, a teacher and a cook. My family wanted me to do engineering but I wanted to do what I love best, which is to write. Today, my work gives me joy but, beyond my job, I want to contribute to social causes. I am lucky, by some accident or fate, to be born in Singapore – healthy, young and strong. But there are many who are struggling. I feel it is my duty to do something in the world."

So, Huzaima has tutored less privileged children in Singapore. She has helped build a community centre in Nicaragua. She has worked with locals to run a social enterprise on the developing outskirts of Manila and she is just one of more than 250 applicants we have received for the Youth Corps, for the first run of the Youth Corps. They come from a diverse range of backgrounds – from ITE, from the Polytechnics, from University students to young working adults like her. This is just the first intake of the Youth Corps and we are continuing to recruit. To all the youths out there who want to make a difference, who want to make Singapore and the world a better place, please sign up.

Beyond the Youth Corps, I believe there are many young people who feel the same way as Huzaima, still deciding what they want out of life, yet hopeful of a brighter future ahead of them. Compared to previous generations, today's youths have more options before them rather than moving straight to the best-paying or most stable jobs, a good number are taking some time to figure out their way in life and to discover what gives them meaning and joy. They do feel some pressure and anxiety but, given the opportunity, they are able to channel this energy into purposeful and impactful causes.

Page: 21

My Ministry will redouble our efforts to engage our youths at this important stage of their lives. We will do more to support the aspirations of all youths. We will equip them with vital life skills and help them discover their calling and passion. We will enable them to create their own ground-up initiatives, go for their dreams and diverse areas and lead fulfilling lives.

To realise these goals, we will increase investments in our youths: one specific area we are looking at is to enhance and widen the spaces for youth participation and involvement. Today, we have *SCAPE in Orchard Road. It was an idea that came from our youths 10 years ago and since the space became operational in 2010, *SCAPE has established itself as a popular youth hangout. But the youth landscape has evolved over the years and we need to keep up with the times. So, we will be embarking on a review of *SCAPE to look at the use of space, the tenant mix and to see how we can have new programmes that will be more appealing and more relevant to youths, for example, in areas like music and media. This is our plan for *SCAPE version 2.0.

Beyond having *SCAPE, in the city centre, we are also planning more youth spaces and programmes in other parts of the island so that we can reach out to more youths nationwide. Not all of these programmes need to be run centrally by NYC or *SCAPE. In fact, many will have to be done through partnerships, and this will require us to forge closer ties with key youth stakeholders, including MOE and schools, as well as the many voluntary groups in the community. One important partner is Outward Bound Singapore (OBS). Currently, OBS provides customised outdoor experiential learning programmes for many school students. And I have received consistently good feedback about the OBS trainers and their programmes. Many young people who have gone through OBS would share that it is a "transformational life-changing experience". And, perhaps, Members yourselves have experienced it.

We plan to scale up the OBS programmes and enable more young people to benefit from them. To do all these, we need to restructure and to strengthen NYC. We want NYC to be a national body overseeing youth affairs. NYC already has an active presence on the ground. For example, it supports many youth initiatives in community and social causes and it enables many youths to embark on community service projects overseas.

There is scope to do even more and to raise awareness of what NYC has to offer for youths. As a national youth body, NYC has to reach out to all youths and youth organisations. It must champion youth engagement and coordinate youth programmes nationwide with stakeholders. It must gather feedback from the ground and undertake research to better understand the needs of our youths. It must provide a voice for youths to influence and shape national policies. These are capabilities which we will build up as part of a restructured NYC and I will share more details on this in the coming weeks.

Page: 22

In all that we do, we will continue to provide fair access to opportunities for our youths, regardless of their backgrounds. This is something many Members have emphasised in the points they raised during the debate about social mobility. I understand the concerns; it is something that weighs heavily on our minds, too.

In Singapore, no one should be deprived of the chance to broaden his horizon or develop a talent because of his family circumstances or social background. MCCY and MOE have been working together to offer more youth programmes, be it in arts, sports or other areas, both within and outside schools. In sports, for example, we have put in place programmes to reach out to youths from lower income or disadvantaged homes. Some of them have not had much exposure in sports but they show tremendous promise. And importantly, there will be pathways for them to develop further, for example, through the Singapore Sports School.

Likewise in arts and culture, we have made museum entry free for Singaporeans and we are continuing to bring arts programmes closer to the community, especially to our youths. We want them to experience the arts at an early age and enrich their lives and also have access to multiple pathways to develop their talents further. So, I want to assure all Members that our offerings will continue to be inclusive and accessible so that all Singaporeans can participate and benefit.

As Singapore continues to evolve, we must equip our youths with the knowledge and attributes that they will need to grow into active and discerning citizens. As the saying goes, "We can't always build the future for our youths, but we can build our youths for the future".

Some Members have mentioned the need for political education. No doubt it is important to be informed about the political system and the principles of governance in Singapore. But our priority in education must be on character development, as several Members have emphasised, including Mr Lim Biow Chuan just now.

Good character is about staying true to the values that we hold dear. Good character means honesty and integrity in our words and actions. Good character means that while we may disagree on certain issues, we can still come together and thrash things out. More importantly, good character gives rise to good deeds.

One of our founding fathers, the late Mr Rajaratnam, put this very well. When he spoke of Singapore becoming a democracy of deeds and not words, he called for citizenship participation at all levels so that we can rise above adversarial politics and solve practical problems in a practical way. That is, to quote from him, "to solve practical problems in a practical way". Mr Rajaratnam said this in the early 1970s and, in many ways, he was

Page: 23

prescient in highlighting the problems we see today in mature democracies around the world. In countries previously upheld in some quarters as the bastions and role models of democracy, we see citizens becoming increasingly cynical and disenfranchised, as described by Mr Hri Kumar eloquently in this House earlier in the debate.

It is especially worrying that many young people in such countries have succumbed to this disillusionment and have grown more disengaged from public life and their communities. We must never allow this to happen in Singapore.

In engaging our young people, we must get to the heart of what makes for a healthy democracy and, that is, the collective engagement of an active citizenry for the public good. We must encourage our youths to get involved in causes and projects that build a better society. We must aspire for Singapore to be a problem-solving democracy, a democracy of deeds. That is why we are focusing on values in action, not just values, but values in action in our schools. And that is why we are focusing on community leadership and community involvement in the youth corps.

We are already seeing many active young Singaporeans who inspire all of us to do better and to do more. Take David Ho and his team from NUS, for example. They took part in the Gobi March last year to raise $100,000 in funds for The Straits Times School Pocket Money Fund. There are also many youth-led social enterprises, like Conjunct Consulting, which is a group that offers pro bono consulting services – these are young professionals, so they have skills and they donate or they offer their skills on a pro bono basis for organisations in the social sector.

These are just some examples of young people who are making a difference early in their lives and there are many more out there. So, overall, I would say that we are not doing too badly on this front. But we can and we will continue to do better.

Mdm Speaker, our challenges ahead may be new but the values upon which our success depends – honesty and hard work, resilience and responsibility, the determination to strive and act for the common good – these things are not new. These qualities will stand us – not just our youths but all Singaporeans – in good stead as we prepare to celebrate our nation's 50th anniversary of Independence next year.

The first thing we did as part of our SG50 celebration was to honour our pioneers and I think that is the right way to start. As Members would recollect, we had a tribute event at the Istana in February and we will continue to have many different activities and events throughout the year to honour our pioneers in the different segments of society.

Page: 24

Earlier this year, we also asked Singaporeans how they would like to celebrate this important milestone. And within two months, we had received more than 11,000 suggestions – they come from Singaporeans of all ages and from all walks of life. I met Dr Jia Jia – he wanted to give a hug to 50 persons and have each of them multiply that with another 50 more. So, if that project works, I think all of us would have had a hug with one another in Singapore.

One working adult suggested having a giant potluck with her neighbours for the nation's 50th birthday. Another said he would like to walk through places and hear the stories of the past, with different generations of people. And many others would like to have local bands and drama groups to stage performances.

We have gone through each and every suggestion, and we will try our very best to build them into our events and programmes in the coming year. Mr Heng Swee Keat and I will share more details on the SG50 calendar next week. What we have in the calendar will include many ground-up initiatives because we want Singaporeans to take ownership of the celebration and to play an active role in the celebration. That is why we set up the SG50 Celebration Fund which will provide each project that is put up for approval up to $50,000 in funding.

Today, we have received over 100 proposals ranging from performances to publications, to charity projects and volunteering projects. For example, Samuel He wants to work on a community quilt project by stitching together photographs of families taken at iconic locations. Joaquim Sim and Lim Mui Chen want to publish success stories of how social enterprises in Singapore are helping the underprivileged.

The ideas that have been coming in for SG50 suggest that Singaporeans are looking beyond celebratory events. They are hoping to see a reaffirmation of deeper values and beliefs that bind us as a nation. Singaporeans want to celebrate our culture and heritage, to honour our Pioneer Generation and do something meaningful for the disadvantaged. A good number of them, young and old alike, are willing to invest their own time and energy into this.

Madam, I am very heartened to see this active and very lively response from Singaporeans. And we have just started; so, I am sure that there will be many more to come. I am particularly encouraged because we live in a time where politics in many countries has become increasingly acrimonious and divisive where negative and inflammatory soundbites are being amplified louder and faster than before.

Page: 25

In such an environment, it is very easy to tune out, to become cynical, to focus only on the bad and dismiss all the good that is happening around us. But the active participation of the many Singaporeans, including young Singaporeans in the Our Singapore Conversation and now the SG50 Celebration, gives me hope. It should give all of us hope. It shows that Singaporeans care deeply about one another and about our nation and it shows that we are making progress towards becoming a democracy of deeds.

I earlier quoted Huzaima on her personal aspirations. Let me close by sharing what she said when we asked her what she hopes to see in Singapore 50 years from now. So, let me quote from her, "I hope to see a smaller income gap between the rich and the poor. I hope everyone is happier, healthier and has enough for their retirement. And I hope our people are kinder to one another, even without direct benefit to themselves. Everyone has a part to play. We may not have all the answers but, in terms of shaping this country, everyone must contribute. I would say to my peers – what do you hope for Singapore 50 years down the road and what will you do about it? You have the energy to make things happen, we should get out there and be proactive. The future belongs to you".

I think Huzaima said it very well. There are many challenges ahead for Singapore – the fault lines of inequality, the stresses of globalisation – these are challenges faced not only by Singapore but across the globe. They are the most important questions of this generation the world over. But Singapore has always been, and I believe will continue to be, an exceptional nation with exceptional people. We will rise and adapt to meet the challenges of our day. And we can only do so in an environment where all Singaporeans work together, build on one another's good ideas, give generously of ourselves and remain united in purpose and conviction.

So, I encourage our youths, I encourage all Singaporeans, to step forward, leave your comfort zone, engage with others from different walks of life in service, leadership and empathy, act on your ideas and your ideals.

As we approach the end of this debate on the President's Address, let us remind ourselves of what is at stake. We have had many specific suggestions and ideas but we should also take a step back and look at the bigger picture which is about our future, the future of Singapore, the future for our children and our youths. So, let us renew our pledge to build a better and brighter Singapore together.

Mr Low Thia Khiang, do you have a clarification? Yes.

Madam, permission to clarify what I said earlier on.

Page: 26

Yes, please.

Thank you. Madam, earlier, I referred Members to the Workers' Party website for our publication, WP Population White Paper. The correct name should be WP Population Policy Paper. Thank you.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion and I shall focus on constructive politics.

As President Tony Tan pointed out, "It is crucial to maintain constructive politics in Singapore that puts the nation and people first". Before I elaborate on this point, let us look at the opposite of constructive politics, that is, destructive politics. However, I prefer to call it "non-constructive politics".

Non-constructive politics can happen when political leaders are cast in and out of office too often because of differences within the political party or instability within the country or both. As a result, political leaders find it difficult to establish themselves and engage their citizens for the long-term interest of the country and the people.

Non-constructive politics can also happen because of lack of ability to resolve disputes among political parties or between the Government and her people. There are examples where I do not need to put here. As a result, it is either 议而不决 or to discuss about the resolution without any final decision. Or 決而不行 or passing resolution without any concrete execution plan.

In the recent years, we also see a new trend of non-constructive politics emerging in the new media. Thus, the challenge for Singapore, in the face of the new normal, is to maintain and promote constructive politics on all platforms, the traditional and new media platforms included, among all races and all ages, in multiple languages.

In my view, we should actively maintain and promote constructive politics on the following platforms.

First, the Government-initiated platforms. The Government should share more information and all options with active citizens, especially the vested interest groups, before formulating long-term policies affecting their livelihood or lifestyle. We have done well in conducting "Our Singapore Conversation" to hear from Singaporeans at dialogues and online

Page: 27

about their priorities today and their hopes for the future.

We are also doing our best to explain to our Pioneer Generation about the Pioneer Generation Package (PGP) and hear from them on how to make the package more elderly-friendly. We are also looking forward to the "Nation for All Ages" dialogue, as announced in Parliament by Minister Gan Kim Yong.

These platforms should not be a top-down – 不是一言堂, but where all can talk and discuss – 是众言堂, and with good ideas or 善言堂，讲好话.

Second, people-initiated platforms. The traditional coffee shops and the new media are also platforms for constructive politics if the participants are well-informed and the Government has an overall strategy to engage them with short and sharp messages and adequate information sharing.

In fact, market stalls, provision shops or "zhap huey po" and shopping malls are also places where ordinary Singaporeans exchange views and information daily and instantly.

Third, the silent majority platform. The silent majority are of all ages and all races. They are silent but this does not mean that they do not need a platform for constructive politics. They are also the concerned citizens worrying about their future. Thus, our platform for the Pioneer Generation is a good move to begin with. We should create more platforms for the silent majority in different formats and structures so that they are not overwhelmed by the current system and set up.

In my constituency, we have organised "Conversations at Corridor" and we have found this as one of the humble ways to engage our silent majority.

To maintain and promote constructive politics, we must have an effective communications system guided by a comprehensive set of communication strategy. We must decide what kind of debates could have been done in a more constructive way, for example, the debate on the Population White Paper. We must decide what kind of information to be shared with the public on policies that will affect their daily life, for example, the restructuring of the bus industry and the bus contracting model.

We must also decide what kind of notice board should be displayed at the lift lobby. More and more people are now looking at their iPhone's small screen for short messages. People are not looking at the notice board for the wordy messages. It does not mean that this screen is not effective. Look at the Suntec City's biggest screen. It is colourful with moving messages. We have the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), HUP and I would suggest

Page: 28

that we should have the Notice board Upgrading Programme (NUP) for better communication so as to promote constructive politics.

In conclusion, to maintain constructive politics, we need to develop creative and proactive channels while reviewing the rusty and passive channels. Notice Board is the rusty channel. The messaging should be short and sharp so that the recipients 一听就懂 or understand on hearing it and 一看就知道 or know it at a glance.

How short is short and how sharp is sharp? Let me cite one of the dialogue sessions with the Pioneer Generation in Ang Mo Kio, which I attended with fellow Member Mr Baey Yam Keng. The senior citizens asked if they could change their card, what card they were not so sure, they said a card, the orange card, the yellow card, so that they could get better subsidy. So, we had the ambassador Lim Ru Ping to assure them that they will get another card, "Do not worry about which card you have, another card which is better than the orange and blue card". And she told them this card is called "tok kon" or 独贡, "tok kon" card, Effective and Powerful. And everyone, on hearing "tok kon", they understood it, with their big eyes and broad smile.

I hope we can have all the "tok kon" messaging. I hope I have contributed constructively though my view is not so "tok kon". In Mandarin, Mdm Speaker.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would also like to talk about constructive politics.

The definition of constructive politics is: everyone can have their own opinions, everyone knows the right platform to express their opinions, every citizen shares the achievements.

Non-constructive politics is: everyone has a different opinion, everyone expresses their own opinion wherever they want, the result is chaos.

While one results in everyone sharing the fruits of success, the other will result in chaos.

Many people believe that politics is only for politicians, it is the business of the Prime Minister, Ministers and Members of Parliament, it is the business between the PAP and the Opposition party. The truth is, politics is everybody's business.

Recently, two books were launched on the same day. One of them is on our first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, titled "Lee Kuan Yew: World Insights" (李光耀观天下); the other

Page: 29

book is titled "Growing Up In Lee Kuan Yew's Era" (成长在李光耀时代). What can we learn from these two books? Yazhou Zhoukan reported on the launch of these two books. While "Lee Kuan Yew: World Insights" (李光耀观天下) offers an analysis on major international events and Mr Lee's candid view on death, Singaporean author Lee Hwee Min's "Growing Up In Lee Kuan Yew's Era" (成长在李光耀时代) looks into policies of Lee Kuan Yew's era. In other words, as a woman born in the 1970s, she was also able to publish a book on local politics, based on her own views. So, this is another platform.

Politics is life. Life is politics.

When we meet friends, we often greet each other by asking, "How have you been?" They often reply by saying, "I'm okay". In Hokkien, we say "Eh Sai" (会使), which basically means "not bad". When life is "not bad", it is the result of constructive politics.

If life is difficult and unbearable, people would long for constructive politics to improve their lives. The important point is, we have to make a stand on politics, and on policies. In other words, to offer not just opinions, but also solutions. When one has an opinion but no solution, he/she does not have a firm stand.

Politics is forward-looking. In politics, we sometimes misread major trends or make the wrong judgement. Just apologise, people will understand. As the saying goes, "No man is a saint, to err is human; To mend one's ways, is a good thing". In this way, everyone can have a decent life. This is important.

Here, I would like to quote a short passage that I read over the Internet, the title is "To Make Things Difficult".

"Do not bother with small-minded men, for they make things difficult for everybody;

Do not go against society, for you will make things difficult for yourself;

Do not make things difficult for yourself, for everything shall pass eventually;

Do not quarrel with friends and family members, for they will ultimately help you;

Do not dwell on the past, for it is already over;

Do not go against reality, for you still need to survive."

Page: 30

All those present now were sworn in three years ago as Members of Parliament.

We said, "I, having been elected as a Member of Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully discharge my duties as such to the best of my ability and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic, and that I will preserve, protect and defend its Constitution."

In fact, we have all pledged to do our best, so that everyone can survive and continue to live a better life. T

Mdm Speaker, much has been said in the House in this past week as we articulate this House's appreciation to the President for his Address at the Opening of the second half of this Twelfth Parliament.

Amid the range of views and differences in political affiliations, we all agree that we must have Singapore's and Singaporeans' interest in our hearts. We are in this Chamber because we care for the future of Singapore and Singaporeans. We work hard to walk the ground, listen to our constituents, understand their needs and concerns and try our best to make sure that the policies and programmes we design meet their needs. It is not easy. But it is the genuine passion that drives us every day to do what is right, with the most sincere of hearts and the best of intentions.

Madam, not a single day goes by that I do not think of my elderly residents who are living alone, my children from disadvantaged backgrounds struggling with their school work, my young parents not really having the skills to raise their young children for they themselves are adolescents, my teenagers who are at risk of dropping out of school. I am sure I am not alone. We are committed to make a difference in their lives, to give them a bright future, to live in a place where they feel connected, supported and valued.

The work is not easy. Some issues are multifaceted and complex. Addressing them requires coordination and trade-offs across different agencies. I am not just talking about Government agencies, but also community partners – people like social workers, nurses and doctors, medical social workers, schools, Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs), grassroots leaders and other volunteers. It is through this multi-partner effort that we have managed to help many people. When you have many partners working together, sometimes it takes more than the first attempt to get it right. Sometimes, we need more than a few

Page: 31

tries. But everyone keeps working at it.

Let me give Members an example of a multi-partner approach. I have a resident, Mdm Wong, 79 years old. She lives alone now as her 83-year-old husband is in a nursing home. Mdm Wong has mobility issues, she moves around with a trolley, pushes it around wherever she goes. Mdm Wong receives Public Assistance from MSF to pay for her daily expenses and utility bills. Her husband's fees at the nursing home are covered, too. The medical social worker helped to find an availability at a nursing home despite the shortage of beds, as she cannot look after him anymore. Although she lives alone, Mdm Wong is not alone. She receives meals from her neighbours. There are befrienders visiting her regularly to ensure she takes her medication and does not feel lonely. So, Mdm Wong has substantial social support provided for her.

At the same time, Mdm Wong wants to be independent and earn her keep. She fills her trolley with tissue papers, mops and other small little items to the nearby coffee shop to sell. It does not bring in much, but Mdm Wong finds it meaningful and she wants to do it. And mind you, she is 79 years old with mobility issues. We respect her desire to maintain her dignity. If we do not know all that has been done to help Mdm Wong, the sight of her selling things at the coffee shop cuts a lonely pitiful figure. Sometimes, what we see is not all there is.

I believe Singaporeans are generally a caring lot. When they see and hear about such situations, they empathise, they feel angry and they want to do something. Sometimes, they post online. Even though we suspect there is often more than what they see, we look into each case seriously. I would like to note though that each time something like that happens, many people work hard to check the case. It is not just the civil servants and Members of Parliament, but also the community partners, the staff from VWOs and volunteers. A lot of man-hours go into it.

We do so not only to find out what happened but, equally importantly, we do so because if it happens to be one of the cases that falls through the cracks, we can quickly address it.

Madam, I had a dialogue with a group of students recently about the kind of future they want for themselves and Singapore. One student stood up and shared with me her fears of what is happening in the social media and the impact on youths. She sees all this unhappiness and criticism. She is concerned that, if unchecked, it will be detrimental to our society.

Madam, two thoughts go through my mind. On one hand, I share the views and concerns of the student. The social media may be "virtual", but it is a public space where real

Page: 32

people connect. We must find ways where values of personal responsibility, integrity, sincerity get transferred from the real world into the cyber world. And we hope that more people, including young people, will step up to contribute to a cyber world that is safe and secure for our young to be in.

On the other hand, I think there is more we need to learn about the online space, how people interact on it, and why. I would like to believe that behind many of the grouses and criticisms, lie concerned people. Many of them – and I would like to think the majority of them – are well-intentioned. Perhaps, they want to do something, they want to advocate, but they do not know how best to do so. Madam, I think it is a good opportunity to engage many of these well-meaning voices. Before we hasten to judge them, can we invite them to come forward, talk to us, meet with us, follow us, see what we do, work with us to strengthen the system?

We talk a lot about mutual trust between the Government and the people. We want the people to trust the Government. The Government must also trust the people. We can do so by giving people the benefit of the doubt and engage them before we judge them.

Let me give an example of a resident who had initially seemed to be a huge critic. He started out expressing his displeasure with the Government, high property prices, lack of willingness to listen, even to local issues in his estate. I shared with him my challenges, too, as his local Member of Parliament. I invited him to a tea session with residents that I have regularly, shared the various social challenges facing us and the programmes we run in the community. I invited him to be part of a local committee to engage other residents to address the issues he highlighted. I gave him the space to solutions to these issues as we engage Government agencies. The close and sincere engagement allowed us to build greater trust with each other. He is now an active volunteer in my community, encouraging more of his neighbours to join him.

Madam, I share this example, not to show how we have succeeded in changing this resident's view. In the course of engagement, even as we seek to explain and convince, we, too, must be prepared to have our own views scrutinised, challenged and, where appropriate, we are prepared to change them. This is the spirit of two-way engagement. It is how we close differences, rather than entrench them.

Mdm Speaker, we want our young to grow up with the right values – that, as a society, we care for one another, support one another, with the Government taking the lead. The best care is to ensure our young grow up in stable homes and supportive communities. From the very beginning, the PAP Government made the commitment to give every Singaporean family a home they own, one that roots them to Singapore. Our public housing programme has been touted as a world wonder, attracting many government representatives from all

Page: 33

over to come here and to study it.

My parents bought their 3-room flat in Toa Payoh in 1978 for $7,600 and it is worth easily $300,000 today. Apart from my late father's CPF savings, this property is, indeed, a store of value for my mother now. My parents are not unique. Because the PAP Government cared for Singaporeans, we worked hard to develop the economy, improve living conditions, increased the value of the public housing property owned by its citizens. I am not sure of any other governments in the world which can do this for its citizens.

As our earlier generation of home owners reap the benefits of the growth in the values of their assets, I acknowledge that many younger Singaporeans today who had looked to follow the same path as their parents are facing a different reality. I share and appreciate their concerns and some of these concerns are also expressed by their parents. With worries of longer home loan tenure and increasing home prices, they wonder if they will see huge growth in asset values and prices. Yet, we know that if it continues to grow unbounded, what will happen to housing prices in 20 years' time? These are valid concerns, even though there are no easy answers. Nevertheless, they are important ones and we will look into this as we meet the aspirations of the younger generation.

Madam, we know that owning a home requires a long-term commitment and individual responsibility, where work-capable adults are gainfully employed and sustain consistent payments towards their homes. Beyond facilitating home ownership through grants and subsidies, we help them secure employment if they face challenges doing so. Once employed, we encourage them to upgrade their skills through Government-funded programmes, for them to progress to better jobs, improve their incomes and grow their savings. Home ownership is, thus, a critical enabler to build resilient families who have the security of a home and an asset to provide for a better future for their children.

However, housing pathways may not be smooth-sailing for all. I know this as, for the past eight years at MND, I have been looking at appeals for housing from various groups of Singaporeans. One group, in particular, is divorcees, who may face a pressing need to secure their next home for their children, if they cannot retain their matrimonial home and have to sell it post-divorce. Divorce is a painful process. What more when there are children involved. Women with their children are most affected as they struggle to seek employment, to rebuild their lives. Some may be able to return to their families of origin while others rely on the goodwill of friends which often do not last. To those without immediate housing options, we help them with interim housing and build an effective social support infrastructure aimed at building up their capacity to work, save and own a home again.

This is how we have helped single mothers like Mdm Siti Mariama Binti Sannosi. Sympathetic to her plight, HDB officers offered her and her two teenage children a room in

Page: 34

Interim Rental Housing (IRH) at Bedok South. She found a job as a childcare assistant and, through sheer hard work and determination, upgraded herself and, after one year, obtained a qualification as a qualified infant care teacher. With HDB's assistance, she booked a BTO flat and has since moved into her new flat.

Indeed, if they are able to buy, we will support them because the home will one day be a store of value for them in the future. Over the last three years, we have improved divorced parents' access to their next home and provided for their interim housing needs: those with care and control of all children below the age of 18 can apply for a subsidised flat immediately if their ex-spouse does not own one; second-timers with children below the age of 16 enjoy priority for 2- and 3-room BTO flats in non-mature estates under the programme ASSIST; and while waiting for their new flat to be completed, they can rent a Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme flat.

Beyond meeting immediate housing needs, it is also important for these families to build up protective factors to strengthen their independence and resilience over time, and sustain a roof over their heads. These may involve reconciliation with their family, childcare arrangements to facilitate employment, training and upgrading to improve employability, or budgeting skills to help them set aside savings for a rainy day.

The community can play a role in supporting families. I have spoken about Project 4650 in this House. It is how the community supports them – volunteers, neighbours, young people come forward to help the children with education. For example, young professionals like Mr Lim Yuan Qing, a 26-year-old researcher. He comes forward to lend a hand, every night. He comes and helps the children with their homework. He says that each day when he comes to the homework Café, he literally is destressing from work, because he finds pleasure helping the lower-income children.

We have and will continue to do more to help these vulnerable families. Mdm Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, this House also voiced its concern about issues faced by our Malay community. Members of this House from all parties have agreed that our Malay community has achieved progress and we need to continue to move at this pace.

I have heard the arguments for various committees to be formed to address certain issues faced by the community but I feel it is better for us to take a more pragmatic approach. Let us go to the ground and do the job that needs to be done. Let us go to the houses of our low-income families and read to their children and support them in their education. Let us