Hansard, Thursday, 17 May 2018

Order. I wish to inform hon Members that under the provisions of Standing Order No 102, I have on 16 May 2018 nominated the following Members to fill vacancies in the respective Standing Select Committees:

Mr Pritam Singh to be a Member of the Committee of Selection in place of Mr Low Thia Khiang; and

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong to be a Member of the Estimates Committee in place of Mr Pritam Singh.

Order. Introduction of Government Bills.

"to amend the Deposit Insurance and Policy Owners' Protection Schemes Act (Chapter 77B of the 2012 Revised Edition) and to make a related amendment to the Insurance Act (Chapter 142 of the 2002 Revised Edition)",

presented by the Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Tokyo Convention Act (Chapter 327 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make related amendments to certain other Acts",

presented by the Senior Minister of State for Transport (Dr Lam Pin Min) on behalf of the Minister for Transport; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Small Claims Tribunals Act (Chapter 308 of the 1998 Revised Edition) and to make consequential amendments to certain other Acts",

presented by the Second Minister for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Copyright Act (Chapter 63 of the 2006 Revised Edition), the Geographical Indications Act 2014 (Act 19 of 2014), the Registered Designs Act (Chapter 266 of the 2005 Revised Edition) and the Trade Marks Act (Chapter 332 of the 2005 Revised Edition), to enhance border enforcement measures for intellectual property rights, and to make related amendments to certain other Acts",

presented by the Second Minister for Law (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Singapore Tourism (Cess Collection) Act (Chapter 305C of the 1997 Revised Edition)",

recommendation of President signified; presented by the Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat) on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Industry; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

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

recommendation of the President signified; presented by the Second Minister for Finance (Ms Indranee Rajah); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

[(proc text) Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, a Ministerial Statement by the Minister for Defence be taken before the resumption of debate on President’s Address at this day’s Sitting". – [Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien.] (proc text)]

Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank the Leader and Members of this House for allowing me to make this Statement on National Service (NS) training deaths in the midst of the debate on the President's Address. I have requested to do so to address the concerns of Members here and the public over this matter. And I think we are right to be concerned as every NS death should be treated with utmost seriousness, whether it is in Parliament, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) or the Home Team.

Any death among SAF soldiers or Home Team personnel is grievous. These are our security forces who serve this nation with loyalty, commitment and pride. They keep us safe, they defend our island home, often in challenging and dangerous circumstances knowing the risks to themselves. Especially painful is when young National Servicemen who are serving their full-time NS, die. All of us feel it acutely. This House offers our deepest condolences to the families of 3SG Gavin Chan, CFC Dave Lee and, from the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), CPL Kok Yuen Chin. We know that no words can replace their loss. We grieve together with them even as we honour the memory of their precious sons who served and sacrificed for our country. The SAF and Home Team will continue to assist their families as best as we can.

Commanders on the ground fully recognise this heavy responsibility of keeping every son of Singapore safe during their NS training, whether it is in the two years that they come full-time for intensive training, or each time that they are called after that. We must strive hard for zero training deaths because any death is one too many. And I believe it can be done, even as National Servicemen train realistically and effectively to protect us and defend Singapore.

But achieving zero fatalities can only be achieved with constant vigilance, no lesser. Because on any given day, thousands of National Servicemen run around in challenging conditions, they move vehicles on air, land and sea, in Singapore and overseas. In the SAF, modern military platforms travel at high speeds and our exercise tempos are very quick. Our Terrexes can move at 100 kilometre per hour. Our armoured vehicles can move at 70 kilometre per hour.

All of us recognise the higher risks in military training because even for mass civilian activities, whether it is marathons, swims or cycling events, fatalities occur. We read about them and they occur for a variety of innocent reasons. But we must design our safety systems and enforce them so that training deaths within the SAF can be eliminated. It is a difficult goal to achieve, to get it right every time, whenever a platoon or company that goes out on exercise, whether it is day or night. But we must constantly improve the rigour of our safety systems to reach that goal because, if we do not, it may mean another precious son lost to a family.

Members in the House – Mr Dennis Tan1, Mr Henry Kwek2, Mr Vikram Nair3 and Mr Ganesh Rajaram4 – have filed questions on two recent NS deaths within the SAF and on general matters related to training safety. I propose to address their queries in this Statement. Here, I want to beg the House's indulgence and patience. I will give details as much as we know.

In September last year, 3SG Gavin Chan died when the Bionix vehicle he commanded rolled over. And in April this year, CFC Dave Lee died from complications of a heat stroke. Both were serving their full-time NS: 3SG Chan had served for one year and eight months; CFC Lee for four months.

We treat each training related death with utmost seriousness. We deal with it at the highest level within the SAF and MINDEF. The Armed Forces Council (AFC) convenes an independent Committee of Inquiry (COI) to examine thoroughly the circumstances leading to the incident. It is a four-member team chaired by a senior civil servant from outside MINDEF and includes a senior doctor from the public sector. The COI has full powers. It can access all relevant information, access any personnel, haul them up to investigate the circumstances leading to death and they will determine events or persons that contributed to the event, to the death and make recommendations to rectify any lapses found.

Separately from the SAF and MINDEF, the Police conducts parallel investigations and the Coroner may decide to hold a public inquiry.

Let me first share the detailed findings for the late 3SG Chan for which all investigative processes have been completed, including those by the Queensland authorities because the incident occurred in Shoalwater Bay and, therefore, governed under the laws of Australia. Speaker, with your permission, I would now like to ask the Clerk to distribute the report from the Queensland coroner.

Yes, please. [Handouts were distributed to hon Members.]

This report from the coroner was provided to 3SG Chan's parents. 3SG Chan's parents have given us permission for it to be distributed to Members of this House, except for the post-mortem findings which are redacted out of respect for the privacy of 3SG Chan and his family.

The Queensland coroner’s report provides the circumstances leading to the death of 3SG Chan as a result of multiple injuries sustained from motor vehicle trauma. I will read excerpts, which Members can follow in the distributed report.

“On 15 September 2017, Sergeant Chan, who was participating in 'Exercise Wallaby', an annual unilateral training exercise conducted by the Singapore Armed Forces at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland died after the infantry vehicle (known as the Bionix) he was commanding rolled and he suffered significant injuries.

The police conducted an investigation into the circumstances of the incident. The police found no defect with the infantry fighting vehicle. The police found from scene evidence and witness information, that its path forward was halted due to an obstruction. Sergeant Chan, who was commander of the vehicle, gave orders for the driver to reverse slowly down the hill. The commander who was stationed in the turret, with his upper body clear of the vehicle structure, was giving instructions to the driver directing him to reverse and where to reverse. All confirmed that the driver was continuing to reverse slowly, and in accordance with the commander’s instructions, when the vehicle traversed over a flat granite rock for about 4 metres before the vehicle became stuck on a large boulder, holding up the vehicle undercarriage. The commander instructed the driver to turn the steering wheel in an attempt to gain traction when suddenly the vehicle dropped down over the rock rolling sideways before coming to rest further down the slope. Sergeant Chan was ejected from the vehicle and suffered significant injuries. Life support was commenced at the scene before he was airlifted to hospital where he was later pronounced deceased.

The police investigation established that there was no defect with the vehicle, and there was no suggestion that the driver was doing anything other than reversing very slowly, and at the specific direction of Sergeant Chan. The police considered that it was likely that the incident occurred because of the commander’s decision to reverse on a slightly different path down the hill and that his choice to be positioned with part of his body outside the vehicle exposed him to greater risk of injury. The Singapore Armed Forces recommendation is only the head and shoulders be outside the turret of the vehicle during operations. The police considered it was a very unfortunate incident whilst deployed in difficult terrain in ‘black out’ conditions. It was noted by the police that the driver was driving in compliance with SAF policy at the time of the incident, and under the specific instruction from Sergeant Chan.”

These are the findings of the Queensland authorities. The Committee of Inquiry here, appointed by the Armed Forces Council, corroborated from their own investigation the findings by the Queensland authorities. The COI further determined that Sergeant Chan and his platoon mates were sufficiently trained and qualified to participate in the exercise. They had no mental and physical conditions that could have affected their fitness to participate. The medical and safety coverage provided was found to be timely, adequate and proper.

In addition, the COI conducted interviews with SAF soldiers at the exercise to piece together the chronology of events that led to the Bionix overturning. The mishap occurred during night training for Bionix units. For Members' information, Armour units do this regularly, because they have to become proficient to fight at night or under conditions of poor visibility. That is something that they must learn to do.

Safety lapses were identified by the COI. First, the night vision device (NVD) of 3SG Chan’s vehicle was not working. They have issued a night vision device which allows them to see in darkness, but it was not working. It is needed if armoured vehicles are to move at night. Without the night vision device, armoured vehicles can move but only with the driver's hatch open and headlights switched on for better visibility. That is in the training safety regulations. However, according to the driver, Sergeant Chan felt that the headlights “would give away their position to the enemy” and decided to continue training without headlights.

Accounts from his platoon mates to the COI attest to Sergeant Chan's strong motivation and high standards of performance during training. Sergeant Chan was zealous in his training and probably wanted to complete the night mission assigned to their armour unit. Unfortunately, in the darkness, the vehicle entered an area with a steep incline and boulders. At that point, Sergeant Chan stopped the vehicle, dismounted to assess the surroundings and found that a boulder was blocking the vehicle. He re-mounted the Bionix, sitting on the top edge of the vehicle commander hatch and told the driver to open his hatch and switch on the vehicle’s headlights so that they could reverse away from this area. Unfortunately, as they were doing so, the vehicle overturned on the steep embankment. The three other soldiers in that Bionix did not suffer any injuries. The COI concluded that Sergeant Chan’s injuries resulted from him being thrown out of the vehicle as it overturned, causing his demise.

The Queensland coroners’ report agreed that this was the cause of this event. The report said, “…in the circumstances I find that Sergeant Chan died when he was ejected from the vehicle which he was directing. It is unfortunate that he took the decision to position himself with a significant portion of his body outside the vehicle.” The coroner's report continues, “…the incident is none other than a very unfortunate accident due to the nature of the difficult terrain and the operation then being performed.”

Arising from their investigations, the Queensland police found no basis to charge any person. The COI also found no negligence, foul play or misconduct, but recommended that the SAF review its training safety regulations on the position of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle Commander, so that the vehicle commander is able to execute the overturning drill, which means that he is able to drop quickly into the vehicle. If he cannot do this, because you are much better protected inside the vehicle than out, the vehicle must stop. The COI also recommended stronger compliance and checks on night vision devices (NVDs) and to enforce the wearing seatbelt rule for passengers when the vehicle is moving.

The SAF has followed up and also implemented additional training for armoured vehicle commanders on uneven terrain. Training safety regulations (TSRs) have been tightened to limit exposure of the body of the vehicle commander to waist level when executing certain operational tasks. The SAF has also implemented drills for day-to-night and night-to-day transitions and this includes NVDs and other night fighting equipment on the checklist which need to be in working order. Wearing seatbelts is enforced, with disciplinary actions taken against those who have not done so.

Sergeant Chan’s death was classified as a training-related incident and compensation offered to the family. Sergeant Chan’s parents accepted the honours of a military funeral. The Armour formation paid their last respects to a dedicated commander whom they are proud to call one of their own. Sergeant Chan was a good soldier.

Let me now turn to CFC Dave Lee. To investigate Corporal Lee's death, all the processes that I have described for Sergeant Chan, the COI, police investigations and Coroner's inquiry are yet to be completed. His death was about two weeks ago. I will only share information from our own internal investigations. When Members have clarifications later – and I encourage you to ask for clarifications – I will share what we have, with some caveats, that the COI and the independent Coroner's inquiry, if held, and the Police investigations will have to come to their own facts.

On 18 April this year, Corporal Lee displayed signs of heat injury after completing an eight-kilometre fast march in Bedok Camp. An SAF medic attended to Corporal Lee to bring down his core temperature and he was evacuated to the camp's Medical Centre where body-cooling measures and treatment were instituted by the SAF medical team there. He was taken to Changi General Hospital (CGH) and warded in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Unfortunately, Corporal Lee's condition deteriorated and he passed away on 30 April 2018 at CGH, about 12 days after his admission.

Following the incident, the Army declared a safety timeout for all training and also specifically reviewed training that posed risks of heat injuries. During the timeout, commanders were reminded of the importance of safety measures which include hydration regimes, temperature-taking regimes, management of the work-rest cycle – I will explain what this means – and identification of personnel who could be at greater risk of heat injuries. These are currently in place; these are preventive safety measures against heat injuries.

While the SAF has not had any death from heat stroke since 2009, heat injuries do occur each year. We are at risk. We are a tropical island, hot and humid. In 2010, the SAF convened a workgroup, which included many external experts, to address this specific problem. This workgroup recommended clinical practice guidelines that were endorsed by MOM and the then-Singapore Sports Council. These guidelines formed the regimes which I have just mentioned against heat injuries and they include mandatory water parades before, during and after a training activity. We take temperature before the training and any soldier with a temperature above 37.5oC is not allowed to train.

In addition, we take the recorded ambient temperature. If it exceeds a certain level during training, rest periods are mandated at appropriate intervals to allow soldiers to cool down. This is one of the recommendations of the expert panel which the SAF follows dutifully. And it is not just taking a thermometer. We use a wet-bulb globe temperature heat stress monitor. It is a hand-held device which will give you the ambient temperature, calculated with the humidity. And based on that, the SAF institutes work-rest cycles. If it is below a certain temperature, for instance, you can exercise for 30 minutes, but you must rest for 15 minutes. Above 33oC, you must exercise for 15 minutes and rest for 30 minutes and so on and so forth.

Commanders and soldiers are reminded to look out for signs and symptoms of heat injury during training. In the event of heat injury, we have on-site cooling measures which include the removal of clothes and application of ice or water to the affected serviceman. The SAF medical centres have customised-built evaporative body-cooling units for heat injuries. Our commanders, soldiers, regulars, Full-time National Servicemen (NSFs) and Operationally Ready National Servicemen (NSmen) know from their own experience that it is the consistent practice for these processes and precautions to be carried out.

We must press on to achieve zero fatalities from heat injuries. The SAF is currently evaluating the use of individual wearable devices to monitor a soldier’s condition real-time. MINDEF will also commission an External Medical Panel, as we did in 2010, to review the SAF's policies and measures for the management of heat injuries and recommend improvements. This panel should consider further steps, especially when recorded temperatures in Singapore over the last two decades have gone up, increasing the risk of heat injuries.

As these two cases show, after every training-related death, independent and impartial investigative processes will determine the key facts, arrive at appropriate conclusions and we will take corrective measures to prevent mistakes from being repeated. This includes punishing those who contributed to the death through reckless and negligent acts.

SAF servicemen can be charged and punished in the civilian criminal Courts, even if their acts were committed within the SAF, as part of their duty. I have said so in this House previously but these examples bear repeating for their salutary warnings. In 2012, an SAF vehicle overturned during an exercise and it caused the death of a soldier. The Conducting Officer who appointed a serviceman to drive the military vehicle even though the Conducting Officer knew that the serviceman did not have a military driving licence was convicted in the criminal Courts and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The officer was found to have committed a rash act and attempted to pervert the course of justice. In 2005, the Supervising Officer, Conducting Officer and instructors who were involved in the death of a trainee who was submerged in water during a Combat Survival Training course were sentenced to six to 12 months' imprisonment.

In all cases, prosecutions of SAF servicemen in criminal Courts are based on independent Police investigations and when the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) decides that there are sufficient grounds to prosecute. It will be the criminal Courts that determine the level of culpability and commensurate punishments. Separately, the Coroner may hold an inquiry to determine the causes of death and contributory factors. The SAF fully accepts these judicial processes and, indeed, deems them necessary to achieve and maintain a zero-fatality training safety system.

I know that there are accusations against the commanders of Corporal Lee, but we should let the independent COI and Police investigations fully investigate the circumstances to establish the facts. We will deal with any wrong-doing thoroughly. Those that deserved to be punished will be punished. If any persons are found to have been negligent or culpable, they will be punished according to the law, both in civilian and military Courts.

But we must be careful not to discourage or unfairly punish commanders who are executing their responsibilities dutifully, because many commanders are National Servicemen, too, who take seriously this mission we in society have imposed on them – to train capable fighting units able to defend Singapore against all threats. And he is serious about his duty and he wants to build a fighting unit. We must be careful that we do not discourage them or punish them unfairly.

Indeed, we have many positive examples of commanders who risk their own safety to protect trainees. In 2013, NSF commander Lieutenant Kamalasivam pulled a recruit down to take cover in the grenade-throwing bay. The recruit was new. He held the grenade, took out the safety pin and released the grenade lever. Lieutenant Kamalasivam's first instinct was to pull the recruit down and cover himself over him. Thankfully, both suffered minor injuries which they recovered from.

Even if there was no ill-intent, are NSF commanders trained adequately and do they have the maturity to exercise good judgement and consciousness regarding training safety? This is what Nominated Member Ganesh Rajaram asked.

All commanders undergo safety training both in the Specialist Cadet School (SCS) and Officer Cadet School (OCS). In addition, we have Unit Safety Officers and these are ex-regulars who have held senior appointments, who support the safe conduct of exercises. These Unit Safety Officers do not just have book learning; they have actual experience conducting and taking part in training and operations. But Unit Safety Officers cannot be everywhere all the time. So, for instance, for Exercise Wallaby, we sent 4,000 to 5,000 men down to Shoalwater Bay to train.

A strong safety culture and a zero-fatality training system can only be achieved if every soldier has that ingrained concern for the well-being of himself and his peers. On the ground, it is the creed of the commanders to take care of their men. If you do not know how to take care of your men and if it is shown that you do not know how to take care of the men, we will remove your command position, we will remove your rank. Commanders are taught to encourage their men and buddies to flag out when they do not feel well. Individual soldiers are advised to highlight risky behaviour and safety breaches and they can report them to their superiors without fear of reprisal. There is a 24-hour training safety hotline for commanders and soldiers to report safety incidents and near-misses. So, not only when something happens, but a near-miss, report it.

We have another External Review Panel on SAF Safety (ERPSS). It consists of prominent safety experts and professionals outside the SAF and it helps MINDEF scrutinise our safety management system. I have attached a list of its members. The current Chairman is Mr Heng Chiang Ngee, who was also Chairman of the Workplace Safety and Health Council till March this year. This panel reports to the Minister on the rigour of the system and presents recommendations to improve. These are qualified eminent members and I would like this External Review Panel to do more.

So, for a start, MINDEF has discussed with the Chairman of the ERPSS who has agreed to include one of their members in the COIs for all training-related deaths. In addition, the COI will now submit its full report to the ERPSS for further questions, comments and views. In turn, the ERPSS will provide a written report on the COI findings which will be made public.

With these multiple layers of safety and with experts within and outside assisting the SAF, we can move decisively to make zero training deaths the norm. I know it is difficult but it must be done.

Over the last two decades, we have had, on average, about one NS training-related death a year. From 2013 to 2016 we had no NS training deaths, four years, none. And this shows that zero fatalities can be achieved with effort. The Chief of Defence Force and the Service Chiefs have assured me that safety has always been and will continue to get their highest command attention to achieve zero fatalities. But we need every level to play their part, down to the individual commander and soldier, to protect their own well-being and that of their men and their buddies.

Our SAF commanders know that precious sons are entrusted to us when they train during NS. Our commanders take this seriously and never take this trust for granted. We will do our very best to achieve zero fatalities in training. We will work in unison and instil in every commander and soldier a strong sense of responsibility in ensuring training safety at all levels.

Mr Speaker and Members of this House, I have taken this opportunity to give as much relevant details as MINDEF and SAF have involving the deaths of NSFs 3SG Chan and CFC Dave Lee. I would encourage Members in this House to seek any clarification because Parliament is a critical and appropriate forum to ensure that we have done all that is possible to make safety a top priority so that every soldier is well-protected as they defend Singapore. Our soldiers deserve no less.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

2.06 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have three supplementary questions. This morning, I received an email from a concerned mother who has a son in National Service now. She says that she understood from her son that the "tekan" culture still exists in National Service. So, I would like to ask the Minister, first, is this "tekan" culture allowed; second, where is the channel for reporting such cases; and, third, what would be the range of punishments for the officers involved.

Mr Speaker, the Member will know my answer. It will be the same answer as she would give. If any Member of this House or any member of the public can give me details that there has been abuse of power and that recruits have been unfairly treated, let me know. We will deal with it.

We want our soldiers to be well-trained. But that does not give any excuse to any commander to abuse his position, to abuse his authority to do over and beyond what is necessary. If it is not safe for whatever reason, even well-intentioned, it is wrong. That is the bottom line. No questions. If you expose people to unsafe practices, go against training safety regulations, you are wrong from the outset. The excuses may mean very little because the TSRs are there to protect your men. And if you do not know how to protect the men, then I say you cannot be a good commander. It is behaviour prejudicial to good order and you do not deserve to be a commander and you will be punished accordingly.

Sir, it is extremely sad that we have deaths related to SAF training. My follow-up question is in relation to the unfortunate death of SCDF CPL Kok at Tuas View Fire Station. Can the Minister for Home Affairs assure us that all steps are being taken to help ensure that such an unfortunate and unnecessary death does not happen again?

I would like to remind Members that questions and queries should be confined to the Statement made by the Minister for Defence. I think we fully recognise that there is a need to fully discuss the unfortunate and tragic SCDF incident and Members should file Parliamentary Questions and they should be aired in this Chamber. However, I am prepared to permit this question if the Minister for Home Affairs wishes to respond.

I will respond.

All right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are three aspects to this tragic case. First, of course, is the family. Their grief, their loss at CPL Kok’s passing, a young life which has been prematurely cut short. The family is at the front and centre of our thoughts and prayers. So, as we talk about the other matters, I want to emphasise that. It is tragic that this has happened, and we must, and will, do right by them and by the late CPL Kok.

I will now also deal with two other points, that is, what happened in this case and, third, what we can do to try and make sure that this does not happen again.

What happened? We will release the details that we can at this stage. There is a fair bit of evidence as to what happened, both witnesses' and objective evidence. But it is not appropriate for me to go into the details, the facts, at this stage. There will be a Board of Inquiry (BOI). The majority of the members will be from outside the Government. There will almost certainly also be criminal proceedings. The Attorney-General's Chamber has told me that, after reviewing the facts at this stage. Based on the facts that I have seen, I think so, too. I am usually very careful about saying these things. But I think so, too. There should be criminal charges.

So, the BOI will look into the facts. The facts will also come out in public, through Court proceedings. Everything that is relevant will be out. What I can say is that the conduct was unacceptable. It was a clear and serious violation of the rules and there can be no excuse for the conduct. People play games. They horse around. They make people like CPL Kok do dangerous things. Even force them into dangerous situations. And people who do this do not think. They do not think how it can go wrong and, when it does go wrong, a life is lost, needlessly lost.

Third, what are we going to do? It is imperative that we see what went wrong and learn the lessons. What more can we do to stop this sort of behaviour? We have clear rules. Commanders emphasise that to the officers and all new enlistees are told about the rules. Punishments have been meted out. Detentions have been given when infractions have been found. How do we make sure that there is zero tolerance? Parents send their children to NS. They trust us and we have to maintain that trust.

So, I have directed SCDF as well as the other Home Team agencies to relook at the rules, how they are enforced, focus on the enforcement, come up with a further set of measures by next week. Once they are finalised, I will announce them next week. Meanwhile, I have made it clear that, hereafter, it will be a command responsibility to ensure that such conduct is not repeated. And hereafter, Unit Commanders will be held responsible for anything like this that happens, any kind of conduct that is in violation or in breach.

Commissioner Erip Yap has sent a letter in very clear terms on this yesterday to all officers. He has also personally spoken to the Commanders, emphasising that message, and the same will be done with the other Home Team agencies. So, there will be zero tolerance and we will have to do, we will do our best not to let this happen again. Thank you, Sir.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a few questions for the Minister for Defence pertaining to his earlier Ministerial Statement. My first question pertains to the COI concerning 3SG Gavin Chan and the finding that his night vision device was not working. Does the COI report indicate whether the non-serviceability of the night vision device could have been a critical factor in the incident, in that, 3SG Chan, had his device been working properly, could have taken some remedial action before the obstacle was discovered along the path where the vehicle was moving?

The second question is related to that, whether, in future, MINDEF would consider making public COI reports as a form of closure for the public, with, of course, the relevant details redacted? These could include sensitive information on behalf of the family and other operational reasons to redact certain information.

Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. The training safety regulations for armour training at night require you to use night vision devices and, exactly for the purpose where you have poor visibility, you need to see where you are moving. You can move without night vision devices if you have, as I have said, the hatch open and the lights on. It is the responsibility of the vehicle commander to report if his night vision devices are not working and, whereupon, you stop the exercise for safety purposes.

I mentioned that we have now, henceforth, decided that we want to give as much information as we can and, as Mr Pritam Singh says, apart from sensitive issues or security reasons. But by and large, I think we should be prepared to give out as much information. That is the reason why we have said that the External Review Panel on SAF Safety will be a member of the COI. The COI will submit the full report to the External Review Panel for their questions, for their comments and views. This External Review Panel for safety will write a report and that will be made public.

For Singaporeans who have served NS, they will not be unfamiliar with this word, "keng". Sometimes, the commanders will use it, with the good intention, to make the soldier work harder to give their best and also for the unit camaraderie. So, they say “do not keng" or “do not skive”.

But we do know that, sometimes, soldiers are genuinely unwell and are, hence, not able to perform up to mark. Sometimes the commanders are not able to read this right, or make a right judgement and, sometimes, not give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt and, therefore, to take him off from the training.

So, I want to ask the Minister, how does the SAF strike a balance, especially, in our case, where some of our National Servicemen are just fresh from school and may not have the temperament and ability to make the right decision to manage such situations?

Also, how do we use more positive ways to encourage our soldiers to give of their best rather than a negative way of saying "don't keng" and, therefore, that is how we should go about? Should we look at how we can eradicate this form of practice that we see even in the good old days? Till today, I believe this is still happening. How can we use a more positive way to encourage soldiers to give of their best?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we should be governed by training safety regulations during training and that is what they are there for. The way our training safety regulations are written, they give the benefit of the doubt to the individual soldier. If he feels unwell, he can flag himself out. That is the starting point. Whether you think he is not completely truthful is beside the point. He has the prerogative to flag himself out. You can train him to do the same exercise later, slowly, gradually, but that is a command decision.

But as these two examples show, that is not really the culture that prevails. Our young men who do NS are highly motivated, in the case of Gavin Chan. He wanted to complete the exercise for his unit. In the case of Dave Lee, he completed the eight-kilometre fast march.

So, I am not sure that it is accurate to characterise this dilemma between pushing people because they are inherently not as motivated. Our experience is that National Servicemen are motivated and, if they are not, then it is part of your skillsets to motivate him, to give him confidence, to be able to complete the exercise.

Mr Speaker, I thank both Ministers for their Statements. I think this shows the seriousness of the matter that the Ministers themselves take every death seriously. As a serviceman myself, I think tough training is absolutely important. One of the things that I think was a little bit troubling and which came out in social media as well, both in relation to CFC Dave Lee as well as to CPL Kok was the allegation of abuse, abuse of power. I think both Ministers are clear that this should not happen.

My suggestion would be that National Servicemen be given an opportunity, perhaps a whistleblower's channel, somewhere outside the respective units perhaps directly to the Ministry, in the event there is such abuse or fear of such abuse, especially if the fear is that the unit's culture encourages that, in which case they would be afraid of reporting within the unit. That is one suggestion.

Mr Speaker, we have a 24-hour safety hotline that you can call and report it. It will get attended to.

When death occurs, emotions are riled up, you have many views, some substantiated, some are unsubstantiated, which is why I said that, this House, Members here also play a critical role in making sure that safety gets top priority. As we have shown in the case of 3SG Gavin Chan, the COI established fully the facts. If there were people culpable, as previous COIs have shown, they were held responsible. So, in any case, in any death where people are culpable or negligent, they will be dealt with according to criminal law or in our military Courts. I think we have enough cases to show that all of us want to have a zero-fatality system. We are working towards that.

If Members have any other suggestions, I am happy to hear them and see whether we can incorporate them. But I want to assure you, this gets top-most priority, gets top attention at MINDEF and the SAF.

Mr Speaker, whenever we talk about "tough training", one of the things that is affected will be their mental state, the psychological state. May I know in this COI, will we be looking at the mental and psychological state of the soldier at that moment? And especially important because I think in this kind of situation, particularly when there is tough training, the psychological state would actually affect the physical performance. It can be not just on an individual level but affecting an entire section, platoon. Under this kind of situation, a soldier may just push himself to the extreme. So, I hope that maybe we can also look at, in the future, how do we have more psychological support in the army, in the training.

The COI's primary mission is to establish the facts that led to the incident and cause of death, the contributory factors. That is quite clear and I think we understand that. If the psychological preparation of soldiers was inadequate, it will be flagged out. And, yes, we pay attention to the psychology of the men. It is part and parcel of our military training.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon Ministers whether the parents of the two deceased National Servicemen would be allowed to observe and participate in the COI or BOI proceedings, given the specific nature of the incidents – one being a physical training incident, the other being an incident that should not have happened in the first place?

I think I understand what the Member wants, but we have to understand that the COI's job is to determine the facts and, in the process, usually, they interview many soldiers who give different accounts. First of all, it may be emotionally trying for the parents to sit there and to hear many accounts of the same thing happening again and again and, even as I recount it, 3SG Chan's events, it is very difficult. That is why we asked them for permission, can we reproduce this coroner's report? And if they had said no, then I would have to rely just to release to this House our COI report because, that coroner's report, by Queensland's procedures, is only given to the parents.

We want to assure the parents of any unfortunate National Serviceman who has died, that all the facts will be fully established. Not covered up, but full investigations. Anyone held responsible that deserves punishment will get punished. Neither should we go on a witch hunt, if they are honest mistakes, because the commanders are someone else's son, too, National Servicemen. Most of our SAF commanders are National Servicemen.

To points that, with this culture, there might be abuse, yes, I believe that some of it may have gone overboard. But by and large, our National Servicemen, our NS commanders, are decent, young men, who are doing their duty that we asked them to do to raise fighting units. We want to strike a balance, we have to make sure that we, in this House, send the appropriate signal; we, in leadership, send the appropriate signal. Safety first, do your job, if you abuse your position, you will be punished. But if you do your job dutifully, all the facts will come out and you need not fear, but continue to do your job.

May I ask the Minister whether there is a hydration protocol in place to prevent heatstroke before and during exercises for our soldiers? What is this protocol and is it sufficient to prevent heatstroke? I would also want to ask whether the thermometer that CFC Dave Lee was using was in good order.

As I have said, these are the facts that the COI and the Police must investigate. So, any findings that I give, I will put the caveat that these are internal investigations. The COI and Police report should disregard it as this is what we found. He was found to have a normal temperature before the activity started. Whether the thermometer was working, I think we have to investigate that. I do not know, I presume it was because it would be used for others as well.

Hydration protocols, yes, we do, and there are certain volumes that one has to take in. I think those with sons in NS will recognise that it is done de rigueur. Everybody stands up with their water bottle and takes the requisite volume and you have to prove that you have drunk it. Because some worry that some people may feel that they have enough water and they pour it on the ground. And all these measures, for good units, they recognise that it is done, strictly followed because it is meant to protect our soldiers.

Firstly, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive Statement. I share his sentiment and I feel for the families for their loss. Having said that, the Minister has answered most of my questions. I just want to elaborate on one point about empathy and the maturity of commanders.

I have got a son who is entering National Service next year. When I look at myself compared to him when I did my National Service, I would like to think I was a lot more matured than him going in. I think that is because, as the society matures, kids are taken a lot better care of and they are more pampered at home. We have got kids who are going into NS who are not of the same build of before and I would like to think they are not as hardy.

Having said that, in terms of commanders, whether they are section commanders or officers of other rank, does the army focus on qualities like empathy as well as being able to assess how a kid is doing vis-a-vis performance? Because, to be fair, I do not think it is intentional, I think all commanders and all National Servicemen want to perform at the best of their ability. But, sometimes, it is difficult to tell and maybe they would need a lot more training in this area. So, if the Minister could share if there is such training and if it is going to be enhanced, given that we are getting generations coming in that may be a little less hardy than what we were, growing up.

I can summarise the Member's question: how do we select commanders to have the necessary maturity and wherewithal to make good judgements? It probably applies to all jobs. In this debate and in the President's Address, think of what Singapore is doing with NS.

Very few countries have been able to maintain NS. We are taking every 18-year-old, 19-year-old for two years, put them together and, say as part of nation-building, as part of building up a defence force or a good Home Team, mix together, lead one another, train, work together, fight together. Do that in any society, you get the full plethora of the frailties of human nature.

Malaysia started its NS, which included women. And even for that kind of activity, there were reported deaths for a variety of reasons. So, we have to make sure that for our National Servicemen, the commanders are well chosen. We have psychological tests, to the extent possible, they weed out those who have mal-adjusted attributes, that are not fit to lead. In addition, peer appraisal plays a very important role. You are appraised 360o. And if your peers think that you are not fit to lead, that you do not have enough empathy, or that you do not listen, or that you do not have enough command presence or command ability, then we do not choose you.

Can we step up the activities so that they can make good judgements? You know that in Officer Cadet School (OCS), we have situational tests. We put people together, give them situations and assess how they respond. So, yes, that is incorporated in trying to figure out the psychology elements that make a good leader and to see whether this chap has it or not.

We have succeeded in our NS and this is why it is so important that we give it top-most priority when it comes to safety. We know your sons are precious. You give them to us, to the Police, to the SCDF for two years; we want to train them. We want to return them to you well-trained and safe.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I have two supplementary questions but not relating to 3SG Gavin. One, in respect of the answer that the Minister has just given to a previous question, the Minister mentioned about empathy training, possibly during Command School at OCS or SISPEC. May I also ask the Minister if he would consider having further post-commission training, meaning for junior commanders, after they have received their command rank? The basis for my question is that I think those of us who have done National Service will also realise that, for some commanders, you may not see this in OCS or in SISPEC, but after they have gotten the rank, somehow the rank got to them. And that is where the abuse of power, the tendency for abuse may happen. Perhaps in very small numbers, but, nonetheless, this is something that the Minister may wish to consider looking into.

My second question relates to the Minister's information just now where you mentioned that the second review panel will be – correct me if I have heard you wrongly – given access to the COI reports. Would the Minister also consider that on other training safety-related reports, perhaps of lesser importance, let us say an intra-SAF Board of Inquiry (BOI) report relating to some accidents or incidents which may not even involve any actual casualty but, nonetheless, relating to training safety, would this panel be given access to such reports so that they have a good overview of the kind of incidents that may happen in the SAF and to be able to provide suggestions for improvement?

Speaker, on the Member's first question in terms of post-commission training for those who might be susceptible to abuse their position of authority, as I have said, if you are in that position, the safety counts first. We have the TSRs there so that, regardless of your empathy level, or your authoritativeness, you follow them. That is not negotiable.

We can consider training them, but remember that these sons are given to us for two years, to the extent possible, all of them are given safety training while they are in Specialist Cadet School or OCS. So, that is a mandatory module.

For the External Review Panel, yes, the full COI will be given to them so that they can assess the information and ask more questions and, from that, write their report. My own position is that there will be certain security elements. But, by and large, in many instances, the security elements can be maintained. And I would give as much information to this House, to the External Review Panel that you want, so that they, too, can come to an independent conclusion. Whether we want to include them to assess serious injuries, I think the Member's point was not deaths, or COIs or BOIs. Certainly, if the ERPSS feels that they can do more work, I will be happy to ask them if they could also be included.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

Sir, the question I have is quite similar to what Mr Dennis Tan has asked. I think the Minister will agree that the thicker you make the TSRs, the more difficult it could actually be for the commanders in the field. The Minister referred earlier to the fact that commanders actually need certain skills. Is there an on-going system to assess whether there are deficits in the attitudes, as well as the skills of commanders in the field? Is there an on-going system to ensure that, if such deficits are discovered, they can be remedied?

We receive, for two years the entire spectrum of abilities from society for males; all of them come to us. And we have to run a system. We have fairly rigorous selection criteria for commanders – OCS, Specialist Cadet School. Can you get it right each time? For the majority, yes. Are there some that you chose as commanders that are not fit to be? If there are attributes which show up and you do something wrong, they will be called out because safety is not negotiable, as we tell them.

So, it is a difficult question that you have asked: do we constantly second-guess and check on them? In honesty, it is difficult, but remember, in the military, there is a hierarchical situation, so I take it that the commanders above them would spot it. There are these annual reviews, but let me try to simplify this. We take it that commanders have various skill sets and various empathy levels. But let this message be very clear: when it comes to safety, it gets top-most priority. When it comes to the welfare of your men, that is your top-most priority, whatever your skill sets, whatever your empathy level. You protect the well-being of your men first.

Minister, let me first declare my interest. I have a family member who is serving in the same platoon as CFC Dave Lee. And following the incident, there were many parents and National Servicemen in the same platoon who were sharing concerns and worries. So, I would like to ask the Minister if the Ministry is familiar with the state of affairs of the motivation and the level of our National Servicemen in the same platoon being in so close contact with the deceased. As well as whether has conversation been taking place with the family members to assure them that the safety protocols are in place and their sons can continue to be in the exercise and various operational readiness that they are being put through in the camp?

When this incident occurred, the Army was mobilised very quickly at the top leadership levels. We stopped, had a safety timeout for all activities; paused, everybody stopped, safety first. We checked all processes, even when it is not related to heat injuries. Then, specifically, for heat injuries, make sure that the protocols are in place and then we restart the training. For that individual unit, the Army Commanders went down, engaged the men, engaged the family members of the deceased CFC Dave Lee, as well as what the Member has rightly pointed out, how it would affect his platoon mates.

So, I was watching whether the social media furore over this would divide, as the Member rightly alluded to, the men and the commanders. Would they gel together on this? And we have to learn from these lessons that when something wrong happens, does it divide or does it unite? Because no one can guarantee you that no such incident will occur in another period, in another time, in another unit. We will do our level best to get a zero-fatality system. It does not only apply to the SAF, it applies to other problems in society.

I think in this quiet Chamber where we have the equanimity to examine all the facts, to ask why our men are doing this. What is the purpose? How do we run the system? Is this a bad system? Is it a good system? Is there abuse that is rampant? Are there a majority who are just trying to do their duty? We then come to the very decisions on what we need to do to strengthen the system; but never degrade it, never reduce the trust, but build up this cache. And each year that we can do this, the SAF will get stronger, the SAF will get safer to protect us.

We will take one more question, Mr Yee Chia Hsing.

Thank you, Speaker. Human memories are short. So, after every incident that happened, the danger is that when this current batch of servicemen graduate, move on or retire, the new batch of servicemen, all that they have are the TSRs that have been modified or added, but they are in a vacuum without context. So, I am not sure whether we can change our safety training, also to put context to the TSRs when we do the training to say, “We put in this TSR because that incident happened and we lost a serviceman.” So that people would realise the importance of the TSRs for subsequent batches of servicemen.

Speaker, the Member has made a very essential point for safety management systems. I used to be Minister for Manpower and he is absolutely right. We went to countries that have very good safety systems. The Scandinavians have excellent safety systems because that is their culture. So, we have to build a culture so that even when commanders change, even when National Servicemen change, we retain it.

Some of you may have worked in ExxonMobil where, before every meeting, they would give you a safety briefing. Even if it is a 15-minute meeting, the organisers would give you a briefing to tell you where the exits are, to tell you what happens. It is de rigueur.

We have to do that. We have to do that so that the safety systems are maintained and that is why we have Unit Safety Officers that build up this culture. It will take time, but we have gotten it. As I have said, on average, we have one death a year. I believe if all of us give attention, as we did in 2012 to 2016, no fatalities. Let us give this our best attention. Let us go that extra mile and make sure that our sons remain safe.

Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [14 May 2018]. (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 she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'." – [Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling.] (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President for her inspirational and aspirational message for the Second session of the 13th Parliament.

In her Address, the President calls for Singaporeans to walk alongside the fourth generation (4G) leaders in partnership to achieve an exceptional Singapore. The concept of partnership means that there is more than one person in this journey. Partners bring to the table their contributions, their strengths, their capital, they have different roles and responsibilities. They have a single commitment but they also bear risks together. That is a concept of a partnership and that is what we need to bear in mind when we build our country.

The premise of partnership is trust and, in this debate, in my speech, I would want to focus on the issue of trust. The debate is important because the President's speech is not only for the Second Session of the 13th Parliament. It is a call to Singaporeans to take Singapore forward beyond the 13th Parliament and way into the future. This debate is important because it takes place at a significant juncture in the political history of Singapore. Both the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party are undergoing leadership transition. The issue of trust is critical to all of us.

We are blessed to be in a country where the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party transit leadership in a managed process. And that is not to be taken for granted.

But however well-managed, there will be concerns, uncertainties and fears on the ground. Leadership transitions can reasonably be expected to be a time of vulnerability. Such vulnerability is easily exploited and can be exacerbated by circumstances, such as we are in now: shifts in alliances between countries, changes in the domestic landscape, disruption in the global economy, security threats.

So, understandably, citizens, like myself, are concerned as to where and how the 4G leaders will lead us, how the leading Opposition party will play its role as a check and balance vis-à-vis the Government.

As Singaporeans, we have a stake in Singapore’s future. Visions, plans and policies are important but, just as important, if not more, is whether and how the leaders actualise them. Checks and balances vis-à-vis the Government are important, but just as important if not more important is whether the checks and balances are executed in a constructive and pro-Singapore manner. In other words, whether you are the Ruling Party or the Opposition party, we, the citizens will watch how responsible you are to Singapore.

The 4G leaders clearly acknowledged in the President’s speech that they must earn the trust of the people, forge their own bonds afresh with the people, earn the right to lead. I believe this applies to all leaders, even those who have been leaders for a long time.

The mandate of the people is given only once at every general election. That mandate, in my view, entitles the winning party to form the Government. But it does not give the winning party the right to lead. That right must be earned, no matter how long you have been in Parliament and it must continue to be earned. So, I am encouraged by the acknowledgement of the 4G leaders that they must earn the trust of the people and forge their own bonds afresh with the people and earn the right to lead.

They, having thus spoken, the citizens will wait and see.

It is all about words and actions. We weigh the actions of the leaders against their words. We weigh their words against their actions. The words that precede their action, the words that accompany the action and the words subsequent to the action. The nuances, the shades. We watch their other actions, hear their other words. The totality will be the basis upon which we make our assessment. I will do the same for Opposition politicians and the Public Service. I want to know if you mean what you say and you say what you mean.

The 4G leaders and the new leaders of the Workers' Party are not strangers to Singaporeans. But compared to their predecessors, they have had a relatively short time up to now to prove themselves. They have clearly proven themselves within their parties. It is now time to prove themselves to Singaporeans. And this is not going to be easy. You have heard different, discordant noises on the ground. Some may be justified and some not. But all must be taken seriously because all emanate from hearts either of anguish or of passion for Singapore.

So, the issue of earning trust is fundamental. And I believe that is why the 4G leaders say they got to earn that trust. Because if I trust my leaders, no matter how vehemently we disagree, I will cast my lot with them. I will pay the price, together with my fellow Singaporeans and leaders, to pave the way for Singapore. But if I do not trust my leaders, they have lost me in the journey.

Building trust, however, is not a one-way effort. It requires one party to reach out and another to engage. It will be a long and difficult process. Especially if impressions have been formed, assessments have already been made, rightly or wrongly. So, we will need a lot of empathy and open-mindedness from both parties. We should not fear to speak and debate openly and frankly. We should speak and debate with cold logic, but with a flaming passion for Singapore. Neither Government nor citizen should fear criticism. It is healthy but it must be done responsibly. Let us be open with each other and only then will our enemies have one tool less against us.

The way ahead would be difficult. There is no doubt.

In tackling our challenges and building our future, the element of trust is important. There will be differing views, strong views, strong voices, loud voices. From this tumult, our leaders must discern what is in the long-term interests of Singapore, while looking after the immediate and medium-term interests of Singapore. So, you have said to us that you will demonstrate leadership and resolve. You will stand firm on principles and ideals while seeking practical solutions. You will listen to the people, you will not fear to mobilise public opinion in the long-term interests of Singapore.

And, indeed, as a citizen, I expect no less of Singapore’s leaders and the Public Service. To do that which is right by Singapore, boldly but humbly. Never fearing those who speak the loudest, or those wield the most power, making difficult decisions in the long-term interests of Singapore. But how will you communicate with us? How will you know that I believe in you? How will you know that when you make that decision, that difficult decision, which I disagree with, that you will have me on your bandwagon? It is for you to reach out to me and it is for me to open my mind to what you have to say to me.

Besides courage and principle, I and many I know will throw in our lot with leaders who uphold universal values of compassion, integrity and loyalty.

As a citizen, I will trust leaders who defend our Constitution and the sovereignty of Singapore, putting at all times the interests of Singapore above all. I trust leaders who exercise righteousness, dispense justice and equity, uphold the rule of law. I trust leaders who protect the people, who remember the poor and vulnerable, who grow the country economically, socially for all. Who lead us and who are above corruption.

In my sharing of my aspirations of leaders, I have steered clear of what policies and schemes we should have. These have already been greatly discussed and I leave them to better minds than mine. But for me, the element of trust, if you cannot build that, you have lost us.

The President also speaks about trust between the people. This is the second premise of the partnership: between people and people. If we do have trust, we cannot be united. If we cannot be united as one people, we do not require another enemy. We are our own enemy.

Deliberate Government policies, such as universal education, National Service, mixed housing and meritocracy have resulted in significant socio-economic progress and social mobility for Singaporeans.

We have done well compared to many countries. But, notwithstanding, Singaporeans have not become homogeneous. But why should we be? In the midst of our progress, we continue to carry with us differences in background, abilities, ideologies, culture, race and religion. Justifiably so. These are part of our identity as individuals, a part of our heritage. We are, indeed, different from each other, but we must not be afraid that we are different. We recognise that our differences have enriched the Singaporean fabric. Our differences have made us more accepting, broadened our perspectives, made us better, made us stronger.

Mr Speaker, many hon Members and Ministers have reminded us of our differences and that we are not yet equal. As such, the same differences that have strengthened and enriched Singapore can potentially tear us apart.

But we must not let that happen.

Consciously, we must use our differences to strengthen our society. When I have ability, I uphold and I lift the person without the ability, the person with the disability. When I have resources, I share my resources to level the playing ground. If I am weak, I look to someone who is strong to support me. If I am strong, I share my strength with my brother. Let us not allow anyone to attempt to fracture our society. Let us not coalesce according to socio-economic status, race, culture or religion. And we must never, never, never allow distrust to engender along these differences.

There is so much that we have to do together as a people. It is not just the work of certain agencies or certain companies but it is the work of every person, so much that we need to do, no time to fight. We must put aside prejudices, we must put aside snide remarks and insinuations. So much to do, can we construct and not destruct? After all, we have a precious common history and we do, we must, we will have a precious and common destiny. We have gone through thick and thin together. The Japanese war, riots, acts and attempted acts of terror, financial crises, SARS. We fought together, cried together, worked together, grew together. Will we throw that away? Will we throw that away at insinuations from people who may not even have any stake in our country? Would we throw that away just by listening to others and being persuaded without much thinking.

We are proud to be Singaporean and we should be. We are proud of our sons and daughters, regardless of their achievements. We nurture them. We empower our workers, employers, persons with disabilities. We celebrate successes of Singaporeans together. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their sons suffer mishaps during and in the service of the nation. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their family members suffer mishaps whether in Singapore or overseas. We call on the Government to protect Singaporeans who are vulnerable. We stand together against crime. We stand together against terrorism. Do we want to throw that away? We have too much at stake.

Even in situations of terror where our own people act or attempt to act against our country, we will stand with all Singaporeans, regardless of language, race or religion. We will be united against evil and terror. As our forefathers and founding fathers protected Singapore for us, we will protect Singapore for our children.

Why is trust so important? Without that, our society falls apart. No trust in the Government, no trust in each other.

We are Singaporean. We will determine our own destiny. We will listen to the views of others about Singapore, we will discern. We will improve, but we will not bow to criticisms by persons who have no stake in our country. Whatever their motives, however noble their motives, we are the ones who determine our destiny. And this, we must be clear. We must not allow others to influence our destiny. Will we take charge? Will we? And we should.

We are Singaporean. Whether we live or die, wherever we live or die, we are Singaporean. And if we die in a foreign land, there will be that corner of a foreign field that will forever be Singapore. Majullah Singapura!

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. The crux of President Halimah’s speech is about how we move forward together to build our future Singapore. And as I thought about the future of Singapore, I asked myself: what does Singapore mean for each of us? Although not representative, I did take a quick poll amongst several young people asking them to write in their own words what Singapore means for them. Initially, there was some reluctance to pen their thoughts but they did it. While each expressed it differently, interestingly, there were common themes and phrases used to describe how they felt: "home", "safe and secure", "provided me education and opportunity", "stability", "place I want to return to". These were the phrases that they used.

I also asked them what is the future that they wished for. Many hoped that Singapore can adapt to the fast-changing world and continue to stay secure, progress and grow, to have opportunities and allow aspirations to be fulfilled. There was also a call for an inclusive, united and compassionate society with more human touch.

So, as I studied how they felt, I realised that the answers reflected our shared experiences and identity. Shared experiences of growing up in a society based on, as what President Halimah in her speech called, and I quote, "our foundational values of multiracialism, meritocracy, incorruptibility, self-reliance, inclusiveness and openness to the world".

So, as I thought about the Singapore identity and what is it that makes Singapore stand out, I struggled, I really struggled, to describe it. I see it, I see it every day, I can feel it but it is hard to describe. Let me attempt to do so anyway. I believe that it is a combination of many factors. It is the skills and capability and conviction of our people, based on shared experiences that are unique to Singapore, based on our values whether it is our multiracial experience, our educational system, our heritage and our networks of relationships at the personal, business and community level. But what is most important is the harnessing of the power of our people and our shared values and experiences and our networks and relationships that has made Singapore what it is today.

And we should build on this. We should foster this. But, what is this? It is our Singapore brand and identity. The Singapore passport has recently been recognised as the most powerful passport in the world as it gets you through, I believe, 180 countries without the need for a visa. But what is behind, what is it that has made it possible? And, it is really trust. How did this trust come about? It is built over the years from our track record of making things happen, our reliability, trustworthiness and, to some extent, although I did hear in this House, some of us did ask for our kiasuism to be taken away. I think it is also part of our kiasuism and also as being a country that tries to make it easy for things to happen, for example, for businesses,making it easy for businesses to set up. It is all of these, it is of this coming together that defines the Singapore and the Singaporeans we are.

But as we look to our future, President Halimah also stressed that we cannot "assume that Singapore will always continue to be successful". There are shifts and developments that we must understand and deal with and these will need new and bold approaches.

The pace and scale of change that we are witnessing across industries are driven by the momentum in Asia, with the economic shift, the technological shift or what many have termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution and, for Singapore, our demographic shift with an ageing population.

So, the question is, are we prepared for this new economy? Do we have what it takes? How do we stay relevant and be able to compete with other cities and countries as they develop and get better?

In my speech at the First Session of this Parliament, I had spoken about jobs. I had said that to enable Singaporeans, no matter where their starting point, to continue to improve their lives, Singapore must be able to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs. At that time, I spoke about my belief that having meaningful work gives confidence to our people not only to make a living but also to feel included and, hence, a sense of belonging and commitment. With the changes we have witnessed in the last two years and the momentum of change we continue to experience, I now realise that while jobs are important, it is more than jobs.

It is about partnership and participation and working together that will make the difference for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is not just about the skills we develop, or the jobs we attain or the place that we learn. It is about partnerships to bring it all together and the interaction amongst people of like and different backgrounds that matter.

Initiatives, such as Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) Launchpad@one-north or Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)' Fintech Regulatory Sandbox and the planned Punggol Digital District, are platforms that provide the environment and the ecosystem to encourage people to come together and to build ties and create new opportunities. They provide platforms for engagement and they promote innovation.

MAS' use of regulatory sandboxes to encourage fintech experimentation has been instrumental in positioning Singapore in a short span of time as a major centre for fintech innovation. Deloitte's report on the world's best cities in which to launch a fintech firm, ranked Singapore as one of the best cities in the world for fintech. Criteria used included doing business, financial competitiveness and innovation.

Block 71 is another example of how the Government can foster an ecosystem for innovation and, in this case, it is about bringing together a startup ecosystem. The JTC Launchpad@one-north houses 750 startups, up from 250 when it was launched in 2011. This platform is now transplanted halfway across the world to San Francisco with the setting up of Block 71 San Francisco as well as closer in the region in Indonesia with Block 71 Jakarta.

This takes the Singapore brand abroad and, more importantly, is enabling a network of Singaporeans, partners and startups to drive innovation. This participation is about the exchange of ideas, innovation and expertise. I am not sure if many of you remember but only about eight years ago, Singapore was seen as dull and where you could not find any startups. Last year, the Global Startup Ecosystem Report by Startup Genome, a US-based organisation showed Singapore overtaking the Silicon Valley as number one for startup talent, notwithstanding that Silicon Valley still remains number one overall and there are still areas for Singapore to improve.

So, while SkillsFuture remains an important underpinning in supporting Singaporeans in developing new and required skills, I believe that there is a need for people to also have a platform to engage and to learn from each other. The same way, with examples like Block 71 and the Fintech Sandbox, that the Government has effectively catalysed and enabled the environment for startups and fintech, I believe that, together with the Government, academia and the private sector, there could be platforms to support platforms of learning for people to come together in their learning journey, in the same way we have developed and will continue to develop segments and industry sectors. We can do the same for individuals. By having a platform for people to come together, it would be very powerful in supporting skills development beyond formal learning and skills training.

With the disruptions and the gig economy, going forward, it may not be just about getting a job, but possibly, a few jobs with freelance work arrangements. It may not be just formal learning or certification of skills, but also learning that comes from interaction and sharing of ideas. The whole idea transcends from business to even a social and community level. The key thread is participation – participation in a supportive environment of individuals, regardless of backgrounds and experiences, the diversity and different perspectives will benefit all. Participation within such an ecosystem not only promotes learning but builds confidence, resilience, trust and allows one to be better able to seize opportunities.

So, as we start writing our next chapter, building on the power of our people, our shared experiences and networks, as Prime Minister Lee had said, I quote, "we have every reason to be confident and optimistic about our future". Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker, the President's Address provides a consolidated view of established and recently announced Government policies.

Sir, it is important that our policies speak to the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans in their most decisive moments. The world is changing, getting disrupted, becoming more complex and, hence, unpredictable. Amidst this change, do our policies speak well enough to everyone? I will cite a few hypothetical examples.

Firstly, a young low-income couple contemplating the prospect of saving for retirement in the context of possibly an uncertain Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat price outlook in the distant future, will contemplate also the cost of tuition, amidst the rigours of academic competition and then decide to postpone their decision to have children indefinitely.

Secondly, a 45-year-old man who has been retrenched and is anxiously scouring the job market for any kind of paid work, probably encountering ageist prejudice along the way that is hard to complain about because it is hard to prove.

Thirdly – and this is actually a real person I met – a 25-year-old who is working in a full-time job but driving a private hire car at night, holding down two jobs so as to afford further part-time studies leading to a professional certification.

And fourthly, a 35-year-old woman who has just obtained a degree from part-time study at great cost, time and money who finds that her employability in the salary she can command is not what she expected. In fact, a recent survey found 4.3% of graduates in full-time jobs being severely under-employed, earning less than $2,000 a month.

We can say that there are already Government programmes in place to address the needs of these groups like Wage Credit, PCP, WIS and TAFEP which is true. We can also say that these problems are not unique to Singapore. Many are a consequence of global trends. That, too, is true. We can say that these people cannot always expect the Government to fix all their problems and there is truth in that as well. But if disruptive change is going to make such situations more and more common, is there more we can do for these Singaporeans, as a society?

One private university graduate made an impassioned post on Facebook last month saying, and I quote, "I graduated in the top 15% of my cohort. Surely, that counted for something. It should have wiped out the disaster that was my "A" levels. Man plans; fate jests. I have sent out thousands, hundreds of resumes, every month, every week, every day. I applied for job after job after job, hoping that someone would notice. Until then, I crunched numbers and copy clauses from story after story and picked up whatever freelance jobs and short-term contract jobs I could find. I did this for eight years. In eight years, I received nothing." What else can we say to Singaporeans like these?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in sketching these scenarios, I do not mean to argue that all is doom and gloom. Of course, Singapore and Singaporeans have achieved much in the past and there is much to be grateful for. The glass is half-full, as I have argued before in this House. But some of us would see it as half empty.

As was famously said in a scene in the movie Star Wars Episode 6, much depends on our point of view. Not only that. Sometimes, both good and bad effects can come from the system-design source. Our approach to public finance has created huge reserves for emergency purposes which help fund Budgets, but also created the need to raise costs via tax increases that place pressure on our people. Our education system has produced world-class PISA scores, but it has spawned a massive tuition industry that may erode social mobility and students who are substantially more stressed than the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average.

Going forward, as a country, we face a choice. Do we stick with the same policy and institutional ecosystem and merely apply a plaster or a bandage to control the bad effects? Or do we take the riskier approach of reforming the underlying policy, institution or practice, risking that the new approach, in seeking to reduce the downsides of the old policy, may wholly or partly lose the benefits of the old policy?

One way to decide this lies in seeing if the deeper trends going on in Singapore and the world will make the downsides worse than the benefits over time. If so, then go for reform. If not, let us do incremental tweaks and plasters now.

I was glad to hear references in the President's speech to an appetite for bold reform, which, of course, does not mean reckless reform. And in the spirit, I suggest reforms to two broad baskets of policies where longer-term trends argue for reform. Some of these ideas have been suggested by my colleagues and I on other occasions.

Firstly, the basket of policies that relate to the cost of living, education, inequality and social mobility, which are closely tied to citizen confidence as expressed in risk-taking, entrepreneurship, innovation and, indeed, Total Fertility Rate (TFR).

If and when a Budget funding gap is imminent, rather than raise taxes, is there more scope to review our policies towards the reserves, to tap more from the Net Investment Returns (NIR) and/or land sales, as my Party Secretary-General Mr Pritam Singh has eloquently argued? Such changes would not reduce the absolute size of the reserves per se but would slow down the rate of reserve growth.

This question is not only a technical economic question but a deep, philosophic question about inter-generational equity. And on this question I would put it to this House that there are reasonable views on both sides of the issue. After all, there was a time in the past when suggestions like spending some of the NIR or adding Temasek Holdings to the NIR framework might perhaps have been labelled as irresponsible.

Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made an interesting speech which asked about our reserves, how much is enough. I would build on that and ask: no doubt we need emergency reserves, we absolutely need that, but what rate of reserve growth is enough?

There are risks from reducing the rate of reserves growth. We gain additional security from a larger and larger emergency fund going forward. But there are also risks from allowing costs and economic pressures to rise in the future, inhibiting growth in other qualities we need to optimise among Singaporeans, like risk-taking, long-termism, entrepreneurism, TFR. In a word, confidence. Confidence that the future could be better than the past, confidence that the deck is not stacked against me, confidence that I need not run faster and faster just to stay in the same place.

Spending more on the current generations and reducing the cost burden may affect TFR. As Mr Pritam Singh said, TFR is an existential issue facing Singapore.

There is some evidence that anxiety about the cost of living and academic competition contributes to a low TFR and, indeed, our TFR is one of the lowest in the world. As our reserves grow and the need to promote confidence among Singaporeans grows, the case for reform to this basket of policies strengthens.

The fact of HDB flat lease decay is rightly a part of this basket of issues. The possibility of HDB resale prices in the future performing poorly as more Build-To-Order (BTO) flats are built, resale demand remains soft and more flats get sold on the marketplaces pressure on the goal of monetising one’s own HDB flat for future retirement income or even emergency or supplementary income. This is a large and complex issue which the Workers’ Party intends to study in the months ahead, with a view to make constructive suggestions.

At the same time, can we not review our education system, which was originally designed, we are told, such that tuition is unnecessary? Can we not review the balance between content mastery and time for non-cognitive skills development or even time for leisure, hobbies and family pursuits which aid healthy character formation? No doubt, content mastery has been pared down over the years, but do exams test the pared-down content taught in the standard curriculum or do exams test for content that goes beyond, thus acting as a sharper stratification instrument, whether intended or otherwise?

One letter published in The Straits Times Forum said, "The textbooks recommended by the Ministry and used in schools offer basic information. Yet, when it comes to examinations, the questions asked are often way above the level of the information in the textbooks. This is the main reason students seek tuition".

Is this a valid perspective? If so, is there room to re-balance further between developing cognitive skills on the one hand, which are important, and non-cognitive skills and leisure time on the other? Amidst the relentless advance of AI and robotics, as simple tasks become automated and a higher and higher premium falls on skillsets like creativity and leadership, the case for education reform in this respect grows.

Can we not review our class size, to take advantage of falling enrolments while leaving the teacher population stable, as I argued in an earlier Motion? Smaller Learning Support Programme (LSP) classes for weaker pupils could stigmatise those pupils. Moreover, smaller general class sizes could reduce the number of pupils falling behind that necessitates those smaller LSP classes to begin with.

There is evidence that smaller class sizes can yield significant education, non-cognitive skill and social mobility benefits. Our general class sizes are well above the OECD average. The question of class size at least warrants research in the form of a large-scale randomised trial to help quantify benefits versus costs, so that, as a country, we can debate this issue with all the facts on the table.

And can we regularly measure and debate social mobility, as my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim has eloquently argued for?

Sir, the second basket of issues is institutional and political. Our system has many devices that favour stability. To be sure, stability is a good thing. But with such a framework, are we not sacrificing diversity? Does our institutional ecosystem do enough to promote diversity of ideas in the public square?

Can we not scale back the extent, if, indeed, there is any, of the "influence, resources and enforcement powers" of the Government being brought to bear on the way news is reported by mainstream media (MSM) outlets, such that MSM editors and journalists report the news as they see fit, within broad regulatory parameters pertaining to sensitive issues like race and religion, as I suspect most journalists would want to do? The quote that I used comes from a recent MSM newspaper editorial which called for "a state that does not use its considerable influence, resources and enforcement powers to box the local media into a corner."

Can we not have an independent Ombudsman to review complaints about Executive decisions without the complainant being faced with the costs and limitations associated with the process of seeking judicial review? An Ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption or finances as dealt with by CPIB and AGO.

And is our model of leadership future-ready? Traditionally, many national leaders have emerged from Government scholarship holders, some of whom go on to populate the top rungs of the Civil Service, GLCs and the Cabinet. This tends to reduce the pool of talent available to the private sector and civil society and it is important for both of these sectors to be strong in the future. Moreover, this pattern can produce political and GLC decision-makers who lack private or not-for-profit sector experience.

Many Singaporeans were very surprised when the new incoming CEO of SMRT was another former General. Did our Pioneer Generation Cabinet have such a high proportion of ex-civil servants?

To manage this, can we not consider a time bar for civil servants entering politics, as I have argued for earlier? And can scholars not only be given the option of serving part of their bond in the local small and medium enterprise (SME) sector or civil society sector, but also be encouraged to do so? If necessary, we can ramp up the scholar cohort size to ensure sufficient scholars remain to meet Public Service needs.

In addition to these points, the other huge part of the equation is how to generate economic growth, to grow the size of the pie. I have not touched on that subject in this speech, but my colleagues and I have made many suggestions on this subject in the past, from harnessing ASEAN disruptive industry growth to a dedicated bank for SME globalisation, to name but two.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, none of these suggestions by itself is a silver bullet. But giving serious thought to such suggestions can contribute to a more liveable, more future-ready, more democratic and more diverse society that will be a stronger and better home, built to last.

Mr Speaker, I would like to declare that I work in the utilities industry and I rise in support of the Motion. Technology is changing and our people’s needs are evolving, creating demand for new infrastructure. Expectations are always rising and, despite all that we have achieved, there is always more to do. We need to rethink how we build, what we build and how we pay for it.