Hansard, Thursday, 28 January 2016

1 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Home Affairs in light of growing religious radicalisation of youths in the region (a) what plans are in place to further engage religious organisations in Singapore to look out for youths-at-risk; (b) whether informal religious groups are tracked for potential risks; and (c) whether there are controls over visits by radical overseas religious leaders to Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, the threat that our young people can be radicalised based on religion is a serious one.

The Government has been working with various community groups and organisations to deal with this issue. Amongst other things, we work with the Inter-Racial and Religious Harmony Circles (IRCCs). MCCY has been engaging the leaders of religious organisations as well as youth leaders in the community and our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs). The approach and purpose are to sensitise them to the threat of radicalisation and the need to be vigilant. We will continue to work with community organisations, Self Help Groups (SHGs) like CDAC, Mendaki, Eurasian Association and SINDA, to increase the awareness of this issue amongst our youths.

Our local Muslim community and religious organisations have also put in considerable effort to counter the radical ideology of the jihadi terrorist groups like ISIS. They are also tailoring their messages and engagement platforms, including social media platforms, to better reach out to youths.

Besides engaging youths, we have to take other steps to reduce radical religious influences in Singapore. One example is the fact that we do not allow foreign religious preachers to come to Singapore if their teachings are intolerant of other religious faiths and practices. Their teachings are available on the Internet. Even if they do not say these things in Singapore, we cannot allow them to build up their following in Singapore because, fundamentally, those teachings will destroy our society.

Mr Yam also asked whether informal religious groups are tracked for potential risks. Freedom of religion is guaranteed under our Constitution. But any religious group, whether registered or informal, that preaches values or promotes actions that are directly contrary to our social harmony and cohesion, or threaten our safety and security, will be treated as a security risk.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I just have one supplementary question. With regard to control of visits by overseas religious leaders, is there a protocol or Standard Operating Procedure for the approval of the visit pass? In a recent incident involving a particular preacher, publicity had already gone out for his visit to Singapore before his visit was denied by the authorities.

The protocol is a very straightforward and transparent one. What are his teachings, what has he said whether in Singapore or outside of Singapore, and, if his teachings are contrary to our values, he will be denied. We cannot control the publicity that others may give. The Member did not mention a name but he is probably referring to a gentleman who, if we look up on the Internet, has said, for example, that it is absolutely wrong to wish Christians "Merry Christmas". It is contrary to the teachings of the Quran. He says other things. And, of course, he says it in much more powerful terms than the way I can put it to you.

2 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs how is Singapore handling the different practices and ideologies in the name of Islam especially in the context of the emergence of groups such as Islam Nusantara.

Madam, every major religion and religious community has some degree of diversity of thought and practices. So, too, for Islam and our Muslim community in Singapore.

In 2004, MUIS launched the Singapore Muslim Identity (SMI) project to articulate the desired characteristics of Muslim religious life in Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious context. SMI recognises that the understanding and practice of Islam can and has always been diverse, so long as it remains rooted to a valid tradition. However, if the practices and ideologies of any group are found to be fundamentally errant, MUIS, through its Fatwa Committee, would issue a fatwa or a guidance to pronounce what it finds objectionable and provide guidance to the Muslim community. MUIS would engage such groups to counsel them.

MUIS has instituted policies that seek to manage diversity, particularly in the regulation of religious activities in mosques. Through Friday sermons and religious classes, the Muslim public is encouraged to be civil and respectful when dealing with intra-faith differences. Through various initiatives organised by MUIS, mosques and Muslim organisations, different segments of the community come together and work on common projects and, in so doing, build community cohesion.

What we must guard against are ideologies and practices that divide our community and which set our community against the rest of society. For instance, MUIS provides guidelines to ensure that mosques serve as safe and open spaces for all Muslims. We do not tolerate those who sow discord and create divisions between Singapore Muslims and other communities.

Indeed, there is no place for exclusivist and extremist doctrines. Prominent among the efforts to safeguard our community against radicalisation is the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). The RRG comprises local Islamic scholars who offer advice and counselling. The RRG also recently launched a resource centre and a hotline for members of the community to seek clarifications and advice on relevant queries.

Now, more than ever, we need our community leaders and religious teachers to speak out against ideologies that create divisions within Islam and between Islam and the wider society. If they do not do so, their silence may be regarded as a tacit endorsement of such doctrines. Everyone in our community must work together to safeguard our way of life and the values that our community cherishes.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the response. Can I just find out if we are able to do more in terms of educational publicity, reaching out to some of the groups which may not be formal? Some of them may inadvertently not realise that they are being taught some of these variants of the religion.

Madam, we have put in place what we call the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) for our religious teachers. If my memory serves me right, over 1,600 teachers have registered. What we would like to encourage is for members of our community to refer to that list, which is available on the MUIS website, for them to find the appropriate religious teachers for their classes.

We are not against informal groups as many find it convenient to organise these based on their needs and demands on their time. The most important thing is that they select the teachers from the ARS. If they can do that, it would be good.

Thus far, the list has been well-publicised and well-utilised. We can do more to increase the publicity. We will certainly study the ways in which we can enhance the usage of the list.

3 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for Defence (a) if he can provide an update on Singapore's deployment of support to the anti-ISIS coalition since the deployment of a liaison officer to the United States Central Command HQ in December 2014; (b) how effective has SAF's involvement been; (c) whether the annual deployment length has been reviewed; and (d) whether there is any likelihood of an expansion of Singapore's involvement in the coalition.

Mdm Speaker, I informed the House in November 2014 that the SAF would support the multinational coalition against the extremist threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS for short.

I stated then the reasons for Singapore's participation in global efforts against terrorism. I would like to repeat what I said because I think there is resonance, given recent events in our region. I quote, "Singapore must resolutely oppose the spread of terrorism in order to safeguard our security here. It is in Singapore's interest to support the multinational efforts against ISIS and its attempts to export terrorism to our region, whether by sending foreign terrorists to carry out terrorist operations or by radicalising regional elements who engage in violence in Iraq, Syria and, subsequently, their home countries. If this terrorism threat is allowed to grow and spread, innocent civilians here and elsewhere could be endangered and killed."

This was in 2014. Since then, there have been attacks in Paris, Istanbul and, most recently, Jakarta. The recent attacks in Jakarta and the arrests of 27 radicalised Bangladeshis in Singapore are unfortunate but stark examples that underscore this truth – as long as terrorist organisations can influence and induct others to their cause and do their bidding, no country is safe, not even countries which are located thousands of kilometres away. Terrorism, too, has globalised.

An estimated 600 Southeast Asians have travelled to Iraq and Syria to take up arms with ISIS. In Malaysia, 129 people have been arrested to date for their suspected links to ISIS, including members of its own armed forces. Two Singaporean families have travelled to Syria to join ISIS since 2014 and we have detained five more Singaporeans last year for planning to join ISIS. The return waves of acolytes, trained, inspired, some with battle experience with arms and explosives, can wreak much destruction to our home countries.

But more than the physical destruction, ISIS' ability to successfully propagate its misguided form of Islam is a threat to the fabric of our multiracial society. Therefore, Singapore, as a community, must stand in solidarity against the threat of terrorism.

The Member has asked for updates on our contributions. Let me now provide these updates. Since December 2014, the SAF has deployed a liaison officer to the US Central Command Headquarters. We have also deployed an intelligence planner since January last year and an Imagery Analysis Team (IAT) since September 2015 to the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Headquarters in Kuwait. We also supported air-to-air refuelling operations with our KC-135R tanker from May to August last year. In the short period of three months, our tanker aircraft flew 52 sorties and refuelled 142 coalition aircraft. The IAT deployed by the SAF was the coalition's first imagery analysis capability based at the central Headquarters in Kuwait. And it has been useful because it provides the coalition with useful intelligence support – through looking at the images where they are able to identify terrorist infrastructure and facilities, even where terrorists gather to plan, as well as to avoid targeting civilian areas. The Member has asked whether we intend to expand our involvement. Let me inform the House that responding to requests, the SAF has agreed to deploy the IAT for another year, this year.

The threat posed by terrorism is a long-term one and the campaign will not end quickly. By contributing to the international effort to tackle the threat at source, we are contributing directly to our own safety. And this is the reason why the SAF will continue its deployments throughout 2016.

More countries have understood this and joined the coalition, including our closest neighbour, Malaysia, because they too recognise that unless the source of this radicalisation is disrupted, our citizens at home cannot be protected, even for Malaysia or Indonesia with majority Muslim populations.

As the fight against ISIS evolves, we will continue to assess, on a regular basis, the relevance and effectiveness of our contributions and we will work with partners to see how Singapore can best contribute, moving forward, in ways that are within our means and capabilities.

I would like to ask the Minister, in view of the passing of the UN Security Council Resolution 2249 in the wake of the Paris attacks last year, which called on member states to take all necessary measures to prevent and suppress terrorist acts on territories under the control of ISIS, is MINDEF considering a different approach to increase Singapore's commitment and contributions to the anti-ISIS coalition?

Mdm Speaker, not so much as a different approach. We recognise that threat levels have gone up, but potential threats, if you like, to various countries have also gone up. ISIS operatives, as they themselves declare, have become more coordinated. They said that they have established an arm outside Iraq and Syria and, as you have seen, in the attacks in Paris or even Jakarta, the ability to orchestrate and coordinate has gone up.

The threat levels, if you like, to places outside Iraq and Syria have gone up.

And, as I have said in 2014, our basis to join the multinational coalition was to protect our Singaporeans here − because we recognise that terrorist attacks will happen. And, indeed, it has, as unfortunately as it is. So, I think it only strengthens our resolve that we have to help other countries attack the problem at source. As I have said, we will contribute in meaningful ways in niche areas and in ways that coalition partners feel that we can contribute.

I will remind Members that we were 10 years in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda and we contributed various elements. Sometimes, it was in hospitals in Oruzgan, sometimes it was sending them our Weapon Locating Radar because that particular base was receiving incoming rockets from rebel bases. And, so, we will find capabilities that we can contribute and, as I mentioned to Members, the Imagery Analysis Team – which was deployed in Afghanistan − others have found it very useful. I visited the headquarters in Oruzgan when our boys were deployed in Afghanistan. While I was there, they were showing me how they were doing renovations to expand the capacity for more of our imagery analysts there. They are thankful for our capabilities, how we are able to make sense of various information streams and then package them in a product that is useful to the coalition in terms of identifying areas in which members can use. I would say that that is external.

But, internally, we are also reviewing our plans to make sure that there is better coordination with the Home Team and to make sure that the SAF is able to contribute to security at home.

4 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what has been the take-up rate of the Lasting Power of Attorney since its introduction and how can the application process be made more accessible for citizens to sign up for it.

The Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) is a legal instrument which allows an individual to plan ahead and appoint a trusted person to make decisions for him should he lose mental capacity.

Since the Mental Capacity Act came into effect in March 2010, we have received more than 20,000 LPAs. The take-up rate has risen after we made it easier and more convenient to make an LPA in late 2014. In 2015 alone, we accepted about 8,360 LPAs, which is an increase of almost 160% from 2014.

Some of the changes made in late 2014 include simplification of the LPA Forms and reduction of legal terminology that are hard to understand. For Singapore Citizens, we waived the $50 application fee for the most common LPA form used. In addition, we secured the support of SingPost for a free postal service for the public to submit LPA applications via Business Reply Service envelopes. With this, the public no longer need to visit the Office of the Public Guardian to submit the forms.

We very much would like to take the opportunity to encourage more Singaporeans to make an LPA. We also encourage the public to continue to give us feedback, so that we can continue to improve that process to make it a lot more user-friendly. We will continue to improve the process to make sure that the necessary safeguards are still in place.

Just a supplementary question for the Minister. I note the number, which is 20,000, who have applied. Certainly, I think the LPA is a useful instrument.

I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry is satisfied with the current take-up. Because if you look at the pool that we are trying to target, I would say that every one of us should actually do an LPA. Put in that light, I think 20,000 is a very small number. I think there is a lot of work that needs to be done. I have done a dialogue on LPA with my residents and, from the questions that were asked, I think it is quite clear that many are not aware of it.

On the process, I hear the Minister saying that the Ministry is trying to make it simpler, faster and more accessible. I urge for a lot more efforts to be put into this and, if possible, to also set specific targets, so that there is a clear game plan and, hopefully, a year from now, this 20,000 will be a much bigger number. I do think 20,000 is too small.

Mdm Speaker, I agree with Mr Seah that the numbers are not where we would like them to be, but it is growing. So, that is the encouraging thing. With ease of application, it is always a balance of making it easy and also safeguarding the interest of the individuals. Because we are very mindful as individuals apply for the LPA, we also need to make sure that due diligence is applied, so that there is no undue pressure, there is no external influence. This is something that we are also concerned about, with adults growing older, when mental capacities degenerate at some point and they become vulnerable.

We do urge every Member of this House to actively encourage and raise awareness. We will, on our part, also try to see what we can do to increase the publicity and to make sure it is as accessible as possible. Indeed, this is something that most, if not all of us, should seriously consider taking up.

I do agree with the Minister and I would like to ask the Minister what would be the top three barriers to having a higher take-up rate for this very important instrument. What is being done to address these barriers, especially on how much more aggressive can we be? Could we be a bit more aggressive to help, especially those who are less educated and those who are less aware?

Mdm Speaker, we have not really analysed what are the various top factors but, from what I can gather, I would say that one of it would be inertia. This is something relatively new even though it has been introduced for a few years now. It is not something that is second nature to many of us. I am not sure many people are also necessarily fully aware. So, I think, publicity is one.

Secondly, even if you are aware of it, it is not something that is in our lexicon, something we know that our parents used to do and, therefore, we continue on the practice. It is something that we need to get past that stage.

One of the other factors is I think a lot of people talk about Singaporeans being under-insured. We sometimes do not take up enough life insurance. I do not know whether it is because we are pan tang or whether we try not to think about the inevitable. But at some point, we will all degenerate as we grow older physically, mentally. So, this is something that we know is necessary. Intellectually, many of us grasp it, but I am not sure whether we, emotively, fully hoist it on board. It could also be that some think that by taking that step, are we also sort of acknowledging that we may at some stage reach that particular condition?

It is a host of various reasons. What we need to do more of is publicity to make sure that the information gets out as far as possible and that is where we would ask everyone to chip in to make sure that the residents are aware.

Secondly, to make sure that it is easy. As I have said, we have to strike that balance. We are very mindful of that, to make sure that their individual well-being is catered for but, at the same time, to make the process easy. We are quite happy to improve the process. For example, see what steps can be taken, so that they do not even need to go down specifically to submit the form. So, for them to be able to mail it in, so on and so forth. These are steps that we will endeavour to try to make it more accessible.

For the less educated, it is the same thing, it is about education and awareness, how to make it more easily understandable in terms of collaterals, but this is where it is better through the grassroots organisations. We should actively put out the message. We know that there are particular areas where there are older Singaporeans, lower income, perhaps, less educated. So, we may perhaps encourage more targeted efforts in those specific geographical areas.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, I am beginning to see more and more people, especially the elderly and also their family members, who are coming forward with problems related to not signing an LPA.

Therefore, I am wondering whether the Ministry can consider doing something like what MOH is doing with MediShield Life, having a one-on-one counselling session kind of thing for those who are in that category and they have elderly with dementia and all that, where they can do that with maybe an outsourced partner, community partners or VWO. Because I think that is really quite helpful. We have got feedback that the MediShield one is really very good.

We would be happy to consider those options, as the Member pointed out, with MediShield Life and also even our Pioneer Generation ambassadors. For the whole ageing package, not just with the LPA, this is something that we have been talking a lot about. From MOH's and our perspective, as a whole nation, there is really quite a significant range of issues related to ageing. The volumes are going to be quite significant 10, 15 years from now. We do need to think about how to put in more resources to do this and we will take that suggestion on board.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak, last question.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I wanted to ask the Minister what is the average age of the individuals when they apply for LPA currently in our database. And as Assoc Prof Fatimah has suggested, when they reach a certain age, such information could be mailed to the individuals or all Singaporeans when they are at a particular age, so that they know how to apply.

Last of all, maybe the Minister can consider leveraging on the Pioneer Generation Office (PGO) when they reach out to the Pioneer Generation to advise them on the LPA as well.

Mdm Speaker, in terms of the age profile of the LPA applicants, just a quick breakdown. Those 21 to 34 years of age, we have about 3%; 35 to 55, about 28%; 56 to 70, 41%; 71 to 85, 24%; and above 85, about 4%. It is largely clustered around those who are, perhaps, post-50 and above, which is very natural when we begin to think of those issues. But we encourage more Singaporeans to consider doing this early because you never know when conditions may deteriorate.

On the point about the PGO playing that role – that is something that is useful. In fact, the feedback from the public as well as from the Office, the Pioneer Generation ambassadors have been doing a great job in terms of engaging the elderly, as well as informing them of some of these key policies. This is something that we can consider. There are many things that are important. We also do not want to overly burden them with too many things but they are a ready resource base that we should draw on and this is something that we should work on.

5 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for Social and Family Development what is the assessed efficacy of the pilot programme started in 2014 involving the appointment of a panel of volunteers as deputies for individuals who are no longer capable of making decisions for themselves.

Mdm Speaker, there are mentally incapacitated individuals who do not have family members, friends or anyone else to be their proxy decision makers. The number is currently small, but it could increase. In fact, I think it will increase.

MSF will amend the Mental Capacity Act this year to allow professional donees and deputies to be appointed under such scenarios. For those who do not have anyone to apply for deputyship and are unable to afford private sector services, we have also established a panel of professionals, who could apply to the Court to be appointed as deputies for these individuals. There are currently 18 public-spirited professionals from the financial, healthcare, legal and social work sectors on this panel.

As each deputyship case involves multiple steps, the pilot is still on-going. Nevertheless, the feedback that we have received has been positive about how the vulnerable individuals have benefited. Just to cite one example, how the assets of a particular individual without capacity were put to good use, so that she could enjoy better quality care at the nursing home. Transport arrangements were also made to enable her to continue participating in her weekly church activities which she enjoys. This is just one example of the many different things that can happen when we bring this on board.

We are now refining the work processes based on our experiences with the pilot, as well as inputs from key partners, such as social workers, to allow more vulnerable individuals to benefit. We would also very much like to encourage anyone who is keen to serve this vulnerable group to step forward. Your services will mean a great deal for these individuals and it will go a long way towards making their lives more comfortable in the last years.

6 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) from 2013 to 2015, how many eligible working fathers have applied for a full week of paid paternity leave; and (b) how many employers have agreed to provide an additional week of paid paternity leave since the initiative was announced at the National Day Rally in August 2015.

Mdm Speaker, 5,500 eligible working fathers applied for Government-Paid Paternity Leave (GPPL) in 2013. The number is small, as the scheme started only on 1 May 2013.

In 2014 and 2015, the numbers were 11,900 and 12,300 respectively.

The enhanced paternity leave was announced at the National Day Rally in August 2015. With the employers' agreement, fathers of babies born on or after 1 January 2015 can claim an additional week of paternity leave. Employers will be able to submit their claims from mid-2016 after changes to the IT system and processes are completed. The statistics on the take-up of this leave enhancement will be available after that.

With the additional week of paternity leave granted, fathers can have more opportunities to spend with their children. I think it is also important for their marriage to allow both parents, the fathers and mothers, to not only enjoy the joys of parenthood but also to partake in the responsibilities of bringing up the child.

A supplementary question for the Minister. So, 12,300 was the number for last year, 2015. When we compare this, there are probably 30,000 to 40,000 births each year. It looks like a very small number have taken this up. My question to the Minister is: why? Why do we think this is happening? Is it a case where the fathers who are eligible are not applying, or is it a case where the employers or organisations are not supportive?

To add to that, as with many new policies, we expect the Government to take the lead. So, I would like to ask whether the Minister could share what is the take-up rate in the Civil Service, in particular.

Mdm Speaker, just to give a sense of proportion. In 2013, about 28% of fathers took up the GPPL; in 2014, it was about 36% and, in 2015, 25%. For the 2015 figures, it will increase because the electronic system is not fully up, so the submissions are still coming in. We do expect to see those numbers increase.

It is a very good question: why are the fathers not applying? We should ask the fathers why they are not doing so. We all recognise that both parents, that is, fathers and mothers, play a very important part. Fathers do play a very significant role. Why we took this step to introduce this is really to encourage both parents to take up a more active responsibility.

At this point in time, this is on a voluntary basis for employers whether to grant or not grant that leave. We do very much encourage employers to do so. I do not have the figures. Actually, I should go and check up on what the figures are on the Government front, but, certainly, the Government supports this. We do encourage our civil servants who do want to apply and we will be quite happy to support them.

The whole role of parents, especially fathers, is something that we are quite particular about. We do encourage and we are working with the various VWOs to encourage fathers to take up a more active role in parenting. Anecdotally, we do see a lot more feedback, certainly in terms of younger fathers, playing a much more active role in a range of different areas. That is encouraging. On this leave front, we would very much like to see the numbers increase as well.

7 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources what steps have been or are being taken under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act to prosecute errant companies which have caused or contributed to the serious levels of hazardous haze pollution that Singapore experienced in 2015.

Mdm Speaker, the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA) came into force on 25 September 2014. The Act provides investigative tools and evidentiary provisions to allow for the prosecution of entities, whether in or outside Singapore, as well as persons holding positions of responsibility in these entities that are responsible for causing and contributing to transboundary haze pollution in Singapore. Under the THPA, haze pollution is said to have occurred if the 24-hour PSI remains at 101 or higher for 24 continuous hours or longer.

Haze pollution, as prescribed under the THPA, occurred for 10 periods from 10 September 2015 to 28 October 2015. During this entire period, NEA had sent Preventive Measures Notices pursuant to section 9 of the THPA to six companies, requesting them to carry out the following:

First, to deploy fire-fighting personnel to extinguish or prevent the spread of any fire on land owned or occupied by them.

Second, to discontinue, or not commence, any burning activities on such land.

Third, to submit to NEA any plan of action to extinguish any fire on such land or to prevent its recurrence.

In addition, NEA served Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd (APP) in Singapore a notice pursuant to section 10 of the THPA, seeking information from APP on its subsidiaries, its related companies and suppliers in Singapore and Indonesia, as well as measures taken by its suppliers in Indonesia to put out fires in these concessions.

Two companies have responded to the Preventive Measures Notices so far and we are corresponding with them, while the remaining companies have yet to respond. NEA also received information from APP following our earlier request for information. NEA is currently reviewing the information provided.

NEA has also written to its counterparts in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia, to seek their assistance in verifying some of the information provided by the two companies which have earlier responded to our Preventive Measures Notices. As investigations are still on-going, more details cannot be divulged at this time.

8 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Health what is the Ministry doing to promote experimentation and innovation in the eldercare sector so as to encourage care models that provide greater privacy for dementia patients in a space-efficient way.

(for the Minister for Health): The Ministry of Health (MOH) has been making innovations in care for our elderly, including those with dementia, with our partners. For instance, in some of our new purpose-built nursing homes, we have created closed-loop outdoor gardens next to dementia wards, to enable seniors with dementia to move around independently and enjoy the greenery.

We are also experimenting with a dementia-friendly concept of "cluster living" in Ren Ci's new nursing home in Ang Mo Kio, which is in the midst of construction. The home is designed in the form of small "clusters". Each cluster consists of bedrooms with a smaller number of beds compared to other nursing homes, sharing a common living space, including activity and dining area, as well as bathrooms. This design allows for a smaller-scale and more familiar environment to support residents with dementia and yet promotes interaction among seniors and does not segregate or confine seniors in single rooms which may be more challenging in terms of monitoring and care.

This design is the result of a brainstorming workshop with Ren Ci, facilitated by Dr Emi Kiyota, an environmental gerontologist based in the US, who is most noted for her work in championing the concept of the "Ibasho" or a place where seniors can live in safety, comfort and dignity.

We have also implemented several dementia-friendly initiatives at our acute and community hospitals. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has renovated a dementia ward to create a more homely living environment which includes a garden designed to allow dementia patients to move around safely. The ward includes a reminiscence room and a sensory room to provide dementia-specific therapy. Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH) is also operating a ward which is designed to have minimal distractions from the hospital environment. This is to provide better and more personalised care for dementia patients who may find the unfamiliar environment in a hospital disconcerting and stressful. St Luke's Hospital (SLH) and St Andrew's Community Hospital (SACH) have also introduced dementia-friendly wards which are designed to provide a more private and safer environment for dementia patients to move around, participate in group activities and interact with one another. Staff in these wards received additional training in dementia care to provide care that is tailored to the unique needs and personality of each dementia patient.

Dementia care is evolving in Singapore and we are continually seeking to learn and experiment on better models. Even in land-scarce Singapore, it is possible to design spaces that strike a balance between providing for the privacy and dignity of users and ensuring the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the care model. We will continue to learn and adopt new thinking into our local efforts in designing dementia care facilities.

But good dementia care goes beyond the physical attributes of the care facility. Good care has to come from quality hardware design, coupled with good care delivery. MOH is also piloting innovative care models within the community for persons with dementia so that they can continue to be cared for and supported at home and in the community, with funding support provided under the Community Mental Health Masterplan. For example, Tsao Foundation offers a dementia home intervention service where they provide advice to caregivers on how to better care for their loved ones at home.

NTUC Health and Thye Hua Kwan also provide elder-sitting services, where care staff accompany persons with dementia at their homes and engage them in activities according to their personal interests. We have also worked with Tote Board to put in place a Community Healthcare Fund to support new pilots in the community, including in dementia care. These include Montfort Care's Happy Kopitiam programme which provides caregivers with education and support, while giving an avenue for caregivers and persons with dementia to participate in activities together and Alzheimer's Disease Association's Family of Wisdom programme where caregivers take part in the day care sessions with their loved ones with dementia and provide mutual support.

The Government also provides funding support to further catalyse new models of care and ideas. Most recently, we set up the National Innovation Challenge on Active and Confident Ageing under the Action Plan for Successful Ageing to catalyse innovative ideas and research to transform the experience of ageing in Singapore. Last year, MOH launched a grant for innovative preventive programme to delay the onset of dementia and new models of dementia care in the community. The grant call attracted close to 40 proposals from multi-disciplinary research teams that comprise clinicians, engineers, sociologists and care providers.

We will continue to enhance the access, quality and affordability of care to seniors. We will partner our aged care providers to innovate and make eldercare better and more resource-effective.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very comprehensive and helpful reply. I just have two supplementary questions, if I may. Firstly, specifically in the context of the Jade Circle proposal and in the context of dementia patients requiring institutional care, would the Ministry consider creating, as a permanent subvention, a portable subsidy that is associated with dementia patients according to age or income or some other such criteria, as opposed to a subsidy that is associated with the institution?

My second question is: would the Ministry consider initiating a process to develop an integrated national plan to cope with dementia, which will be an increasing problem in Singapore, along the lines of the Australian National Framework for Action on Dementia and the report of the Hong Kong Working Group on Dementia?

Let me take this opportunity to explain briefly with regard to the Jade Circle project.

First of all, let me say that MOH supports innovation on new models of care that will enhance care outcomes for the patients. But we need to balance this against the need to ensure the long-term sustainability of the care models because our aged care needs will grow and, ultimately, subsidies come from taxes.

Due to the reduced ability of dementia patients to adapt to environmental stresses, smaller scale layouts which provide personal space and privacy would actually help the patients in terms of calming them and ensuring that they are not aggressive and there are no other negative social reactions. But single beds, which is Jade Circle's proposal, do have their downsides. For instance, there will be patients who would feel more isolated if they do not come out of their rooms. And there are issues with safety, surveillance, monitoring because of line of sight by the care staff and, particularly so for patients with functional deficits, leading to limited independence or because of behavioural and psychological problems.

So, there will be challenges not just with space constraints, but also manpower constraints. Single rooms are not necessarily the magic pill to good quality dementia care. As I have pointed out, good quality dementia care does not depend just on the physical attributes of the facility – of which layout of the bedroom is one aspect – but it also depends on the quality of the care delivery.

Having said that, we note that there will be instances where single rooms or twin-bedded rooms are needed for patients, say, with some behavioural issues. These are provided in our purpose-built nursing homes. Our subsidy policies will need to take into account the scalability and the resource sustainability of the care models at the system levels, beyond any single-pilot project.

Let me say at this point that we are not clear that single rooms or twin-bedded room facilities can be cost-effectively implemented across the entire aged care sector. But having said that, as I have said, we do want to support innovative new models of care because we do want to experiment and learn and find better care models. Because of this, actually, we are still in discussion with Peacehaven Nursing Home and the funders to look at how the project can be adjusted so that it can proceed. Then, we can learn lessons from this model and see if we can apply it to the rest of the sector.

With regard to funding, as I have said, we need to ensure that the care models are sustainable because, at the end of the day, we know that ageing needs are going to grow and we do have limited resources, as well as manpower and space constraints, so we need to look at the different models of care and ensure that these are sustainable models and are cost-effective. The subvention will be given to the different care models, depending on the projects, as well as, of course, the programmes. And there are actually subvention or subsidy to the individual patient, which is portable because it depends on which nursing home or which care they take up.

I also want to add that, at the end of the day, if you ask the elderly, their preferred option is to be cared for at home, not in an institution. What we are doing is ramping up home care and community care and we want to encourage and support more home care for as long as the elderly is able to be cared for at home. Nursing home should only be for those with higher care needs, as well as those with very low or no family and social support.

9 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Acting Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) since the incorporation of the Council for Private Education (CPE), (a) how many private schools have been ordered to stop conducting courses for contravening the Private Education Act; (b) how many owners of these schools have been taken to Court; (c) why one school was operating for a few years before it was ordered to stop; (d) whether the registration of private schools can be tightened by coordinating with ACRA; and (e) how does CPE police such schools to ensure compliance.

Mdm Speaker, the Private Education Act empowers the Council for Private Education (CPE) to take errant private education institutions (PEIs) to task in the interests of the public, students and prospective students.

Under the Act, PEIs are required to meet certain standards in areas, such as corporate and academic governance, information disclosure and fee protection measures before they are registered by CPE. Any PEI that has been found to have contravened the requirements of the Act can have its registration period shortened, suspended or cancelled. Managers of a PEI are also subject to certain prescribed responsibilities and duties – failing which, they can be held liable for a criminal offence.

Since CPE's inception in 2009, eight applications for renewal of registration were rejected. Six PEIs have been ordered to close, due to regulatory contraventions. Thus far, four cases have been taken to Court. We can cooperate with ACRA to make our whole regulatory regime better but, most importantly, is to make sure that CPE itself is responsive and vigilant. So, to ensure compliance, CPE monitors the PEIs closely through regular checks and on-site inspections.

To improve its responsiveness, in 2014, it established a Monitoring and Investigation Department, dedicated to early detection and identification of enforcement issues. This provides early warnings and industry advisories, which remind PEIs of their regulatory obligations.

In cases where a contravention of the Act has been identified, investigations are done to ensure due process before the appropriate regulatory actions are taken. Depending on the complexity of the case, the amount of time taken for the investigation and enforcement process may vary.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for his answer. I would like to ask the Acting Minister how many students are there currently enrolled in all these private institutions and, of these, how many are Singaporeans. How big is this particular market that we are talking about now?

In terms of quality assurance, when the Acting Minister talked about it, we are also not very clear as to what is the employability of all these graduates that come out from these CPEs. What is the monitoring mechanism?

Currently, I receive complaints or feedback from residents that when they go for courses in the private education sector and then they try to apply for Civil Service jobs, the Civil Service will say, "This is not applicable, we do not recognise this degree at all". They are just wondering, if the CPE actually recognises this, why does the Government not recognise it when they apply for a job?

I thank the Member for that question. The enrolment numbers are not small. Every year, the intake of Singaporean students alone is about 14,000. In comparison, for NUS, it is about 7,000. So, it is not a small number.

It reflects the fact that many students and their parents want a degree. They feel that a degree is the way to have a good career, which is why SkillsFuture is so important. It is to turn the question around to ask, "What do you want to do with your career?" and "What area are you interested in?"

We are putting career guidance in education and career guidance right down to the Secondary school level so that, hopefully, with early intervention and discussions, students can discover what they like to do, what they are interested in and what is the path to pursue. It may or may not be a degree. It may not be a degree now, it may be a degree later and all kinds of paths start to open up.

This is why, along with SkillsFuture, it is an important initiative to raise our University cohort participation rate from the current 32% to 40% by 2020. This is done by expanding our University space, particularly we now have SUTD, which is expanding its enrolment and intake and also SIT, which is also opening up its range of courses and also raising its intake.

At the same time, I fully agree with the Member that we need to watch the PEI space closely. I think there has to be more disclosure of information with regard to the employment outcomes. As the Member may notice, The Straits Times picked up news on MOE calling for a tender, picking out eight or nine of the top PEIs with the largest intake, to conduct a survey in order to establish what are the employment outcomes. So, over time, together with expansion of University places, more disclosure of information and effective regulation of the PEI space, we hope we have a better balance.

10 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Acting Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how many cases of educator sexual misconduct have been reported and investigated over the past five years; (b) how many of these cases have been inconclusive after investigations and what action has been taken; (c) what steps have been taken to monitor the conduct of teachers whose cases have been found inconclusive; and (d) what steps have been taken to separate the teachers from the students in these inconclusive cases.

Mdm Speaker, MOE does not tolerate sexual misconduct by educators towards their students. We take every case reported to us very seriously and all such allegations are reported to the Police. Officers are suspended from service while investigations take place, so that they are separated from students. Those found guilty are not allowed to remain in service. If necessary, the Ministry will conduct its own investigations to establish the facts and to take appropriate disciplinary action.

For cases where it is inconclusive whether there has been any sexual misconduct but it is established that there has been a serious breach of professional boundaries, officers will still be dismissed. The safety of students is topmost in the Ministry's mind when it manages such cases. In the very minority of cases where there is insufficient evidence to mount a case for either sexual or professional misconduct, but there remains sufficient evidence to raise genuine concerns, officers will be redeployed to jobs that do not require them to interact with students.

Over the past five years, there have been 14 such cases of sexual misconduct that have been reported to the Police and prosecuted in Court. Educators who have transgressed and fallen short of the Ministry's standards of expected behaviour form a very small minority of the teaching force. However, every case is one case too many. We expect all educators to conduct themselves in a manner which upholds the integrity of the profession and the trust placed in them.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State: there are 14 cases over the last five years, is this figure considered high, low or average compared to other countries in terms of sexual misconduct among educators? And I am sure that for all these cases, we know of those that have been detected, but how many cases go unreported or undetected at all?

Is there a whistle-blowing sort of mechanism within the education system? Do you teach the students what is sexual harassment? How to report it? Is there a hotline for them to call? Is there a secret survey that is done among the student population to find out how prevalent the issue is?

Madam, I do not have the data for other countries. I can certainly look to see if it is available. The issue of sexual misconduct and how it is dealt with in the school system, we can look at it from the point of view of the professionals, educators and we can look at it from the point of view of the students.

The teachers or the educators have a high degree of trust placed on them and they are in a privileged position as adults in a position of responsibility and authority over their charges. The expectation of behaviour is codified in a code of conduct and this framework serves as a way that the Ministry, as well as the professional development agencies through NIE, trains the teachers. It is made clear at the point of recruitment and there are specific training sessions within the training at the time of induction into the service and then as part of professional development after service has begun.

Such training is not left ambiguous. It is explicitly stated what are expected behaviours and what are behaviours that should be refrained from and avoided. Case scenarios are used, examples are used.

From the point of view of students, appropriate behaviour from adults dealing with issues of sexual misconduct, predatory relationships, grooming – these discussions are started in Primary 1 and carried on throughout the whole of the schooling years. There are specific modules for this. These are conducted by specially-trained teachers who have an affinity and the rapport and are able to communicate the key issues. Students are told to look out for each other. And then, if I can come back, the professionals, teachers and educators are also told that, if they are aware of misconduct by another teacher, it is their duty and their responsibility to make sure that it is reported.

11 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Manpower whether there will be a review of healthcare insurance for foreign workers/foreign domestic workers to include coverage for selective infectious diseases, for example, pulmonary tuberculosis.

Employers of foreign workers, including foreign domestic workers, are required to bear the cost of any medical treatment incurred by their foreign workers (FWs), including pulmonary tuberculosis. If inpatient or day surgery treatment is required, it will be covered under the medical insurance that employers are required to buy. The minimum insurance coverage of $15,000 covers 96% of all inpatient and day surgery bills at public hospitals.

However, conditions, such as pulmonary tuberculosis, are often treated without hospitalisation and, thus, not covered by the insurance. The intent of insurance is to help employers cope with inpatient and day surgery bills where bill sizes tend to be larger than for outpatient treatment. Mandating insurance coverage to include outpatient bills will raise the cost to all employers. Nevertheless, employers can voluntarily purchase such insurance.

MOM will continue to periodically review and update the healthcare insurance requirements for all foreign workers and foreign domestic workers.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the response. In most cases of pulmonary tuberculosis in the initial stages, the symptoms are not very clear so, therefore, they are not treated as outpatient yet but they may end up being admitted to ICU or being managed for respiratory failure and pneumonia, for example. In the end, when the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis is made, her employer finds out that they are not able to claim because it is the diagnosis that has been made as pulmonary tuberculosis. Therefore, they end up with a rather big bill and yet they cannot claim from insurance. So, this is actually something, I hope, that the Ministry can review.

All employers are still responsible to cover for their employees. And, of course, we encourage all employers to note of such a trend and the cost incurred. But we will review the cases and see how many of these cases are there and whether it is large and, as such, we will take at look at the policies and the coverage itself.

12 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) what is the line-up of major sporting events to be held at the Sports Hub for this year ; (b) whether pricing is an issue why the Sports Hub is not attracting more bookings; and (c) what is the Government doing to attract more iconic international sporting events to be held at the Sports Hub.

Madam, Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL) was contracted to design, build, finance and operate the Sports Hub for 25 years under the public-private partnership (PPP) arrangement. The key intent of the PPP arrangement, besides managing the risks associated with the construction, was to allow the Government to leverage on the expertise and international marketing networks of the private sector to create a vibrant mix of sports, lifestyle and community activities at the Sports Hub.

We share the high expectations that Singaporeans have for the Sports Hub. We want to see the Sports Hub succeed as the integrated sports and lifestyle destination that we envisioned. We pay close attention to all the issues and to the concerns raised by the public and stakeholders regarding the running of the Sports Hub and its events line-up.

Nonetheless, we also recognise that Sports Hub is still in its start-up phase, being in operation for less than two years. The operators are finding their feet, sorting out the operational problems and understanding the costs of operations. SHPL has acknowledged the challenges faced and, with our regular feedback, is continuously looking to improve its operations. We will give SHPL some time and room to respond to the feedback of stakeholders and the public.

For this year, we understand that the Sports Hub will play host to sporting events like the World Rugby Sevens Series, Super Rugby, Singapore Badminton Open, Women's Tennis Association Finals and OCBC Cycle, amongst others. The Sports Hub will also be hosting the National School Games.

In addition to major sporting events, the Sports Hub is lining up entertainment and lifestyle events that cater to everyone, like "Disney on Ice" for the family. Furthermore, there will be more programmed sporting activities, such as free Learn-to-Play programmes, regular fitness classes and events like the 100 Plus Promenade Run and the Sports Hub Stepper Challenge. The Sports Hub will also be welcoming many Singaporeans for the National Day Parade which will be held at the new National Stadium for the first time.

As a national icon, the success of the Sports Hub is a key priority for us in MCCY. To this end, SportSG is working closely with SHPL and keeping a close watch on the Sports Hub events calendar.

The Minister said we need to give them more time. It has been two years already since the Sports Hub was operational. When we say give them more time, how many more years do we need to give, for us to see that there are more activities coming up? Given the scale of the project, I am not sure what was the investment put in by the consortium, but what are their expected returns in the first place? Is it reasonable or is it unrealistic? As a result, are we having problems in terms of pricing and is that the reason why we are not attracting all these programmes? Is it because of price or is it because of some other factors?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for his supplementary questions. It is an early time, early stage of operations. As Members will recall, 2015 saw several major sporting events, like the SEA Games and the ASEAN Para Games (APG). These took place for the first time ever in this new national stadium and also it was the first time for us to hold such large-scale events. So, will these be repeated in the following years? Probably not. So, does it mean that SHPL has to work harder to get more major events? Probably yes.

We are still in the process of firming up the line-up for 2016. I think we should really give them time. We are looking at the programme. It seems to be shaping up well, although there is still a lot to be done and that is the reason why we are keeping a very close dialogue with the Sports Hub management.

As to whether the pricing is a result of expected returns or not, this is not something that matters to MCCY. As far as we are concerned, there is an obligation to us under the contract. We will see to it that their obligation to the contract is discharged properly and the expectation of the Government and the public is being met.

Two supplementary questions. A high rental cost has always been a point of contention between the event organisers and Sports Hub Pte Ltd. What more can be done by the Ministry to make this public-private partnership (PPP) work, to better align public service needs as well as private sector ones? The second question is: although it is still early days, what kind of engagement does the Ministry have with Sports Hub Pte Ltd and will it review the current PPP arrangement with Sports Hub, especially for national icons, such as the National Stadium?

As to rental cost, I think the concern is well noted and without the privilege of having information on private negotiations between SHPL and the event organisers, we are not in a position to make specific comments about the cost faced by the event organisers. I would like to again remind Members of my answer earlier on, that I would like to take, in a way, a calendar approach. We would like to look at the entire offering, what they have managed to secure, what they are bringing to us across all segments of the public that we are trying to cater to.

I can assure Members that discussions between SportSG and SHPL are taking place very regularly. I would say that it is something that the Ministry is also watching very closely. So, I can assure Members that we are very, very well engaged with SHPL.

13 Mr Alex Yam asked the Minister for National Development (a) what have been the success rates for first-timer and second-timer HDB BTO applicants from 2013-2015; (b) whether the current building rate for new flats is sustainable in light of the application rates; and (c) what are some of the main reasons for multiple unsuccessful applications.

Mdm Speaker, between 2011 and 2013, HDB ramped up the Build-to-Order (BTO) flat supply and launched about 26,000 flats per year to address the temporary demand-supply imbalance. This helped to clear the demand backlog for first-timers. As a result, from 2013 to 2015, about nine in 10 first-timer families and seven in 10 second-timer families were successful in their applications for BTO flats in the non-mature estates.

Most flat applicants with multiple unsuccessful applications had applied for flats which are limited in supply but in high demand and these are largely BTO flats in the mature estates as well as balance flats.

With the demand-supply balance restored, HDB has been tapering the BTO supply – this came down from 22,400 flats in 2014, to 15,100 flats in 2015. Despite the tapering of flat supply, the application rate of first-timer families applying for 3-room or larger BTO flats in the non-mature estates has remained stable at about 1.6 times last year. And that is comparable to the rate in 2014. This means that most of the families would have been able to book a flat on their first attempt.

HDB plans to offer about 18,000 flats this year in 2016 to meet new demand from recent policy changes, which include the higher income ceilings and enhanced Special CPF Housing Grant. We will continue to monitor the market closely and adjust the supply when necessary, in line with our broader plan to keep supply at a sustainable level over the long term.

14 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Minister for National Development whether HDB will consider implementing a new upgrading programme to replace old lifts in HDB estates that are experiencing frequent breakdowns.

Mdm Speaker, Town Councils (TCs) have the statutory responsibility to carry out the maintenance and cyclical replacement of lifts in HDB estates and are already doing so. So, the duty of the TCs includes the replacement of lifts when they are due, as well as the monitoring and cyclical maintenance to ensure serviceability and to prevent frequent lift breakdowns.

Nevertheless, since 2001, the Government has spent $5 billion under the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) to improve lift accessibility for 5,000 HDB blocks without direct lift access. So, all the blocks which are eligible for LUP have already been selected.

HDB also rolled out a programme in March 2012 to install lifts at all HDB multi-storey car parks without barrier-free accessibility, where it is technically feasible.

In September 2014, HDB introduced the Selective Lift Replacement Programme (SLRP). This was to replace about 750 old lifts with modern lifts that come with better safety and security features. These new lift features, which will benefit some 33,000 households, include energy-efficient motors, vision panels and doors with infra-red motion sensors. HDB is working closely with the TCs to implement the SLRP on a cost-sharing basis and we will monitor the outcomes of this programme before deciding on our next steps.

I would like to ask the Minister one supplementary question on the SLRP. Can I query what are the selection criteria for the SLRP? I understand when it was announced in September last year, it was for lifts built between 1987 and 1997, if I remember correctly, and it covered lifts mainly in Pasir Ris. And although they do cover some lifts in my ward, they do not cover all the lifts. So, can I just query what are the selection criteria?

Madam, we have, in total, in our HDB estates about 23,500 lifts. More than 55% of them are already covered under the LUP. So, for the remaining lifts that are not covered under LUP, which are about 10,000, the oldest batch is the ones covered under the SLRP. So, this is the batch of lifts that were introduced in 1987 to 1997. They are the oldest batch of lifts that are not covered under LUP. These lifts are about 750 in number. They are located all over Singapore and we are specifically identifying them as that batch of lifts to be replaced because, as I said earlier, these are the lifts which are very old. They do not have the features that the newer lifts have, which include energy-efficient motors, vision panels and infra-red motion sensors. That is why they were identified for replacement under SLRP.

Just a follow-up to that question. I understand that they were the oldest lifts. Just to confirm with the Minister – so, for example, I have an estate, Jalan Damai, the estate was built at the same time but I do understand that when HDB purchased these lifts, they purchased different brands and so on and so forth. So, in the entire estate, the lifts are largely the same. They do not have those vision panels and so forth, but under SLRP, only certain lifts were selected. So, it seems a bit incongruous to me that some lifts are selected whereas some lifts are not when the HDB estate was built at the same time.

Madam, as I mentioned, the lifts selected under the SLRP apply to the batch of lifts that was procured or put in place from 1987 to 1997. And so, that was the clear criterion that was used for the selection. Perhaps, within an estate, you may have lifts installed at different times. They may also be lifts which do not have vision panels but I think the key criterion is the time in which they were installed and we have selected this particular batch which was the batch during the period of 1987 to 1997. The oldest batch of these and we are selecting them for the SLRP.

15 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Transport whether the Ministry will consider (i) keeping deregistrations of motorcycle Certificates of Entitlement (COEs) within the Motorcycles' category instead of the Open category; and (ii) establishing separate COE quotas for normal and luxury motorcycles.

16 Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked the Minister for Transport whether there can be a review of the Certificate of Entitlement for motorcycles.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take Question Nos 15 and 16 together.

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, the recent rise in motorcycle COE prices has understandably raised concerns.

Category E COEs, which can be used to register vehicles from any category, are intended to allow the vehicle mix to evolve as market demand changes. Currently, all vehicle categories contribute 10% of their quota to Category E. This rate has been gradually reduced from 25% over the last three years, with the most recent reduction to 10% taking effect in February 2015.

Motorcycles are in a separate COE category so that motorcycle buyers need not compete with car buyers for COEs. We have received suggestions in the past to split the motorcycle COE category. However, unlike for cars, the quota for motorcycles is small. Last quarter, for instance, the Category D COE quota was about 2,000. Dividing Category D into even smaller sub-categories may result in significant volatility in their COE prices. It was, in fact, for this very reason that the Government Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the COE system back in 1999 had recommended to merge the then-four car categories into the present two.

We will continue to review the COE framework, including the Category E contribution rate, and make adjustments, if required.

17 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the current traffic speed along the Central Expressway (CTE) between 6.00 pm and 7.00 pm; (b) what is the purpose of having an evening ERP along CTE; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider removing this evening ERP.

Madam, the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) policy helps to manage traffic congestion during peak hours and maintain optimal traffic speeds. Even with the evening ERP along the northbound Central Expressway (CTE), current traffic speeds are at the lower end of the targeted speed. In fact, speeds dropped below 45 km/h between 6.30 pm and 7.00 pm.

If we remove the evening ERP, we will see even slower speeds and more traffic congestion.

I thank the Minister for his answer. With the completion of the interchange, that means there is a new exit from CTE to Seletar West Link. Many of the residents use the exit there and, so, there is an alternative for them. The observation from the residents is that the speed along the CTE actually has eased because you have an additional interchange linking the three expressways. And that is why we are hoping for the monitoring of the speed again since the opening of the new interchange and see whether or not we can remove the evening ERP.

Mdm Speaker, I hope so, too. I live in the north. In fact, the Member used to be my Member of Parliament and a very good one. I always say, "My favourite Member of Parliament – Er Dr Lee Bee Wah." She was my Member of Parliament two general elections ago, but because of the boundary changes, she is no longer my Member of Parliament. I am happy to let her know that my neighbours continue to remember her fondly. And there is a reason for it – because she always conveys very strong feedback from the residents, like the case of CTE and ERP.

As I use CTE often enough, whether speeds improve or deteriorate, I have first-hand knowledge. But for ERP fee setting at each quarterly adjustment, we rely on the speed data which machines generate. As I have said, those data have not yet justified a reduction. But we hope that maybe with, for example, the new interchange which the Member talked about, speeds may enter the targeted range in a very definitive way – then there will be scope for adjustments.

Mdm Speaker, you may know that I am a heart patient, I have a chronic heart disease. I had open heart surgery more than five years ago. Since then, I have to face my cardiologist regularly. In fact, I will be seeing him tomorrow. A few days before each consultation, I will have to do a fasting blood test. Each time, I hope that my bad cholesterol reading will be in the optimal range so that the doctor can remove the very high dosage of statin that he prescribes for me.

Last year, when I went for my consultation, my results were better than the preferred range, which is very aggressive: LDL must be below 1.8 mmol/l and mine was 1.

7. So, I said, "Doctor, this time round, you can remove it". He said, "No. If I remove it, who knows? It may go up again." So, same dosage.

This time round, I got back my blood results a few days ago. Unfortunately, it exceeded the targeted range. So, I am keeping my fingers crossed that, hopefully, the very aggressive dosage will not be raised further. Anti-cholesterol drug is the same thing as ERP.

18 Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the current number of (i) Police Officers and (ii) crimes committed, per 100,000 population; and (b) how do these figures compare with other major cities in the world like London, New York and Hong Kong.

Mdm Speaker, in 2014, Singapore's overall crime rate was 591 cases per 100,000 population. Our crime level is low, compared to major cities, such as London, New York and Hong Kong.

This low crime rate has been achieved with a lean Police Force. As at December 2015, there were about 9,400 regular Police Officers serving in the Singapore Police Force. This translates to about 170 Police Officers per 100,000 population, which is low, compared to other cities, such as London, New York and Hong Kong, which the Member had asked.

Mr Christopher de Souza, you have a question? Can I remind Members to put up your hands quickly because, otherwise, I will call the next Member?

Yes, Madam. Thank you. May I ask the Senior Minister of State, based on the low ratio of Police Officers to population that Singapore has, whether MHA is of the view that we are still confident of keeping Singapore's crime rate low? The Senior Minister of State also mentioned it is low compared to three cities. Are we lower than the three cities?

The crime rate is considerably lower. In terms of whether we are able to maintain the current low crime rate, in spite of our lean Police Force, over the last five years, the crime rate has remained fairly constant, as has been the manning levels. It is a variety of considerations that lead to this – not only a well-trained, efficient Police Force that is in touch with the community but also good laws. Law and order are a product of good laws.

Nevertheless, I think the Member is quite right to point out that this manpower constraint is likely to persist. With smaller cohorts of young Singaporeans joining the workforce each year, it will be a challenge and there will be natural limits to how much larger the Force can grow. That is contrasted with a much larger workload – public expectations, more travellers, more infrastructure, higher demands on our SCDF and so on and so forth.

There are many strategies that we will adopt in order to tackle this challenge. For example, we will enhance our recruitment terms to retain, recruit and advance our officers.

We will also review our operations and revisit them so that we can do things better. One example would be the number of SCDF calls that are made each day. It is going up at a rate of about 5% each year. It is not feasible to keep growing the SCDF and the number of its ambulances and paramedics. So, we need to do better, we need to use data analytics to have a tiered and differentiated response. This is an example of doing things better.

Thirdly, we will improve our officers' capabilities, so that each officer can do more. I spoke of the fast response car yesterday, with more technology built in it to allow officers to respond faster and better. We spoke yesterday also of technology to allow us to do more with less. The Central Narcotics Bureau, for example, has hair analysis, compared to urine analysis for lower risk drug offenders. Hair analyses are able to detect drug consumption over a longer period of time. This allows us to recall these offenders less often to the station and allows us to redeploy these officers to other duties.

Lastly, of course, we will strengthen community partnership, which is one of the things I spoke about at length yesterday. Technology now allows members of the public to provide evidence through videos, to allow people who are trained in first-aid, AED and CPR to respond via the SCDF myResponder App to people who are in distress and know where the AEDs are located. All these will help us to do more with a lean Force.

19 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) which agency has jurisdiction over the operating hours of 24-hour amusement centres; (b) what is the basis in allowing them to run a 24-hour operation; (c) whether the Ministry is aware that such centres attract undesirable behaviour, especially with alcohol drinking on the premises; (d) how many centres have lost their licences because of Police action over the past three years; (e) how many centres are there currently and how many of them are in the heartlands; and (f) whether there will be restrictions on the setting up of such centres in the interest of public safety.

Madam, the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act regulates public entertainment, which includes amusement centres and computer games centres. When assessing an application for a public entertainment licence to operate a 24-hour amusement or computer games centre, the Police will take into account the location of the centre and the likelihood of law and order concerns arising from the operation of the centre.

Currently, no amusement centre has been given a 24-hour licence under the public entertainment regulatory regime. There are 27 computer games centres with public entertainment licences, but only one has been issued a 24-hour licence. This centre is not located in the heartlands and is not issued with a liquor licence for sale and consumption of liquor on its premises.

Other than amusement and computer games centres licensed under the Public Entertainment regime which are open to members of the public, computer gaming societies which are registered with the Registry of Societies may also provide computer gaming services, but only to their members. There are 35 such centres. None of them has been issued with liquor licences for sale and consumption of liquor on their premises.

Although these computer gaming societies are not regulated under the public entertainment regime, the Police, nevertheless, do conduct enforcement checks on them. If they are found to be used for unlawful purposes, or their rules are shown to be inadequate for the proper management and control, the Registry of Societies will not hesitate to take action, including issuing warning letters and dissolving these societies.

I have several such computer games centres near Jalan Pelatina. I understood that the licence is issued under the Registry of Societies (ROS). Anyway, ROS is also under MHA. Residents have been asking for the removal of such centres because they cause a lot of noise, people drink and create a lot of disamenity to the residents in that area. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State: can these centres be monitored more closely and whether there is any way, when the licence is up for renewal, to get them out of the residential area?

The Member is asking about specific examples for specific situations. Let me take this offline with the Member on these online gaming centres.

Order. End of Question Time.

[(proc text) "to amend certain statutes of the Republic of Singapore that relate to, or are administered by, the National Environment Agency", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [25 January 2016]. (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 First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Christopher de Souza]. (proc text)]

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

Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. As we enter SG51, the President, in his Address, has called for Singaporeans to renew our commitment to a better Singapore and write the next chapter together.

Many Members have spoken at length about how Singapore remains very vulnerable to our external circumstances and our inherent limitations, such as land and population size. We are reminded, even as we stand from a position of strength today, that our survival depends on us continuing to be exceptional, in both our security and economy.

In my view, the need for a strong security umbrella is never in doubt. I know the threats and dangers to our country quite well. We all must be clear-minded that our basic vulnerability of being small has not changed and will not change. A strong SAF is needed to deter potential adversaries and, together with our Home Team, safeguard Singapore. This is needed to enhance the peace so that our vital interests can be taken care of. A secure environment is critical not just for our safety but for our economy, our businesses, our very livelihood, our rice bowls.

Our economy is vital to our survival. In this next chapter of our Singapore story, we are faced with a strategic challenge of an ageing population and a declining workforce. We need to recognise this impending change that is already at our doorstep and restructure our economy to adapt and sustain growth. The work of the Committee on the Future Economy will be critical to ensure that our economy can remain competitive and Singaporeans can continue to aspire to good jobs and opportunities.

Mdm Speaker, these are the hard realities that Singapore faces. We have faced them for the past 50 years and we will continue to face them in the next 50. We will have to continue to take a pragmatic approach, adapt and evolve our policies so that we can continue to succeed economically and protect ourselves.

But in a fast-changing world with growing diversities and forces that can pull our society apart, Singapore will need a source of inner strength to keep us united. I call this the Singapore Heartbeat.

Singapore is commonly known for our "Head" because of our pragmatism. We are admired for our economic miracle with a well-run, efficient and well-organised city.

Unfortunately, this may be a double-edged sword because, on the downside, many questioned if we have traded off some of our soul and heart in the pursuit of efficiencies. Those of us who are honest about it will probably admit to having asked ourselves if we are too cold, or whether there is a Singapore "Heart".

Yet, last year, when our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on, we proved the world wrong when Singaporeans came together in solidarity. I think we surprised even ourselves at how much heart and spirit we have in all of us. We all remember our own experiences and the countless stories of how ordinary Singaporeans, together with their elderly parents and young children, came to queue patiently for hours to pay their last respects. Many were touched by the accounts of businesses and volunteers giving out food, drinks and umbrellas so that they could afford some creature comforts to fellow Singaporeans queuing in the blazing sun.

I was personally moved. I was moved to see the hundreds of thousands lined up on that Sunday morning in the pouring rain, standing shoulder-to-shoulder to send Mr Lee off on a final journey across Singapore to the state funeral service.

The Economist described this phenomenon as "an improbable patriotism". For once, others, looking in from the outside, saw what it meant to be Singaporean. They witnessed the pride of our people, who are usually not very expressive with our emotions. It was truly uplifting for me personally to witness a re-energised Singapore Heartbeat. This continued beyond the week of March and into the SG50 celebrations throughout the year, especially on our National Day on 9 August.

Mdm Speaker, the President's Address spoke about the people uniting and resolving to move ahead together and the bonds of kinship that make us a caring society. To me, these are two dimensions of the Singapore Heartbeat.

The heart is the central powerhouse that pumps life-giving oxygen and nutrients to all parts of the body. While others consider us exceptional because of our Head, we must never forget that the Heart is our source of inner strength, our inner core.

So, today, I would like to talk about how we can keep the Singapore Heartbeat strong and steady beyond SG50 and into the next phase of nation-building.

First, we must keep united in vision and purpose, with one heart. The idea of the Singapore Heartbeat is that all of us are indispensable and complementary parts of a living system, our Singapore.

Just as the different organs in the body have to work together for the body to be healthy, we, too, must find a place for every Singaporean to be part of the nation's progress. We must provide the opportunity for everyone to discover their strengths, develop them and then contribute to society in meaningful ways. This is the direction in which we must continue to evolve our approach to meritocracy, so that our system encompasses broader definitions of success and fulfilment.

We must also ensure that every Singaporean has the opportunity to succeed and share in the nation's prosperity and progress, regardless of their starting point and background.

Education has an important role to play. While we cannot ensure equal outcomes, we should provide children equal access to opportunities in our schools. We will create multiple pathways to success and do our very best to nurture each and every child so that they can reach the fullest of their potential, grounded on sound values and character.

Many Members in this House have spoken on education. I thank all of you for your ideas and appreciate the high interest that you have given to education. This is a good indication that all of us place significant emphasis on education in our country on our children.

On the social front, we have made significant efforts and must continue to ensure social mobility and strengthen social safety nets. After all, the well-being of our society, like the body, is measured by the health of all our parts. Similarly, the strength of our social fabric lies in the spirit of mutual support within our society.

I recently saw a video of "Forget Us Not", which is an independent initiative organised by the Lien Foundation and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. This initiative was kick-started in Yishun Chong Pang area to raise awareness of the growing number of persons with dementia. This is perhaps a tribute to our ageing population. It involves the Neighbourhood Police Centre and 80 Citizens-on-Patrol residents trained to detect, respond and assist persons with dementia whom they may meet during patrols. The initiative also organised education talks on dementia and conducted training sessions to over 6,000 people and businesses.

To my mind, this is a wonderful example of a ground-up initiative that embodies the Singapore Heartbeat. It brings together the expertise and energy of different segments of the society for a common good. As our society matures, we should do more to encourage individuals and organisations to come forth and take collective ownership of the community they live in, for the Singapore that we all love.

Second, for a steady Singapore Heartbeat, we must also nurture deep bonds of kinship. A heart is much more than just a muscle. The heart is also where we hold the things we cherish the very most and where our passions spring forth.

Therefore, a strong Singapore Heartbeat is formed by deep bonds of kinship among our people and the pride of simply being Singaporean. These come from shared experiences of studying in the same school, playing together, living in the same community and, for our men, having served National Service together. We are connected by our everyday things that make us uniquely Singaporean, including our Singlish, perhaps our favourite chicken rice and even "choping" our seat in the crowded hawker centres with our tissue papers.

The irony is, sometimes, it is only when we are away from home, away from Singapore, that we feel such a surge of pride when we bump into fellow Singaporeans overseas or when our overseas friends ask us about our country and the secret to our success.

But pride and love for our country and fellow Singaporeans should not be just feelings that arise only because of the occasion or the atmosphere. That type of sentiment is not bad, but it is not sufficient for the long haul and does not anchor a nation.

We do not want a racing, erratic heartbeat when we run a long-distance race. What we need is a steady and strong heartbeat that will take us forward in our journey. It involves us demonstrating our love for the country and to care for our countrymen on an ordinary day and in ordinary ways.

A middle-aged taxi driver approached me recently for help to appeal to waive a parking fine. He told me he was driving a wheel-chair bound lady on an early morning shift. When they had arrived at her destination, at her flat, he left his car by the road so that he could personally wheel her all the way up to her high-rise flat, to her very doorstep. I applaud his act of kindness, going out of his way to help, at a certain level of personal sacrifice and personal inconvenience. Till now, I am not sure what has happened to his parking fine but I hope it got waived.

But the point is, I think, sometimes, we tend to look out for the big gestures and forget that an ordinary act of kindness, like what this taxi driver did, forms the basic rhythm of the Singapore Heartbeat.

Indeed, patriotism and love for our country are inseparable from caring and looking out for our fellow countrymen. But sometimes, such acts can go unnoticed amongst us and that is why, sometimes, people get cynical about the Singapore Heartbeat. This inspired a movement called The Hidden Good, started by two then-NSFs, Leon and Rovik, back in 2013 when I was still in the SAF.

In a team of undercover journalists, they would go around the island with a hidden camera to capture everyday kindness and graciousness among Singaporeans. Then, they would upload videos or stories online. It could be simple things like someone giving up their seat on the MRT or someone helping a "popo" to reach the groceries on the top shelf in a supermarket. This youth movement has gained a lot of traction on social media, bringing to light the "hidden good" of society, bringing forth the Singapore Heartbeat.

Our Singapore Heartbeat is about such altruistic acts, but it is also much more than that. We must build the Singapore Heartbeat to forge our collective core strength, collective resilience and cohesion. Together with our economic strength and a safe and secure environment, the Singapore Heartbeat will propel us forward to the next lap.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude by quoting a verse from our National Anthem, "Marilah kita bersatu; Dengan semangat yang baru; Semua kita berseru". In English, "Come, let us unite; In a new spirit; Let our voices soar as one."

In the last five decades, our founding fathers and the generations before us have risen to this call – building a strong and free nation, a robust and prosperous economy and a peaceful and progressive society.

Now, let us refresh and re-energise ourselves with a new spirit – a Singapore Heartbeat – to carry ourselves forward to SG100 and beyond.

While we do face new and complex challenges ahead, we stand in a position of strength, compared to where we started off 50 years ago in 1965. We must continue to think wisely with our head to grow our economy. We must build our muscle to defend our country. At the same time, I call on this House and fellow Singaporeans to forge a strong Singapore heart. As long as our Singapore heart beats strong and steady, as long as we remain united as one people, I am optimistic and confident that we will build an exceptional and enduring Singapore for our children and our children's children. With this, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker, the President asked an important question that should concern all Singaporeans in the next decade, "How do we ensure our island-nation remains a shining red dot and that our children and grandchildren will thrive?"

In the last 50 years, the question that has occupied us was different. It was how to make sure our small island state and our multiracial people survive an unforgiving and hostile world. Our solution has been to discipline ourselves and to make sacrifices under a strong one-party top-down rule to guide the development of the economy and society.

National institutions were built and tied closely to the PAP so that the leaders could steer the ship in the direction they thought best and everyone else was not to rock the boat.

Times have changed. We are now a globalised society with a well-educated people. We are now seeking to ensure our children will thrive, not just survive. The ship model has to change. Singaporeans are aspiring to set sail on their own to fulfil their aspirations. Many have become leaders of their field. Global conditions are now very different. We need to be nimble and experiment as a country to search and seize the hidden opportunities in the next industrial revolution. We cannot simply rely on a group of so-called super talents in Government steering society from high above.

For Singapore to continue to shine as a red dot, the people of Singapore must shine, Singaporeans must shine if Singapore is to chart our own path. The red dot will no longer be red if its people turn pale in the face of challenges or when faced with intimidation. Hence, nurturing a confident Singaporean people is the way to ensure that our children and grandchildren will thrive.

Empowering confident Singaporeans. I believe the Government's SkillsFuture programme contains the DNA for empowering confident Singaporeans. What is this DNA? First, it is all-inclusive and does not discriminate on the basis of household background, income and employment status, educational attainment or age.

Second, it trusts individual Singaporeans to be the ones who know themselves best and have the wisdom to know where they should head to next in life. The Government takes a step back and only provides counsellors to help those who want advice to help them decide.

Third, it does not measure value in the narrow terms of economic value-add and caters to people's passion and interests. It has been said that one could even use the SkillsFuture credits to improve one's skills in calligraphy.

Fourth, it exemplifies what some analysts call a nudge policy instead of the usual carrot-and-stick approach favoured by the Government. A nudge policy is said to be more effective for today's modern citizens and does not mean less or weaker Government. Although the $500 SkillsFuture credit is not a big sum, many people are exploring ways to use the credit. The credit is nudging Singaporeans to engage in lifelong learning.

Fifth, and most importantly, the whole policy is focused on empowering Singaporeans, instead of trying to direct or steer them to fit into the planned economy or the needs of corporations.

Empowering Singaporeans' future is something the Workers' Party will fully agree with.

Madam, SkillsFuture is not enough. If we want to empower confident Singaporeans, this policy DNA – all-inclusive, trusting Singaporeans, seeing value broadly, nudging and empowering Singaporeans' future – should be applied to many other policy areas.

It should be applied to at least the schools and the SME sector. These two are important and also because they are related to SkillsFuture. If the graduates of our schools are not self-driven and unafraid to take risks to pursue their interests, then SkillsFuture will become meaningless over time.

It would also be a terrible waste of synergy if SkillsFuture helps Singaporeans to be more enterprising but the lack of funding and business opportunities, as well as high operating costs, continue to hamper the growth of the SME sector.

In the schools, we need to nurture the thirst for learning and to revamp the syllabus and assessment methods so that we would not kill the natural curiosity of children. In the last few years, we have been discussing educational reforms in terms of reducing the stress on children.

I think we might have been wrong in focusing on the symptoms of the problem. Empowering our students to think critically and creatively and to solve complex problems can also be stressful, but it will be a rewarding and fulfilling kind of stress.

We have also been emphasising too much on cohesion as a value in schools and have not appreciated the importance of diversity, differences and even dissent for cultivating critical thinking and creativity in schools. Our curriculum and culture in schools should avoid influencing our students to think in narrow practical terms and not in relation to their interests and passion. Graduates of our schools should have a strong sense of self-driven purpose with the right values of tolerance and respect for diversity and differences.

Although the ASPIRE Report is the correct road map, we have a long road ahead to redefine our long-ingrained notion of success from the focus on material gains and academic achievements to the pursuit of passion and happiness and the possession of different kinds of skills.

Right politics as insurance. Madam, I agree with the President that we need to get our politics right. But while empowering confident Singaporeans is the way for us to ensure our shining red dot stays brilliant, getting our politics right is the way for us to insure against bad government and the failure of governance.

The outcome of good politics is not just good policy and ensuring no gridlock. That would be a narrow technocratic view of politics. The outcome of good politics is the fostering of a political system that is able to withstand shock and turbulence, including the unexpected collapse or slow corruption of the ruling party, to ensure the continuity of the nation as a united people. Such a resilient political system must be able to make adjustments in the face of adversity.

How should we do good politics to ensure a resilient political system and a confident nation? I believe the same principles making up the policy DNA for SkillsFuture are pertinent.

First, our politics must be all-inclusive. National interest should be defined by consensus and the narrative should not be shaped and monopolised by the ruling party. The Government should recognise that there are many on-going and independent national conversations and should allow for differences in opinions to flourish without marking these conversations as disloyal and divisive.

Second, our politics must be nudging instead of censoring. We should not be afraid of narrow interest-based politics, which I do not think we can avoid. In fact, if we look at SkillsFuture, it leverages on the so-called narrow interests of individual Singaporeans to pursue the collective good.

Instead of rejecting narrow interest-based politics altogether, we need to nudge Singaporeans with narrow political interests to talk to each other. We should take such discussion as an educational process for Singaporeans to learn and to discern what is politics for the collective good of the nation and society. We should not design a system of shutting out discussion based on assumption that it is interest-based and narrow.

Third, our politics must trust Singaporeans to be independent, rational and wise social actors. The Government and the ruling party must be able to let go and allow the building of independent institutions trusted by the people, regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation.

Our Universities are a case in point. For a while, they were tightly controlled for fear of their political influence. But since they were released and their autonomy protected, we can be proud of our Universities today for achieving world-class status. Today, our academics could disagree and criticise the Government and a few have even joined alternative political parties to contribute to the national debate and in politics. Our political system has not been destabilised as a result.

Fourth, our politics must see value in the broadest sense. The outcome of good politics is not to ensure no gridlock.

Excessive fears of political gridlock will lead to a society depending only on one political party, waiting for it to rot to the point of no return before any alternative party can be formed to take its place. We must see value in having alternative parties around and having the opportunities to develop.

Alternative parties are valuable because they are an insurance against any collapse or failure of the existing ruling party. We cannot expect a political party to transform itself into a credible alternative party overnight. If this Government truly believes in preserving this shining red dot, then the onus is on it to build a political system conducive to the growth of alternative parties as well as the renewal of the ruling party. Political value must not be narrowly construed and concentrated in one political party. That is too dangerous for a small state such as ours.

Chasing the Pledge. In all this talk about the future, SkillsFuture, Right Politics for FutureSg, we must not forget our foundational ideals enshrined in our national pledge – to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, I quote, "In 1966, my colleagues and I settled the words of our pledge. We did not focus on our navel or we would have missed that rainbow in the sky."

Madam, no other nation in Asia has such lofty and progressive ideals. And it would be an injustice to the memory of our Founding Leaders and Pioneer Generation if we do not chase this ideal and keep focusing on the PAP navel instead.

Singapore needs to choose and make our own destiny, but we cannot depend on one political party or the Government for charting and directing our path, if we are to be not just an exceptional, but an outstanding nation that is an example to all in Asia.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join this debate. The President's Address was a rallying call to all Singaporeans to stand together in solidarity as we embark on the new chapter of nation-building. The realities of today's world merit a word of caution for the path ahead and the President, in his Address, said that we cannot expect an easy journey. He explained the challenges that lay ahead and put forth the question that was oft repeated in this House: how do we ensure that our island-nation remains a shining red dot so that our children and grandchildren can thrive?

My short answer to this question is that we have to do whatever it takes whilst holding true to the values that define us as Singaporeans. We have to fiercely protect and preserve the gem of a nation that our forefathers have built over the years.

Fight and strive we must, but I believe that it is of utmost importance that we abide by our values and principles. The President, in his Address, said that we must also have a shared understanding of what unites and binds us to one another. So, what are some of these values, principles and shared understanding?

Members of this House had, over the past days, alluded to some of these, such as the generosity of spirit, resilience, valuing racial and religious harmony, meritocracy.

This House had, in fact, debated on a White Paper on Shared Values in 1991 and passed it after a two-day debate. These shared values include: encouraging community support and respect for the individual; consensus, not conflict; and racial and religious harmony.

Over time, we have developed a set of values and principles that makes us Singaporeans. Values guide us when we make our decisions for this country and, as each day unfolds with its multifaceted challenges, the expressions of these values will develop. Today, I would like to add a further perspective to these expressions. In this regard, I believe there is another value that should prevail as we chart our way into the next half century, that is, the sense of responsibility – both on the part of the Government as well as on the part of the Singapore citizen. I would like to demonstrate the importance of this in two areas: (a) caring for the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, and (b) diversity of views and discourse.

In the area of caring for the vulnerable and disadvantaged, I believe that in principle, our common understanding on this is clear. We will help those in need. We will not leave anyone behind. We will shape policies to encourage social mobility. The challenge often lies in executing the principles and the policies.

Over the years, the Government has made major shifts in social policy. The community and the state took on greater responsibility for individuals and families who needed social support. This was welcomed and provided a reprieve to many who struggled to keep afloat in this ever-changing world. However, the implementation of this provision of support is fraught with rules and dictates certain expectations of the recipients. For example, when one makes an application for financial assistance, checks are made on the income and contributions of his or her children or other family members. This is fair and reasonable but becomes tricky and sensitive when the family members have their own financial problems and are unable to support the individual. We should, in such instances, exercise discretion and provide the necessary support.

Another aspect of this I would like to highlight is that the support for the individual or family is often only available till they are able to find employment and meet the means test. However, in some of these cases, the families are still struggling for a while after assistance has stopped.

The early withdrawal of subsidies and assistance can easily bring a family back into financial difficulty, particularly when the family has had little opportunity to build up a reserve for the rainy day. We should look into how our social support networks and the community networks can continue to provide support and look out for these families. We should not leave them at the starting block of the track, but be there till they are able to sustain themselves.

As we tread through the challenges that lie ahead, we should not regress and limit the efforts on improving social policy. The Government will need to continue to be responsible. We should not compromise on the social support that needs to be given to the individuals and families that require them. In fact, it is when times are hard that we need to be more compassionate.

Having said that, I am aware that we are not sitting on a pot of gold which we can distribute at a whim. Resources are limited and there is a need to identify the ones who truly deserve the assistance. While the Government remains responsible to care for the people, the people, too, have a responsibility to take care of themselves. We all need to work hard, continue to improve our skills and remain relevant.

While the Government has the responsibility to navigate the country through this challenging period, Singaporeans, too, need to have a keen awareness of the bigger picture – that Singapore sits in competition with the rest of the world and some tough decisions have to be made. Ambassador-at-Large, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, in his speech during the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January 2015, said:

"The world is constantly changing and since the world will not change to suit our conveniences, we will have to constantly adapt to it. Since the future is unknowable, adaptation requires nimbleness of thought and action; and thought and action based on a clinical – some would say cold-blooded – understanding of the world as it is and not as we think it ought to be."

The changing world forces us to change and adapt. And we need to do what is necessary for Singapore's survival.

I move on now to the point of diversity of views and discourse, clearly, a point that has been raised often in this House as well.

As we write the chapters for the next 50 years, we do need to look at how, as a mature society, we handle diversity of views. I think we can all agree that diversity can be a strength, if it can be synergised and used for the good of the people. However, it is also a potential divisive factor that can tear our social fabric. So, how do we make it our strength and not cause our fall?

I feel that the Prime Minister's announcements yesterday regarding increasing the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) in Parliament and extending powers of NCMPs, are concrete steps towards bringing diversity of views in Parliament. I, therefore, welcome this proposal as it allows for respectful discourse on real issues that matter to Singaporeans and leads to the shaping of useful and important policies for the people.

I also feel that the approach of encouraging diversity of views should be extended to the masses. I laud the Government's efforts in creating platforms and engaging various segments of the community, including the young. It is definitely important to engage the youth on matters that are important to them, especially since they would inherit the nation and should have a say in how the society develops. Platforms, such as the SGfuture Engagements, are definitely useful to trigger the discourse.

But beyond creating the platforms and spaces, there needs to be real discourse and the exercise of not merely lip-service. I believe there needs to be a push for more open debates and discussions.

For instance, in the light of the increasing wave of terrorist attacks and influence globally, inevitably some attention is now placed on the Muslim community in Singapore. The Muslim community has expressed concern over the increasing Islamophobia and the observation that some Muslims are growing somewhat more distant from the rest of the Singaporean community. There is a need to have very frank conversations about real issues facing the community. These conversations may possibly be difficult but this is an effort that should be put in together by all in the community, not just the Singaporean Muslims. And I believe that the leadership has a role in encouraging these discussions.

The reality is that some of these conversations are already happening on the online platform. In certain instances, such discussions appear to be rather toxic. So, we should manage and encourage further respectful discussions. Our efforts in encouraging racial and religious harmony can no longer be at a superficial level of attending each other's cultural events. We should allow for space to talk about our identities, our religious practices, such as the burning of incense paper, the wearing of the tudung, the playing of music during Thaipusam, for example. And there should be open dialogues as such conversations allow for better understanding of each other's concerns.

Yes, we need to preserve the sanctity of the harmonious co-existence of various races and religions. Our forefathers had learnt to live together despite their differences and had managed to achieve a state of peaceful equilibrium. This is something we should cherish. But we should also continue to build on the bonds we have. There is a need for faith in the maturity of the Singapore people and a realisation that the preservation of our individual identities or practice of our respective religions does not necessarily mean that our common spaces are being encroached upon or that we are distancing ourselves from each other. Perhaps, there is a need to redefine the common space. Perhaps, there are new norms that Singaporeans can agree upon. We must allow for such discussions to flourish and work towards achieving consensus. Mdm Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community has certain traits that bring something important to the table for other Singaporeans. Malay/Muslims truly value living in a society. This spirit is always visible; so much so that the gotong-royong concept has spread and been adapted by non-Malays in Singapore.

Our community has a highly-developed culture, a refined language and is well-mannered. If we look at it, our vocabulary is filled with noble values. Our proverbs, poems (pantun) and metaphors reflect the sharp minds of the Malays.

I will give you some examples: "We depended on the fence, but the fence destroyed the paddy", meaning "the one you trust betrayed you" – a proverb used by our Prime Minister yesterday. Another example, "We have to face difficulties before enjoying the good times" – a proverb that gives us a reminder and encourages hard work.

We should be proud of our culture and language and continue to use and internalise their values in our daily lives.

All these values are important in our societal relations, especially in the current context, which includes a challenging economic situation and the spread of radicalism.

In Parliament, many have spoken about the spread of terrorism and the attacks around the world. Our Malay/Muslim community rejects such beliefs. Surely, our community cannot be blamed and our loyalty should not be questioned. Nonetheless, the reality is that the attention is now placed on the Malay/Muslim community.

I think it is important for the Government to take steps to encourage open discussions on these issues so that any prejudices and misunderstandings can be eradicated immediately. There should also be stern reminders to condemn and prevent actions that reek of Islamophobia.

One other thing that is constantly in the minds of our community is the tudung issue. As a woman who wears tudung, I definitely hope that all women can pursue their career of choice. Hence, I hope this can be reviewed and flexibility be given where possible, so that there will not be too many barriers for women to choose their own careers.

However, when we ask for something from the Government, I hope that we, as a community, can be mature and discuss respectfully. We should know and understand that there are implications to whatever decisions that we wish for, in the context of a plural society. We should use the opportunities available to improve relations with the other races so that there is a deep understanding about our culture and religion. We are part of a plural society in Singapore and we must always be mindful to maintain racial and religious harmony.

The Malay/Muslim community also has aspirations and hopes to succeed and see Malays in all fields, including leadership. Prime Minister Lee yesterday spoke about the changes to the Constitution of Singapore, including having smaller GRCs and the changes to the eligibility criteria for the Elected President.

There are now mechanisms to ensure that the concerns of Malay/Muslim Singaporeans are looked after due to the existence of the GRC system which requires the representation of minorities. This is important and needs to be maintained.

In changing the eligibility criteria for the Elected President, Prime Minister Lee said that there will be a process to ensure that minorities will not be excluded and there will be a President from the minority group.

We would definitely like to see representation from our community but we would like our Malays to be chosen because he or she is the best and not because of his or her race. We do not want the selection to be a symbolic one only. Hence, while I welcome the Government's concern for the minority communities, I also feel that the Malay/Muslim community must continue to work hard so that they can generate the next generation of leaders of a high calibre, who can not only compete in Singapore, but also in the international arena.

Just now, Acting Minister Ng Chee Meng spoke about a Malay song, that is, our National Anthem. I would also like to highlight another song that is written by the late Pak Zubir Said. I am not a good singer so I shall just read out some of the lyrics.

"If you become a Singaporean,

You must have a good heart and be courteous.

You must be resilient, work hard,

Be well-mannered and respectful to your elders.

Only then others will admire and respect us,

Only then you can be called a Singaporean."

In this song, the late Pak Zubir spoke about having good manners, courtesy, resilience, working hard, loyalty towards the country, our race and our religion and living together as a society. I think this is very meaningful and it truly reflects the values that should be present in all Singaporeans. These values are already present inside us. I am sure that, with this spirit, we can face any challenges that may come.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, allow me to conclude in English. Over the past few days, my colleagues in this House have shared their perspectives and proposals on how to move this country forward. The breadth of issues raised and the variety of ideas shared are a testament to the diversity and dynamism of the Members of this House. This, in turn, reflects the diversity of the Singaporeans whom the Members represent.

As I have mentioned earlier, I welcome the improvements to the NCMP scheme. I look forward to seeing more of the likes of Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan who will add to the robust debate and change laws. I am, therefore, quite surprised that they were being compared to duckweeds, because nothing stops the NCMPs from going to the ground, do house visits, organise sessions to gather ground concerns. In fact, I recall Mr Perera mentioning that he does grassroots work at East Coast and Aljunied and definitely can bring value to this House with the issues that he will collate from all these people that he has met. These improvements will strengthen the NCMP's position and I think it is hard to argue otherwise. In any case, the contest at elections remains open to all and it is still open for Singaporeans to choose the best party and people to be their elected Members of Parliament.

Mdm Speaker, we may not all agree with one another but we debate respectfully and I believe that this decorum can extend beyond this House because Singaporeans are responsible people who care about this nation. We do not argue for the sake of argument and will always seek consensus and not conflict.

Whilst there is much fear and uncertainty about what the future brings, I feel a sense of excitement on the possibilities for this little red dot. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.46 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, I rise to express my support for the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

As a new Member of Parliament, I feel the weight of my new responsibilities. I see my role as a Member of the Thirteenth Parliament as contributing meaningfully to the debate of this House in two ways. One, I will voice the hopes, worries and dreams of my constituents and, two, I will talk about issues that I feel strongly about.

Our predecessors in previous Parliaments have set a high standard. Now, it is our turn to build on their good work. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation and gratitude to all our seniors in this House, past and present.

Mdm Speaker, I wish to focus on two issues which the President mentioned in his Address.

The first is to "future-proof" our economy. The Government has implemented several measures to prepare our students and workforce, one of which is SkillsFuture, to support lifelong learning.

I know a young man, Adam, 31 years old, father of two. He has Secondary school education, tried several jobs and, finally, decided that being a taxi driver suits him best. He explained that it is hard for him to tap on SkillsFuture as he works long hours and has family commitments. People like Adam who needs SkillsFuture the most may have difficulties finding time for it.

We need to stress the urgency and importance of SkillsFuture for the current generation of workers because, like Adam, they have not been trained in new technologies and they will be the ones who will be most affected. I will share more on this later.

I worry about the current cohort of workers due to the confluence of developments in information technology (IT), artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Some have called it the robotics revolution. Are we prepared in our education and training systems to ride the crest of this development wave?

The future is very exciting but it is also very challenging. Increasingly, we will see more machines taking over dangerous occupations and relieving us of mundane, repetitive jobs, including household chores. It also means that many jobs we know today will be eliminated, including some white-collars.

A Merrill Lynch report says, "The combination of AI, machine learning, deep learning and natural user interfaces, such as voice recognition, is making it possible to automate many knowledge worker tasks that were long regarded as impossible or impractical for machines to perform."

What about us? If about 30% to 40% of our jobs were to be made redundant, will we achieve higher productivity, higher unemployment, or both?

I recently visited the Future of Us exhibition with my branch volunteers. It was an inspiring evening together. We got a glimpse of life in future Singapore. For example, we could be moving around in driverless cars. But then last week's Sunday Times asked this question: "In a driverless future, what happens to today's drivers?"

With the advent of taxi applications, driverless cars and car-sharing schemes, the taxi and bus industries will be affected. Will all these technology advancements make taxi drivers redundant in 10 years? Not so far-fetched.

A mere 20 years ago, dial-up Internet was hardly seen in most homes. Today, high-speed Internet has permeated all aspects of our lives, so much so that we can hardly imagine going through a day without it. The pace of innovation and technological development is relentless.

So, what happens to Adam? I will have to persuade him to take SkillsFuture seriously, to make use of the opportunities to pick up new skills. In this way, he will be able to earn a living in future Singapore.

All of us will be affected one way or another; it is not only the blue-collar jobs. With cloud computing technologies, many companies will automate white-collar functions, such as HR, IT, customer service and accounting.

We need to do two things to prepare ourselves for this.

One, we need a renewed focus in education on these new technologies, such as ITE courses on the technology involved in driverless cars, augmented reality in JCs, and industrial robotics in Polytechnics.

Two – and I repeat my earlier point on SkillsFuture – we need to ensure that our current workforce, people like Adam, can be trained in other areas and to remain relevant even as their jobs may change or eventually disappear.

The second issue I want to raise is on the better integration of our infrastructure for caregiving. Our infrastructure must take into account how to better integrate facilities and services to make life easier.

Last year, the Ministerial Committee on Ageing announced a $3 billion national plan to help Singaporeans age confidently and lead active lives.

One initiative which caught my eye was the decision to co-locate eldercare and childcare facilities in 10 HDB BTO new projects.

I have a combined childcare, student care and eldercare facility in my Tampines constituency, which was initiated by my predecessor, Mr Mah Bow Tan, 20 years ago. My centre takes care of 90 children, 70 students and 50 senior citizens.

One of my constituents, Mdm Tan, was enrolled in our eldercare facility in this 3-in-1 centre and her granddaughter is in student care. They live in separate homes but they get to see each other in this centre. So, it is very convenient and also precious that grandma and granddaughter get to "hang out" with each other because of shared facilities and programmes.

I have seen first-hand the benefits both groups receive from each other because of this facility. As the number of elders in our society grows, I would like to propose that we accelerate the development of these inter-generational facilities that will benefit both the young and the old.

We have two public facilities which, I think, can be better used for this purpose. The first is our schools. Taking a cue from my 3-in-1 centre, I would like to propose that our schools have integrated eldercare facilities.

Our schools have safe open spaces with appropriate exercise facilities and areas suitable for the elderly. The seniors can participate in the school's activities, whether passively like watching school performances, or actively in music and art classes.

Like Mdm Tan's family, many of our young are cared for by their grandparents while their parents work. These facilities will provide a nexus for these grandparents who send their grandchildren to school, to stay on, mingle, get involved as a volunteer or even be a participant in the eldercare programmes. Let our more abled seniors help the less abled.

The second public facility that can be better used is our many beautiful neighbourhood parks. On weekdays, they are quiet. Let us do more with them. I would like to suggest that the Government build integrated centres in our public parks. I recently learnt that this idea will be implemented in Tokyo, with three wards in Tokyo opening childcare centres in urban parks next year.

Locations, such as Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park and Tampines Sun Plaza Park, would be suitable. These parks are close to HDB heartlands, have convenient drop-off and pick-up points and ample space. The children and elderly can exercise, take strolls and be with nature. Community "urban farmers" can supervise and share their gardening expertise.

Most of us will live longer and well into our eighties and beyond. What do we hope to see when we reach that age?

I hope that we will be a nation of multi-generational neighbourhoods, where we take care of each other and where our elderly and our young can mingle and share their lives and experiences, like Mdm Tan and her granddaughter. This means providing many more opportunities for our neighbours and generations to come together, interact and encourage each other.

Mdm Speaker, I believe that the integration of facilities, institutions and services will result in stronger community bonds. As we strive to be a Smart Nation, I hope we can also be a cosy and compassionate Home for Adam, Mdm Tan and all Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. Madam, Singapore had just celebrated our 50th year of Independence last year as a nation. It was an extraordinary year and one thing that stood out for me was that we were all reminded of how exceptional we are as a little red dot and how the responsibility of ensuring another 50 great years for Singapore now falls squarely on our shoulders. This mission cannot be taken lightly and we must do our best to ensure that Singapore remains a land of opportunities and a home for all Singaporeans.

For me, this mission is more personal and poignant, now that my son is barely six months old and he would still, hopefully, be in his prime when the time SG100 comes. I believe I speak for all parents who have young children, when I say that I would like him to grow up in a safe and secure Singapore in which he can get great education, achieve his aspirations, as well as live in and contribute to a peaceful, harmonious society.

In his speech, the President described five key aims that we ought to fulfil. I whole-heartedly agree that these are critical and we must get them right. In fact, I believe these five aims are interdependent and, for me, the most critical of these aims would be the need to foster a caring society, one in which our people feel meaningfully engaged and are actively involved. Ultimately, no matter how robust our economy, how strong our society or how advanced our technology may be, a strong nation has to draw strength from its people.

Therefore, please allow me to speak on the aim of fostering a more caring society and, more specifically, on how we can all care more for our elderly and young families.

First, on our elderly. We must care for our elderly, make sure that their needs are catered for, so that they need not live in anxiety and fear post-retirement, or worse, gloomily count down to the last day of their lives. But more than that, we must enable our elderly, so that life post-retirement is still exciting and promising. We all aspire to lead a good life and a good life cannot be judged by the number of years lived. It has to be based on qualitative measures, such as health, a sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem.

At home, shrinking family sizes and increasing numbers of singles will limit the scope of home care for our elderly. One way to deal with this would be to have the elderly institutionalised in a nursing or an elderly home. But this is far from ideal because, given our rapidly ageing population, there is insufficient space to build enough nursing or elderly homes. Moreover, this does not align well with our vision of "ageing in place". Therefore, we must continue to invest in technological research and expedite the implementation of tested solutions that can enable our elderly to live independently at home. As we move towards a "Smart Nation", this has to be given priority.

At work, our elderly should be encouraged to work for as long as they can and want to. Firstly, staying employed helps to keep our bodies and minds active. Secondly, staying employed helps to preserve our sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem. Of course, the additional "pocket money" from the income earned is welcomed. Thirdly, as we have an ageing population, the average age of our workforce is expected to rise. Hence, it is not just a social responsibility to enable our elderly to stay and, indeed, to thrive in their jobs, but there is economic imperative as well, given the tight labour market. Our systems, our working environments and, especially our attitudes, have to change in preparation for this eventuality. Age discrimination at work, especially at the point of recruitment, must be stemmed out. There is also a need for a more concerted and stronger push for jobs to be redesigned to become more elderly-friendly.

At the community level, we need to continue our efforts to build a strong social network of support, as it helps to keep out loneliness and complement familial support. Such a network requires not only the participation of Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), but neighbours can have a role to play as well. Neighbours can help to keep an eye on an elderly, notice any irregularity and call for help immediately. Neighbours can help to, for instance, bring an elderly to his/her medical appointment at the polyclinic nearby, explain schemes that are available for the elderly to benefit from, or encourage and assist the elderly to participate in community programmes and stay active.

Within the community, we should not only consider the elderly as being simply the recipients of care. They can also be enabled to contribute meaningfully as well. At present, I am very heartened and encouraged to witness how our seniors in MacPherson have been actively serving our community. For instance, many are involved in the Pioneer Generation (PG) Ambassador programme, in which it involves them helping to explain to fellow Pioneers what the package entails and even help them to seek help with problems not covered by the package. The PG Ambassadors receive good training and support and they feel empowered and proud to be able to help others. Hence, we must continue to promote senior volunteerism and find ways to empower our elderly, as they are hidden gems in our communities. Madam, I would like to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In recent years, many of our speeches have inevitably been about the vision of a caring society. In my opinion, the measure of success in achieving this goal is how we treat our elderly.

Based on my observations in the last few years, Singaporeans are compassionate about our elderly and the Government has actively implemented many measures and packages to look after our elderly. However, there are still some people who are prejudiced against the elderly, seeing them as a burden to the family, workplace and society. And some of the elderly also see themselves as old and useless, passively counting down to the last day of their lives.

I hope we can end these prejudices and take action to help everyone recognise that age should not be a barrier, that an elderly can still be driven, useful and healthy.

Hence, I propose that we should advocate three ideas: care for the elderly, respect the elderly and cherish the elderly.

First, care for the elderly. This means to enable them to live in ease and comfort in their golden years. We should look after the elderly, satisfy their basic needs and preserve their dignity. Besides basic needs, such as food and clothing, we must also make sure they age in place. Although we are building more nursing homes to meet the needs of an ageing society, most elderly prefer to spend their last days in their own home, not a nursing home or a home for the elderly. In addition, there is a rising trend of elderly living alone, so we should help them – indeed, for ourselves in future, too – redesign their homes. We should use technology and actively research and implement assistive technologies, so that the elderly who live alone or have disabilities can lead a safer and more independent life. By doing this, we can achieve our ideal of "ageing in place".

Beyond that, we should continue to engage and organise the community, encourage residents to work with the Government and VWOs to strengthen our social support network and maintain the community spirit of neighbours looking after one another.

Second, respect the elderly. This means to respect the seniors and not to look down on them. We should encourage and support those who still want to work to do so, or support them to fulfil their unfulfilled dreams. This is because work can help them to stay active physically and mentally and maintain confidence in themselves. Moreover, extra pocket money is welcomed. However, when working in my constituency, I would have seniors sharing their woes with me every now and then about how difficult it is to get a job as they grew old. Therefore, we need to put in more effort in improving our national system, work environment design and attitude towards the elderly. As the saying goes, "An old horse knows its ways". It means that the elderly are very experienced. Hence, we must respect them and provide them with opportunities. At least, we should not deny them the opportunity of taking that first step. Can an "old horse" not continue to gallop?

Third, cherish the elderly. It means to appreciate and treasure our seniors. The elderly, especially those who have retired, are our precious resource. They have the time and experience and are able to continue to contribute to the country and the community. In MacPherson, we have many seniors who are passionate about charity and volunteering in the community. They often help out at community events and look after vulnerable neighbours. Sometimes, they can even mobilise the aunties and uncles in the community to help. Sometimes, they will voluntarily offer to solve problems for their neighbours. If they are unable to do so, they will accompany troubled neighbours to come and see me. So, let us not lose these gems of ours!

(In English): Families have been the bedrock of our society. Hence, we must continue to support families in Singapore so that Singapore will continue to be strong. Often, I receive pleas from young parents seeking help with childcare as they have to work. They feel stressed having to balance the needs of their families and careers, sometimes, at the expense of each other. Young mothers also lament to me about how they are trying to heed the Government's call to have children, how they are trying to fulfil their duty to the nation but it is just very difficult to do so when they cannot get the support they need. So, why should young families be subjected to such a trade-off? Can we not better enable them to raise their young whilst not having to compromise on their aspirational pursuits?

I am glad that the Government is increasing the supply of infant care, childcare and student care centres, as well as proactively strengthening the quality of such centre-based care. However, supply is still chasing demand at present. We need to look for alternatives so as to enhance accessibility of care and provide options for young parents.

One, could we leverage more on homemakers with childcare experiences within the community? In the course of my constituency work, I have met many housewives who are experienced and willing to care for neighbours' children and whose children have grown up. They love children and, of course, a little pocket money would not hurt. At the same time, I have also just recently come across a young couple with two-year-old triplets who are in desperate need of support. The couple need to work, their parents have yet to retire and they could not find a reliable maid. Hence, we are now looking to the "auntie-network" within the community to provide some interim childcare support in the meantime, especially with Chinese New Year nearing.

Can we expand such arrangements into a wider support scheme? Could we systematically identify and build up a formal network of housewives within communities? Their profiles and childcaring resumes can be consolidated into a directory which young families can refer to when considering childcare options. And for quality assurance, the enrolled housewives can go through basic courses to update them on some of the latest developments, needs and standards.

Two, could we further facilitate familial support by increasing the quota of flats set aside under the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) per BTO development? The Government must be credited for enhancing MCPS about two years ago and for introducing the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) last year. But there continues to be a demand.

Firstly, there are still young couples who sincerely hope to secure a new flat near their parents for mutual care and support but have been unsuccessful in their ballot despite the priority. This challenge is exacerbated when their parents live in mature estates, where flat supply is already scarce and where competition is also keener.

Secondly, the PHG is meant for resale flats and, while the resale prices are no longer going up, many young couples continue to find the prices beyond their purchasing power. Hence, while the PHG helps to offset part of a resale flat's price premium over a subsidised one, it is still not enough to make a resale flat within the affordability range to them. As such, could we seriously consider increasing the quota of flats set aside under MCPS per BTO development?

Thirdly, we need to continue to entrench the belief that mothers can continue to contribute and value-add in the workplace and society. We need employers and colleagues to be understanding to mothers who go on maternity or childcare leave. Once, a young mother wrote to me to share her woes about her employer who would make scathing remarks when she took maternity leave. Her employer approved of the leave anyway because it was mandated, but were the remarks necessary?

We need to enable more flexi-work arrangements so that mothers can still contribute fully even as they take childcare leave. We need fair appraisal systems that focus on the quality of work done and that do not mark down mothers simply because they are out of action for a few months. Such behaviours – mean remarks and unfair appraisal systems – are manifestations of an underlying prejudice that mothers are liabilities at work, thereby negating the value that they can offer professionally and to our society. We should work to improve the situation in Singapore so that women can thrive in both motherhood and career.

Madam, I have just shared my thoughts and suggestions on how we can better care and enable our elderly and young families in Singapore. At this juncture, I would like to highlight that active citizenry runs through almost all the points that I have made. Indeed, I believe that all Singaporeans have a shared responsibility in the many works of our nation. A truly caring society is not one in which the caring is only done by the Government or a selected group of people. A great nation is not one in which its people care only about themselves.

Thankfully, I would say that Singaporeans do care. From the time I served as a grassroots leader, which would have been about 11 years ago, I have witnessed how many Singaporeans are prepared to sacrifice their personal time, space and resources to help others. I am constantly touched by their concern for the less fortunate or more vulnerable and, even more so, when those who needed help in the first place are also helping others. Such care and concern for our fellow men and women build trust, strengthen our community and keep us together. It inspires us to do better, to think about how our actions affect the others around us. It makes life worth living.

Therefore, beyond policy debate or discussions of current affairs, we must continue to focus on building an active citizenry. This has to happen at all levels – within the community, we should enlist Singaporeans to form a network of support; within the nation, we should encourage volunteerism and charitable causes and engage citizens to give ideas for Singapore and to participate in building a better future for ourselves and our children.

Finally, it is a privilege to serve and to stand in Parliament. Singaporeans sent us into Parliament because they trust us and hope that we can give voice to the challenges, worries, hopes and dreams that they have. We, all of us in this House, including my hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament colleagues, must do our best. Such a privilege cannot be transferred. We must cherish it and, hence, in this Thirteenth Parliament, we must continue to speak up actively and work hard together to fulfil the five aims that the President has shared with us.

SG100 takes time to build, but it is not that distant a dream. Let us continue to build on one another's strengths in fulfilling the vision of a safe, secure, caring and united Singapore. With that, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker, we celebrated SG50 last year. As one Singapore, we rallied together, we reminisced, we rejoiced, we reflected. And we also came together in one unbelievable moment in the outpouring of grief when our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on. The range of emotions we shared served to bring Singaporeans closer together, like never before.

We are still only a fledgling nation, but we have had much to celebrate of our achievements over the last 50 years. It is nothing short of a remarkable success story. But at the same time, we must recognise that all of that is now firmly in the past. We can live in the past, or we can move on. We can strive to build on our past successes, but we can never assume it to be a given that the next 50 years will be anything like the last 50.

By all accounts, the litany of challenges for us on the horizon is, indeed, very daunting. What we make of it and how we overcome them will define us as a people and successive generations will measure us by what we put in place and achieve today for the Singapore of tomorrow.

How do we tackle the road ahead? Over the last few days in this House, we have heard many suggestions. There have been many passionate calls for bold new directions, policy changes – as my hon colleague Ms Denise Phua said – redreaming and calling for the slaying of the sacred cow as well. There is much richness in the broad canvas of these ideas but we have to find a way to tie them together. I have got some competition.

At the very heart of our success has been the stability and cohesiveness which we have enjoyed as a society. But that has not come about by chance. Inclusion, mobility and opportunity delivered by a sound political system which is fair, transparent and stable, has allowed successive Governments to design and implement policies to benefit and uplift society. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need good politics to make for good policies.

In my view, therefore, behind every successful society – and, indeed, as Acting Minister Ong said, if we want to achieve, "faster legs, stronger hearts and wiser minds" – we have to have a sound political system.

Politics and political systems shape and drive social norms – it is a point I will come back to later – but politics is never very far away from the way we run our society.

In his Opening Address, President Tan spoke of the "innovations" to our system which have served us well. These innovations are unique to Singapore. We might have started with the British system, but our founding fathers had the foresight, political will and gumption to adapt and bespoke it to meet the specific needs of our society, our Singapore society.

Take the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme, for instance. We have had to adapt and change the original system because we are a pluralistic, multiracial society; quite unlike the British, from whom we inherited the system; quite unlike almost every nation in the world.

Singapore is almost synonymous with multiracialism. So much so that if you went to google "multiracial society" now, you will find that two-thirds of the hits on the first page mention or are about Singapore.

Carefully nurtured and cultivated over the years of our history, multiracialism is now self-evident in almost every facet of our life – in our schools, our HDB flats, our common spaces, our food and our shared heritage. And, yes, even in our politics.

In June 2015, US President Barack Obama observed this about Singapore in a dialogue with young Asian leaders and he said:

"And the truth of the matter is that one of the reasons that Singapore, as I mentioned earlier, has been successful, is that it has been able to bring together people who may look different, but they all think of themselves as part of Singapore. And that has to be a strength, not a weakness, but that requires leadership and government being true to these principles."

It is, indeed, a unique strength, but we must jealously guard it for it could so easily turn into a weakness – a fault line in our society to be exploited. When you look around the world today, some of the deepest fault lines in civil society are drawn precisely on racial or religious lines and we, in Singapore, are not necessarily immune to that.

Our racial and religious harmony and the Government's role in maintaining this through good politics, can never be taken for granted. Indeed, not very far away from us, in Malaysia, we see an example of a society fractured by their political and social lines being drawn precisely on racial differences.

Two recent examples come to mind and you would have seen them in the press, both involving scuffles at an IT mall, one in July 2015 at a popular IT mall called Low Yat Plaza and another one in December 2015 at the Kota Raya. Both involved Malays and Chinese clashing over unhappy business transactions.

In themselves, the incidents were not necessarily remarkable. But what I found staggering was the Malaysian government's response. Instead of seeking to bridge the divide, they decided to designate a "bumiputera-only" mall in response; that opened in December 2015. In fact, it came with free six months' rental to Malay entrepreneurs. Can we imagine for a moment that taking place in Singapore? But why has this happened just across our shores?

As I have mentioned, politics drive social norms and shape behaviour. The origins of the recent racial tensions in Malaysia can, in some ways, be traced to the racial stratification that has been deeply entrenched in the Malaysian political system for many years, for decades. Political parties were formed along racial lines. The Barisan Nasional coalition is made up of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) and the Chinese-based Malaysia Chinese Association (MCA), as well as the Indian-based Malaysian Indian Congress. Can we imagine any of these taking place in Singapore? A racialised political system has resulted in significant lines of divide in Malaysia's society which still persist today.

That is why politics is not an abstract. It is not distinct from the policies we seek to make, or the type of society we seek to build. Politics touch and affect the way we live in a very real and tangible way.

That is why the GRC scheme, an "innovation" which we have introduced, must remain a very fundamental tenet of our political system. It is the bedrock which safeguards multiracial representation in our Parliament and, ultimately, in our Government.

The GRC system was implemented in 1988 precisely to prevent politics in Singapore from being polarised along racial lines. Aside from guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament, the requirement that at least one candidate of each GRC belongs to a minority community means that candidates and their political parties cannot campaign on racial lines. These objectives remain relevant, if not more relevant, today. I, therefore, support the continuation of the GRC scheme and I should add that this scheme is by no means a political tool to marginalise the prospects of success for Opposition candidates in an election. In fact, having taken Aljunied GRC on two previous occasions, I am surprised we still see the Workers' Party continuing to make such an argument.

At the same time, I also welcome the move to have smaller and, therefore, more GRCs and more Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) in the next election. I think this makes for better options and choices for the electorate and the Workers' Party surely cannot complain about smaller GRCs! The question of economies of scale in the running of a Town Council can, I think, be easily overcomed by having more than one GRC make up a town, which is currently not the case.

Another innovation we will re-look is the Elected Presidency, first mooted by then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1984. Two White Papers later, the Elected Presidency became a feature of our political landscape, as an additional check and balance on the Government of the day – an additional insurance for the people of Singapore.

The question is whether this office has outlived its relevance and should be abolished. I think not. Far from heeding the calls to abolish the Elected Presidency, I think it is now even more important than ever that we retain and enhance it.

We have heard from the Prime Minister yesterday that our foreign reserves have grown almost 10 times in the period 1988 to 2015. Our GDP per capita has grown about eight times in that same period. These reserves, carefully accumulated over years of careful, considerate and conservative budgeting, need a strong second key to safeguard them.

The President, therefore, fulfils more than just a ceremonial function. Though his powers are reactive in nature, he is the custodian of Singapore's accumulated foreign reserves and acts as a check and balance on public service integrity and against possible excesses of power by the Executive. In order to achieve that, it is, therefore, necessary for him to act with a mandate and moral authority and that is why he is elected and not appointed. However, the review of some key aspects of the office of the Elected Presidency is timely and appropriate and I will suggest two points.

First, as a starting point, it can surely brook no dissent that only the very best, the most qualified, experienced, competent and honest persons of the highest calibre should even be considered. There can be absolutely no political agenda behind this.

Yet, we have previously seen the Workers' Party complain bitterly about this programme – complained that the stringent prequalifications for Presidential candidacy has made it much harder for aspiring candidates to become nominated. Why? Why should we feel apologetic about imposing the very most stringent conditions and criteria on a person who is to be carrying out heavy constitutional burdens to safeguard your reserves and mine? Only the very best people should be the Head of State, not an inexperienced or under-qualified one and certainly not a populist one.

In fact, I would suggest that we would need to strengthen the qualifying criteria from at least two perspectives.

First, obviously, the paid-up threshold has become obsolete and that should be reviewed. But, second and, perhaps more fundamentally, I hope the Constitution Commission can look into this, that we look beyond just the numbers. Just because a candidate has been a CEO or a CFO of a company with $x million of paid-up capital or turnover does not necessarily make that person the right person or, indeed, a suitable or appropriate person to become the Elected President.

In my view, there is every reason to impose far more stringent qualifying criteria because this is not a popular contest. It is serious business making sure that the constitutional duties are properly discharged. If the Elected President fails as the guardian, Singapore fails. So, if we elect either a populist or a partisan President, what kind of an effective second key can we expect?

Second, we should review the current make-up of the CPA which advises the President on a range of matters. I think we can all agree that the members of the Advisory Committee should be well-qualified – they should be strong. The question is: how should we select them and who should they comprise?

I would make two suggestions. First, to have more than just the current six members available as advisers to the President. The CPA should be enhanced with competent experts appointed from across a diverse range of fields as well as from across a spectrum of civil society who, collectively, can represent a broad cross-section of stakeholders in Singapore.

Second, I would also suggest that these advisers be required to outline the grounds on which they give their advice, save on matters of national security. This ensures transparency and accountability and engenders public confidence.

Finally, the last innovation I would like to deal with is the NCMP scheme. Mr Low Thia Khiang said earlier good politics is not shaped or monopolised by the ruling party – alternative voices, dissenting opinions should be heard. That is precisely what the NCMP scheme, as now currently revised, seeks to achieve. It will be enhanced, it will be enlarged, it will be made more robust and it will give the Opposition an expanded voice in Parliament.

I heard the press quoting Mr Low last evening as saying that "the NCMP is still weak because he does not have roots, unlike elected MPs. He is not grounded in a Town Council. He does not have a constituency to run."

I think Mr Low has missed the point. The privilege to run a Town Council and to manage a constituency is one that can only be bestowed by the electorate of that constituency. It is a mandate from the people. And if, in elections, the electorate does not choose the Workers' Party to run their Town Council, perhaps because they feel that the Workers' Party is not qualified to do so – that choice has to be respected.

The NCMP scheme does not, in any way, take away the ability or opportunity of any candidate to contest freely for the privilege to run a constituency or the Town Council. If you win your seat, then you run the Town Council. You grow your roots.

But if you do not, then the NCMP scheme still gives the Opposition a second chance. Hence, in cases where the Opposition candidate has tried but failed to win the mandate of the people, then, in those cases, the best losers are, nonetheless, offered a seat in Parliament – now with all the parliamentary privileges of an elected Member. Clearly, the NCMP Scheme has brought a more diverse range of views into Parliament and we heard that in the last Parliament.

At the same time, it has also served the Opposition well, even if they do protest a little loudly. They have, in many instances over the years, taken advantage themselves of the NCMP seat precisely for the advancement of their own political agenda.

A good example of this is the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. As the Prime Minister noted, she was first elected as an NCMP in 2006 before winning her seat as a Member of Parliament for Aljunied in 2011 and again in 2015. I think even Ms Lim would agree that her presence in Parliament, as an NCMP, gave her the exposure and contributed greatly to her eventual success as an elected Member.

More recently, we have seen the Workers' Party opting to re-assign their NCMP seat from Mr Gerald Giam to Mr Leon Perera, both of whom were members of one of the best losing teams on the East Coast GRC slate. This presumably was to allow the younger and newer members, such as Mr Perera, to gain experience and exposure. Why? Clearly for increased exposure, for their own agenda, so that he would be better placed at the next elections.

So, the fact of the matter is that the NCMP scheme not only introduces greater diversity and debate in Parliament, it helps Opposition Members gain exposure and recognition. I, therefore, cannot see the basis on which the Workers' Party continues to mount this complaint.

Let me conclude, Mdm Speaker. I am heartened by the changes that the Prime Minister has announced. They not only improve the political landscape and make for a solid infrastructure in which to take Singapore forward. Far from navel-gazing, as Mr Low has said, I see in these steps the hallmark of strong political will, great foresight and a determination to build for the future, not for this term, not for the next term even, but for the future. And with the Sigmoid Curve theory, transformational changes have to be made before the peaks of success are achieved, to ensure that success continues uninterrupted.

Let me conclude by going back to the point that good politics make for good policies. That is, indeed, true. But it takes two hands to clap and good politics also means that Singaporeans, too, must remain engaged with the Government. Singaporeans, too, must continue to be proactive in active citizenry and play a part in shaping our country's destiny. This is a crucial partnership, as we head into SG51 and beyond, if we want to build on the legacy of our founding fathers and leave Singapore in a better shape for successive generations to come.

We all have a part to play. So, in the words of someone recently made famous all over again: "Do or do not. There is no try". Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Ms Sylvia Lim, you have a clarification?

Yes, Madam, thank you. Madam, Mr Low is not in the Chamber, so I would like to clarify with Mr Tong on part of his speech. I am not sure whether I heard Mr Tong correctly, but was he trying to imply that the Workers' Party is arguing for NCMPs to be on equal standing with elected Members? Because from what I understood from what Mr Low said, basically, he was making the point that they are not the same. And speaking for myself as a former NCMP, I can say definitively that while yes, we are in the Chamber to contribute to debates, but it can never be the same as being an elected Member representing constituents.

I was referring to Mr Low's point where he was suggesting that the NCMPs create duckweeds. I do not think that is true. As the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam mentioned earlier, you really make what you will of it yourself. You have the opportunity to make your house visits. You have the opportunity to grow your roots in your own constituency, whether you are an elected Member or an NCMP. The fact of the matter is that the scheme being expanded gives the NCMP greater voices in Parliament in terms of numbers, at least, and also with the proposed amendments by the Prime Minister, they are now voting on an equal footing with elected Members. And those were the issues I took issue with.

Madam, just to clarify on the Member's most recent exposition, did he say that NCMPs have the same capacity to grow their roots in the constituency that they are contesting? Was that what he said?

I said you can make what you will of it yourself. If you choose to be proactive on the ground, you can be present well beyond what the current NCMPs might well be doing. But the fact of the matter is, nothing in the scheme today precludes the NCMP from being visible, present and active on the ground.

Madam, would the Member not agree that if a non-incumbent person, meaning not the incumbent Member of Parliament – besides if you are not a grassroots leader as well, under the People's Association – if you try to organise any activities in an area where you have no locus standi, you will need permission from other authorities to have the space to run those activities?

I think the fact of the matter is that whenever we choose to run an event, we hold a show, we all get the necessary permission, even for myself.

Ms Lim, your last point is actually no longer a clarification. You are making a new point. So, I think I will stop your clarification at this point. I call now Mr Heng Chee How.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

In the days of the Cold War, there was an East German person who braved the landmines and the machine gun fire in order to cross the border into West Germany to freedom. So, when he got to the other side, the Western media at that time were very interested to find out what happened – why this guy did this. And they were all gathered. The first one asked, "Why did you risk your life? I mean, you risked your life to run from communism to freedom. Therefore, what do you think of democracy and capitalism?" So, this man said, "I think democracy is chaotic and I think, in capitalism, men exploit men".

This was not the sort of answer that the reporters had expected because this guy braved the machine guns. Stunned, they asked again, "If that is what you thought of democracy and capitalism, then why did you risk your life coming here?" The man thought for a moment and he said, "Because I think that there is more bread here."

Mdm Speaker, certainly, man does not live by bread alone, but I think bread is also important. And before I go into my text for today, I just also wanted to reflect some of the things that Mr Low said just now.

He said the first 50 years – not his exact words, but that is what I understood to be what he was saying – that it was a journey where Singapore came out of very difficult circumstances, hostile environment, hostile neighbourhood to make it this far and that the next 50 years is different and, therefore, we have to change the model of our boat. I say it is not so simple.

I would agree that the first 50 years is a journey fraught with difficulties. We came out of difficult circumstances, people did not expect us to go very far or to survive very long. And we made it this far, taking those necessary and difficult decisions along the way, good leadership, good people working together. The next 50 years, totally different, we have arrived and it is just about aspirations – I do not think so. I think it is on top of these constraints. If anything, I think the world is becoming ever more complex, more difficult to deal with and, therefore, I say that the aspirations that we have, the values that we want to espouse, we build it on top of and never neglect that.

So, Mr Low says that as a result of that, one thing that we have to do is to buy insurance for our political system. I ask Singaporeans to consider: in this world, where all the original constraints continue to bind us and it is becoming ever more complex, think of what insurance to buy.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spent a good deal of his speech explaining to Singaporeans and this House how we should enhance our system, precisely because – and he recognised that – we need that diversity of views. For one, for the NCMP system, he is expanding it not only in numbers but in the powers that they would have, voting in this House. Look at that. That is a practical example of a political party which understands what the people want and taking steps in order to ensure that their interest, what they want, is also reflected here. I say, buying insurance is correct, but please know which insurance policy you are considering.

Madam, in this House, we have heard many adjectives used by our hon colleagues in their speeches these past few days describing the vision of the Singapore that they want to see – wise, united, confident. Indeed, these are important elements of a successful society and nation because they help us imagine the ideal collective spirit of the nation that we should commit ourselves to protecting, to co-creating for the future.

That said, it is equally important that we think clearly about what needs to be done to achieve those ends in practical terms and in practical ways. For today, I would just limit what I want to say in the context of a maturing population and local workforce.

Madam, whenever people consider the future, sometimes, there is a tendency to speak in terms of the young inheriting the future. The young will certainly be there to inherit the future – that is true. But what is often assumed, perhaps not spoken, is that the older population has less of a part in that future because they are, willy-nilly, fading away, or that they are more there to be cared for than to contribute. And I think we must strenuously disabuse ourselves in Singapore of that notion and I would explain why.

All of us know that we have an ageing population, brought about by ever-improving longevity and prolonged low birth rates. We are told that we have, by a recent count ,some 300,000 citizens above the age of 65 and that by the sheer movement of the baby boomers through time, that the number will triple to 900,000 or more by the year 2030. And, of course, if we were to count from those aged 50 and above, the numbers would be even bigger.

Therefore, this is not a question of a possible black swan appearing on our horizon. This one needs no guesswork. It is an inescapable fact. The older population amongst us is not fading away. It is, in fact, an expanding segment.

So, does it really matter if the older population is an expanding segment? The answer is yes, it does. If this growing segment is strong, healthy and capable, then we have an advantage nationally. If it is weak, sickly and outdated, we will have to find more resources in order to pay for its upkeep. This is a core part of our social and economic defence.

If we look around us − and for those of us, middle-aged, you just look at our cohorts − I think it is fair to say that, by way of physical health, mature Singaporeans today at whatever chronological age are, on the whole, in a better shape than those of equivalent-age citizens two or three decades ago. And this has led some to say that the 60s are now the new 50s.

This is an important notion, in my view, because if the condition of mature citizens today is equivalent to those much younger in days gone by and, with improved assistive technology and design that the physical disparities between the older and the younger could also be compensated for, then what does that mean? It means that we can and we must retune our thinking and mindsets about what each age cohort is capable of doing, not only as individuals but within corporations and for this country. The whole idea of what constitutes that bracket called "Working Age population" is itself shifting. It is expanding. And for us to fail to take note of this as individuals, as companies, as HR and companies, I think it is for us to live in the past and to be guilty not only of mindless ageism and misjudgement, but, indeed, of wasting national resources, to our own detriment.

So, the old is, in a relative sense, getting younger. Interestingly, even as that is becoming clearer to us by the day, I think something quite the opposite is happening to those who are, by chronological age, younger.

We hear much about the ever-accelerating pace of change in science, technology and societal tastes and norms. We acknowledge that whatever content we may learn in school and University will very quickly become obsolete as a result of this relentless whirlwind of change. The young people emerging from our institutes of learning in their twenties will also find themselves falling behind the technology curve within, let us say, 10 years of graduating and be considered by companies to be outdated if they have not kept up with upgrading. Thus, strangely, those younger in age are also feeling the pressure of obsolescence that we typically think are associated with people maybe 20, 30, 40 years their senior and the physical fitness that they have, conferred by youth, is not an antidote for that.

MOM released today an Employment Report showing that net local jobs growth in the economy for 2015 has basically become flat, following more robust growth previously. So, it is continuing with its efforts to promote quality growth, to get quality jobs for locals, to maintain and strengthen the Singaporean Core, even as our economy and the local labour supply do not grow like before.

I look at these trends with keen interest, because what do we make of them? My belief is that they do not necessarily bode ill for us, if we play our cards well.

This is because these trends actually help us focus and they help educate us that we must abandon the deep-seated assumptions and biases about this correlation between chronological age and one's potential and capabilities on the one hand; and on the other hand, it makes it crystal clear that all of us, regardless of age, the chances of being able to take up good jobs, of being able to be matched to good jobs when jobs are, perhaps, not as plentiful as before, rest upon continual broadening and deepening of capabilities. And, I say, regardless of age.

The data also show us what our realistic options are in terms of our sources of manpower. In short, we have to make the best use of every single person. And if a segment in that workforce, namely, the older segment, is growing, then you want to make the best use of that certainly, especially when we are told by previous reports by MOM, by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) that this workforce will, in fact, peak, on an overall basis, sometime between 2020 and 2025. Foreign sources will not be easily available and have to continue to be tightly managed for social and security reasons.

Mdm Speaker, numbers aside, there is also a rich store of value in mature working people, the value accumulated and distilled through years of experience, networking and overcoming challenges. If companies and industries fail to intelligently tap and hold on to persons with such valuable assets and lose them, say, through unnecessary and premature retirement or short-sighted retrenchments, then when they need them, they cannot find them, they lose important institutional memory, knowledge and expertise. This is, to my mind, the equivalent of inflicting upon themselves a form of corporate or industry dementia.

In order to avert this lose-lose scenario, HR systems, policies and training opportunities must certainly adapt to the evolving realities. Investment in mature workers' training and development, done over a longer time span and runway, certainly, is not about tokenism. It is not even about fairness. It is straightforwardly, in our case, about smart decision-making by those accountable for business continuity and competitiveness. If you have a mature worker, you may say, by way of analogy, that you have a saw. If you do not keep that saw sharp, you neglect to sharpen it, then you will find that your sawing operation will be less efficient. You created that result. Do not belittle or blame the saw.

Madam, for our people to confidently make a good living in future, we must anchor our hopes on staying relevant to changing needs and being able to adapt quickly. At the same time, we must continue to innovate and enable options for more earning years.

(Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

As of December last year, through surveys done by the NTUC, 85% of unionised companies are consciously employing workers beyond the age of 65. Tripartite partners are finalising the implementation schedule of raising the re-employment age ceiling from 65 to 67 and I am confident that the agreement will be made public soon. And with that, I think it sets the stage for us to, once again, think ahead to what may be possible beyond that.

For example, can we conceive of giving workers the chance and the choice to work beyond 67 on a regular basis? And, if so, what safeguards would be necessary and appropriate to put in place to address both the interests, as well as the fears, of workers and companies? Can there be more scope for customisation of arrangements according to industry or job types? How about, where there are company groups, the whole concept of where do you re-employ people to? Could it see a possible extension in a responsible way? These are some of the issues that I think are good for the tripartite partners to begin thinking about and discussing.

I think there is also room for Government policy to be reviewed to enable more earning years in a responsible way. I will give Members an example.

In June 2014, at my Meet-the-People session, one of my residents from Whampoa, Mr Ng, came to see me. Sixty-nine going on 70, he had a heavy vehicle licence and had been using that to drive heavy vehicles for a living for years and brought up a whole family. Problem was that the policy says that when you reach 70, you cannot renew that heavy vehicle licence which, to him, meant what was he going to earn a living with? I looked at him, he looked very fit, very alert and he said to me, "Send me to any health test, eye test, reflex test, test me. If I am good, let me through. If I am no good, stop me." I thought that was reasonable, I appealed for him. The appeal was rejected. I did not think it was right. I did not think it was fair. We must, of course, ensure safety for all road users. And I felt that appropriate tests, indeed, ought to be put in place to safeguard that aspect and then allow those who pass to continue earning a living. So, both he and I persisted in our appeals.

And I was glad that the Government heeded the needs of groups of Singaporeans in that kind of situation and updated the policy. So, in December last year, it raised the age limit from 70 to 75, subject to the motorist passing specified medical and driving proficiency tests. This shows that enabling, giving a chance and a choice, is possible. If you think about it, think about what is it that makes a person employable, is it fitness, is it attitude, is it skills? Address those things. It can be done.

There is also more that the tripartite partners can do to further bolster retirement adequacy provisions. For example, various measures were implemented in last year's Budget to boost that. From the CPF angle, higher CPF salary ceilings, higher Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) contribution cap; raising CPF contribution rates for older workers, equalising those aged 50 to 55 with younger workers; enhancing progressivity through extra CPF interest.

The CPF LIFE scheme would also pay CPF members a stream of income in old age, with the Silver Support Scheme providing additional support for low-income seniors. We should continue to consider what further steps could be put in place, at the appropriate times, to enhance retirement adequacy through both CPF and non-CPF pathways.

CPF contribution rate ceilings, differences and interest rates should, of course, be periodically reviewed to ensure that they keep in step with changes in, for example, nominal income, as well as changes in conditions of the labour and money markets.

There should also be a deeper study of the apportionment of CPF savings between the various uses, to ensure that the original and primary purpose of the CPF scheme to help strengthen retirement adequacy is sufficiently assured.

It is still common to hear the phrase "Asset Rich Cash Poor". Hence, the Government should also examine the experience of facilitating the monetisation of property assets in retirement. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people are still generally reluctant to sell or partly lease-back their property in order to derive cash in old age, for cultural reasons. So, how then, if they have locked the money in there, can we help people make more rational allocations and monetisation?

Finally, we must tap ever-improving assistive technology and world-class age management and job design practices in order to enable productive employment, regardless of age.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the economy's chances of successful renewal and achieving a sustainable Singaporean Core rest squarely on how the Government and society rally and mobilise the entire population and workforce to lifelong learning, skills upgrading and adaptability. And this is not just a question about programming and funding.

It is about clear-headedness, effort, judgement, perseverance and, above all, an unwavering commitment to creating a better future for each and for all.

Our goal must be that every citizen is a stronger and more versatile person and that, together, we will build a more resilient and dynamic Singapore. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address and to join in this debate.

Just this morning, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) released a set of manpower and employment data for 2015.

There are critical ups and downs that I would like to bring to this House.

Employment growth in 2015 is down and the lowest in 13 years. Redundancy is up in 2015. Unemployment is flat but we must not assume it will stay flat or low. I expect an uptrend, especially for PMEs.

Indeed, a timely reminder to all of us of the pressing need to redouble our efforts to restructure and find breakthroughs, lest we run the risk of having many of our fellow workers, especially PMEs, left behind or, worse still, left in the lurch. The data reflect a worrying trend that I have been seeing in the increasing cases of PMEs coming to the Labour Movement for help.

Allow me to elaborate. There are PMEs entering the workforce who want to land a job or are looking to move up within their jobs; there are also female PMEs who have left the workforce to look after their family and now want to re-enter the workforce; and then there are the mature PMEs, many of whom are above 40 years of age, who may be out of job or are vulnerable to job loss or returned from an overseas job role and looking for jobs to move across or move into.

I personally know some of them and have spoken to those who visit our U PME Centre. Some are demoralised, some are resigned, some are fearful and some dejected.

I strongly feel we can do more and do better in this area of jobs and job security for our fellow Singaporean PMEs because, if we do not, we will run the risk of more ups and downs. We run the risk of an increase in the unemployment of PMEs and PME redundancy. We are also likely to see a dip in employment creation and, subsequently, a drop in the hiring of locals.

In short, in the next couple of years, the likely reality will be that workers and, in particular, PMEs, may need to brace themselves for redundancies, unemployment, slower employment growth and, possibly, under-employment.

So, what can we do for our PMEs? We must, first, recognise the three mismatches or challenges our PMEs face. What are these three mismatches? They are the mismatch of skills, mismatch of jobs and mismatch of expectations.

First, mismatch of skills. I often hear complaints from some employers that our local PMEs lack the skills and experience for certain jobs and, therefore. they have to look elsewhere. Some employers feel our workers lack the regional and global experience and so cannot promote them or fill them up with our local PMEs. Then again, there are those who are over-skilled or over-qualified for the jobs, resulting in an under-employment situation.

Second, mismatch of expectations. My colleagues at our U PME Centre and e2i have highlighted that there are some PMEs who go to them with unrealistic expectations in terms of the type of jobs and conditions. Then, I also hear of employers who lament and do not hire mature PMEs because they claim many of them cannot change, they cannot adapt to the new requirements expected of them and a host of other ageist remarks.

There are some PMEs who may not be able to keep pace with the new job demands. There are also companies which do not take proactive steps to re-design, re-create or re-size the jobs or manage the change. Our society, too, must recognise and expect that we have a growing ageing workforce and that there will be an ever-increasing number of PMEs, mature ones, in our midst.

Third, the mismatch of jobs. There are cases where PMEs are not well-matched with their current jobs. They do jobs which they have neither passion nor interest for. Sometimes, the job size is too small or quality of the job is not good. They become less motivated and less productive. There are those whose characters or personalities do not quite fit or match the kind of requirements the job entails.

So, with these ups and downs and three mismatches, how can we help our future workforce of PMEs grapple with the Future Landscape and land themselves in Future Jobs?

Is there a way to help us overcome the challenges of the employment landscape in the months and years ahead? Can we do more to minimise the gaps? I strongly believe we can and we can do so through strengthening what I call the 3Cs.

What are these three Cs? They are: (a) strengthening the Core – the Singaporean Core; (b) strengthening the Connection – the Connection between PMEs and jobs; and (c) strengthening Careers – the Careers of PMEs to ensure they stay future-ready.

First, strengthening the Singaporean Core. PMEs I speak to highlight the issue of nationality bias in the workplace. Two situations arise. One is where the entire workplace is filled with PMEs of a particular nationality. The grouse is not with their presence but the excessive presence and stark visuals. Second, is where foreign PMEs take jobs which Singaporean PMEs can fill, such as hiring a foreign PME to handle our local SME market or doing support or administrative functions, including basic HR functions.

The Fair Consideration Framework and National Jobs Bank had been rolled out in 2014. This is a good start. However, the test now is whether it has helped create a Singaporean Core in all sectors and all companies.

I still hear murmurings about certain sectors, the IT sector and the financial sector, in particular. The feedback is that there are still companies in these two sectors where there is a weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to create a Singaporean Core.

The employment data fleshed out this morning seemed to have confirmed the ground feedback about the IT sector. We should and must take more resolute steps. However, it should not be a broad sweep. We should target at specific sectors and companies which remain recalcitrant and show a disregard or weak commitment to forming a Singaporean Core. Mr Cedric Foo and Ms Foo Mee Har had, on Tuesday, sounded the same concern. I am now putting forward two suggestions.

The first is to impose a PME dependency ratio, similar to that for Work Permits and S Passes, for problem sectors which display the two "weaks" – weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to hire and develop Singaporeans.

The second is to impose stricter Employment Pass application conditions and requirements for companies with the two "weaks". We need to move not just from a manpower-led to manpower-lean economy, but a Singaporean PME-led and foreigner PME-lean economy for our locals to fully exploit the labour market and, yet, be able to fully realise their potential and skills.

As we have seen in recent weeks, certain sectors have started laying off PMEs. This may well be just the tip of the iceberg. We need to brace ourselves and, when employers do downsize and retrench, we urge them to let go of our Singaporean PMEs last.

Second, strengthening the connection of PMEs to jobs. Many of the PMEs who come to the U PME Centres are experienced, knowledgeable and skilled. However, they may not know that with their experience and skills, there are other jobs, other sectors, that they can move across to.

Hence, we need to strengthen the connection of jobs to our people and minimise the information gap. We need to know where the in-demand jobs are and the gaps in supply. We have the National Jobs Bank and other job portals where we can easily aggregate the job openings, mine the data and get a good sensing and greater insights.

Our national programmes and agencies would be the best source of sussing out the demand and supply, particularly now, with SkillsFuture and the sectoral manpower plans and EDB/MOM data. With all this information, we can strengthen our employment facilitation. There are lots of analysis, synthesis, forecasting and analytics involved. It is hard work and it has to be a joint and collective effort by all, across agencies, tripartite partners and different stakeholders.

In the same vein, even as we recreate current jobs and create new jobs, we should provide diversity and variety so that we can marry aspirations, passions, skills with good jobs and quality jobs. PMEs are increasingly more vulnerable to job losses and retrenchments. With the uncertain economic outlook, I worry for them. I, therefore, recently revisited the idea of better protecting our PMEs through unemployment insurance.

I do not think unemployment insurance is an impossibility, whether privately-run or publicly-run and universally administered, but it needs closer study and scrutiny.

We have to ask ourselves some important questions, such as: who can, should or shall be on the scheme? How much premium does one pay? What if you are in an industry which is more vulnerable or, in the converse, one which is more secure? How much and for how long should the monthly payouts be?

At the end of the day, it all boils down to whether we can ensure the livelihood of the individual. Instead of a short-term and temporary fix like an unemployment insurance, why not give our PMEs the best insurance – that of a decent-paying job with a decent pay?

Many employers and PMEs I speak to are not aware of the Career Support Programme (CSP) which was rolled out on 1 October last year. I urge all to take a closer look. The CSP provides subsidies to employers who hire mature PMEs 40 years and above for jobs paying $4,000 and above. Whether in peacetime or in the event of a downturn, the CSP not just helps PMEs land a job through direct wage subsidy to their employers, it ensures all PMEs affected have a job, a monthly salary, for the longer term.

Better still, no premiums need to be paid. And if you ask how long it can sustain the PME, I would say it is for as long as you do your job and do it well. I suggest we should further promote, position and expand the CSP to provide targeted help to all PMEs.

The CSP must drive and alter the behaviour of our companies and businesses and the mindsets of employers to seriously consider our mature PMEs. It will also provide our PMEs more options and opportunities in a challenging landscape.

Third, strengthening the careers of PMEs. We need to arm our people with the right skills, put them in the right jobs with the right experience and expectations so that they can embark on a right career.

As part of SkillsFuture, we must focus on the skills required for our PMEs to progress and prosper in a rapidly changing world. In the past, training was about imparting knowledge. Today, it is about providing each individual with the tools to navigate an increasingly uncertain, volatile world.

One answer would be promoting skills-oriented learning throughout workers' lives and integrate it into the workplace and outside the workplace. It has to be a continuum from Primary education to work and adult learning. It is not just to up-skill but to deep-skill, second-skill, to stay future-ready and future-proof themselves and also reskill if old jobs are gone and new jobs created.

Training and lifelong learning needs to be both employer-supported and individually initiated and will require the involvement of every sector of society, from tripartite partners to various stakeholders. All said, the future will depend on individuals and their willingness to take advantage of the opportunities and invest in their own futures to stay future-ready.

To conclude, we can overcome the ups and the downs and better match the three mismatches by: strengthening the Singaporean Core; strengthening the connection to jobs; and strengthening the careers of every worker, especially PMEs.

As we move into an increasingly unstable, unpredictable and uncertain economic landscape, our workers need to re-calibrate ourselves and re-set our mental models. Employers and businesses must not be content with just re-adjusting but need to re-innovate and restructure. The Government needs to rethink and recreate. We need to triple our collective efforts to retool ourselves to be ready, relevant and resilient. On this note, I support the Motion of thanks to the President.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion. Sir, The President has set us on course in his speech and we are charting the path for the future. Singapore, as a nation, has to find our way amidst the shifting sands of global economic, societal and political developments. But as the economy and society evolve rapidly, Singaporeans are in an ongoing struggle to survive and thrive.

As we continue to adapt and develop, we must go beyond merely acquiring skills to developing an outlook that is enlightened and progressive, being confident in ourselves and having the strength to welcome the participation of some non-locals into our workforce to complement and supplement us in areas where we lack resources. But in the process, it is our deeply rooted Singaporean Core and sense of belonging which will inspire Singaporeans to continue to propel the nation forward.

Sir, a component of a sense of belonging is a firm belief that there are equal opportunities for all Singaporeans and every citizen knows that he or she has an equal chance to participate in and benefit from the nation's future progress.

As the President pointed out in his Address, we must strive to leave no one behind, even as we create opportunities for all. The Prime Minister yesterday highlighted the importance of upholding multiracial diversity in our political system; in particular for minorities to have equal opportunities for political representation in the Elected Presidency as well as the GRC system.

This assurance of representation in leadership contributes towards all races having a sense of belonging to this nation. And it is, of course, also the case that all Members of Parliament – regardless of our ethnicity – are required to prove ourselves in the course of our terms. We must demonstrate our competence in our duties and that we represent and protect the interests of all Singaporeans, not just any particular race. Smaller GRCs – as proposed by the Prime Minister – will enable us as Members Parliament to connect more closely with our constituents and represent them even better. This is what makes Singapore strong, that we all look out for one another, regardless of our various backgrounds, for the benefit of our nation as a whole.

We are also justifiably proud of our system of meritocracy. But along with that, we must also work towards ensuring that all citizens have equal opportunities for social mobility. As science and technology advance at an exponential rate, we may soon be confronted with many chasms – one of which could potentially be between those who are able to use technology and those who are left behind. In addition, a lag in skills catch-up could lead to technological or structural unemployment, making matters worse.

Programmes have already been put in place to help train all Singaporeans and narrow the skills gap. There have been many useful training and educational opportunities to help to level the playing field for all Singaporeans, no matter what their starting point. These include the SkillsFuture and the recently set up Future Ready Committee in MENDAKI, amongst others.

I would like to, first, focus on the progress that my community, the Malay/Muslim community, has made as well as the opportunities and challenges that we face. Deputy Speaker, Sir, at this point, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community has made significant progress over the last 50 years. This improvement was the result of various programmes by the Government and Malay/Muslim bodies. However, our community can achieve much more and we should also seize more opportunities in Singapore and the world. The Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has outlined three challenges for the Malay/Muslim community. One of them is staying relevant in a rapidly-changing economy.

If there is a good time in our community's history where we can all rise and build a better future together, that time is now. We have many young people with a median age of 31.4, compared to the national median age of 37.

4. In a few decades, we will have the opportunity to build a larger middle class that is highly educated and successful. This group will become an important component of a strong Singaporean Core – as positive contributors who are essential to the nation in all areas.

Nonetheless, this opportunity can also be viewed as the biggest challenge to our community. If we fail to harness the potential of our youths, it can turn into a major and great loss.

We should also focus on efforts to encourage and channel our youths into sectors that have the potential for high growth. These sectors can provide high salaries and the community should try to penetrate and take advantage of these sectors. These include new areas that are required by digital transformation, special production activities, applications and modern services, which we will see in our future economy.

We must also maximise the potential of youths who do not have tertiary education. I would like to highlight the findings from the journal of the Third AMP Convention, whereby, out of the cohort of Primary 1 Malay students, about 60%-65% of them will not receive higher education. About 45% will go to ITE, while 20% will become post-secondary school students.

If we look at the job market now, 40% of people who seek employment through "MENDAKI Sense" in 2015, for instance, are those who have "N" or "O" level certificates as their highest qualifications. The other 30% have ITE or Polytechnic diplomas.

If this trend continues and if economic recession takes place, it is very possible that this will have a cascading effect on the economic status of Malay/Muslim families.

At the other end of the spectrum, initial findings from a study commissioned by MENDAKI about employment prospects, which was done on over 100 Malay/Muslim graduates, managed to give a peek into the situation involving our Malay/Muslim graduates. The study was done by Prof Tan Khee Giap titled "Longitudinal Study on Comparative Employability and Career Advancement Path for Tertiary Educated Malay/Muslim Singaporeans and Chinese Singaporeans".

Over 70% of respondents showed a risk-averse attitude and cannot see themselves moving to another industry in the next five years. Almost 60%, for instance, are unaware of the latest SkillsFuture initiatives. More than 60% feel that they will need assistance to enable them to progress in their careers.

If these findings are taken as an indicator, future PMETs from this cohort will be facing major challenges. Therefore, it is important to prepare our youths and younger workers to face future challenges. Workers without new skills or those who have lower qualifications and skills will be affected.

The recent call about SkillsFuture is timely for our Malay/Muslim youths. Recently, MENDAKI set up a Future Ready Committee that aims to play an important role in this issue in a more consistent manner for the long term.

It is also important to strengthen our sense of belonging, especially in the efforts to ensure racial harmony and also increase the confidence of the Malay/Muslim community, so that we can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the other communities at the workplace.

Hence, I would like to stress the importance of improving fair practices in job opportunities. In the current situation, where we face a landscape of a slowing economy in the future, tight labour market and disruptive technology, it is crucial that focus is given to overcoming the perception that the available opportunities are unequal and there is discrimination. This is important in order to avoid potential social and security issues from emerging in this country in the long term.

Singapore's economic challenges will impact everyone in Singapore and not just the Malay/Muslim community. We may see a future scenario where current Malay/Muslim workers and those who will enter the job market must be ready to compete on an equal footing in the job market.

I am sure that the Government will do its best to help those who are affected to find employment. Hence, while no Singaporean will be denied the opportunities, it also means that no one will be given special treatment.

I end with a poem stating that there are opportunities being made available for everyone equally and we should also ensure that we have a broad view of the entire situation.

"A major lane outside the city

Travelling by car in the evening

Opportunities are available equitably

We have to keep an open mind."

(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall now continue in English to discuss enhancements to our employment practices as well as the challenges that the PMETs face. We all remember the bad old days of the job advertisements in our local newspapers which would boldly state, for example, only a certain race can apply. Thankfully, those days are firmly in our past.

I am particularly pleased to note that, based on the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP)'s 2014 annual report, the number of complaints lodged against discriminatory practices in 2014 had been almost halved from 2013. Employers are proactively seeking out resources to hire previously-disadvantaged groups of people. The number of enquiries in this regard has risen by about twice from the year before. This is very encouraging, as it is a clear indication that outreach exercises have been helpful and more companies are developing into conducive workplaces on their own accord.

While TAFEP has been inspiring and supportive, greater enforcement is necessary to get passive employers on board. The Australian Government's Fair Work Ombudsman comes to mind as a model statutory agency that not only educates, but investigates and enforces. If there is a serious breach of a workplace law, Government officials will conduct the relevant investigations.

The offending employer can be taken to Court, depending on the outcome of the investigation. The Australian Employment Act prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, religion, age, gender, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer's responsibilities and pregnancy, amongst other factors. Employers guilty of unlawful discrimination could be fined up to A$54,000 per contravention for a corporation and A$10,800 per contravention for an individual.

Likewise, in Finland, Finnish employment law specifically prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of a similar range of factors. Employers found guilty of discrimination can be fined or imprisoned, while victimised employees may claim compensation for illegal discrimination.

The employment laws for both countries have essentially made discriminatory practices prosecutable by law, in order to emphasise the importance of equality.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, the TAFEP framework deserves to be equipped with more teeth to be more effective in weeding out discriminatory workplace practices. MOM is introducing the Employment Claims Tribunal which covers PMETs earning above $4,500. The Tribunal will have the power to make orders for employers to reimburse employees for employment-related claims. Parties who disagree with the decision of the Tribunal or with the quantum of the award made by the Tribunal, will have the right to appeal to the High Court to review the decision.