Firstly, the numerical multiplier argument. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has articulated this argument before inside and outside this House. If I were to summarise it at the risk of oversimplification, it is the view that we do not have enough Singaporeans and not of the right skills and talent to do all the cutting-edge economic activities we want to do as a global hub city. So, we need to import foreign talent and, if we do that well, this creates good jobs for Singaporeans. We try to upskill and upwage Singaporeans. But if foreigners account for a large share of the better-paid jobs, it is still okay because Singaporeans are in good jobs that they might not have if the foreigners were not here. So, Singaporeans are absolutely better off, even if, sometimes, they may feel relatively worse off in the employment hierarchy. Or to put it another way, this argument is saying if Singaporeans want to always hog all the better-paying jobs, we will end up poorer in purchasing power terms. This argument stands, by the way, on solid ground in the field of political philosophy. It reminds me of the Rawlsian theory of justice I studied as an undergraduate. According to the philosopher, John Rawls, in a seminal work "A Theory of Justice", inequality could be justified if that inequality causes the least well-off person in a society to become better off in absolute terms. Honestly, Sir, there is much to be said for the numerical multiplier thesis and it can be found as the subtext to employment policies in many countries and cities.