Hansard, Tuesday, 3 October 2017

1 Mr Leon Perera asked the Prime Minister (a) how many of the official websites of Ministries and Statutory Boards meet the WCAG 2.0 or other international standards for website accessibility by persons with disabilities (PWDs); and (b) what steps will be taken to ensure that Government websites are accessible to PWDs to the fullest extent possible.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 is the international standard for making web content more accessible to persons with disabilities (PWDs). It is adopted by various governments around the world, including Singapore. WCAG guidelines include the ability to resize websites' text without assistive technology, ensuring a minimum colour contrast ratio and providing captions for videos.

Our Government websites are required to satisfy the WCAG 2.0 requirements. The websites of agencies are audited for compliance against the standards. Over the past three years, 90% of the agencies' websites audited complied with the WCAG 2.0 requirements. Those which did not comply were required to improve their websites to the standards within several months.

During this financial year (FY) 2017, we will enhance the digital standards for our Government websites beyond WCAG 2.0, as we continue to raise their level of inclusivity and usability for more users. For example, we will incorporate the new Singapore Standard SS618 by the Standards, Productivity and Innovation Board (SPRING) Singapore, "Guidelines on User Interface Design for Older Adults", that aim to further enhance the online user experience of our websites, such as having audio captions in large font.

For citizens, including PWDs who need further help to transact online, or who do not have Internet access, Citizen Connect Centres (CCCs) have been set up at various Community Centres/Clubs to assist them in this regard. In addition, some of the CCCs have features, such as elderly-friendly touch screen interfaces and height-adjustable kiosks, for wheelchair users.

Mr Leon Perera.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the very clear reassurance. Just a very quick clarification. I take it that 100% of the Government and Statutory Boards websites are compliant with this standard. Can we infer that from the Senior Minister of State's answer? At the present point in time, 100% of Government and Statutory Board websites are compliant with the WCAG 2.0 standard?

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is hard to be absolutely sure that 100% of every single webpage in the public sector is compliant at this point in time, because there are continually updates, that is, new pages, new sites, new services, just as some sites are taken down.

The audit is ongoing. On a cyclical basis, we will get through all the agencies' websites. Over the last three years, 90% were compliant and those that we detected that were not compliant, they became compliant. I have a reasonably high assurance that almost all our Government websites are compliant. If there are any that the Member comes across that are not compliant, please direct them to us and we will help to ensure that they become compliant.

2 Ms Tin Pei Ling asked the Prime Minister whether he can provide an update on the progress of the new digital identity system development in Singapore and how the Government intends to scale up on the use and applications of biometric elements.

Mr Speaker, Singaporeans have been increasing their volume of online transactions with both the Government and private companies. It is essential to have a secure digital identity system to protect the integrity of these transactions. Our current digital identity system relies on the SingPass with 2-Factor Authentication. The next step is to develop a mobile software token-based authentication system. We will also remove the inconvenience of repeatedly entering the same data on multiple forms by expanding the MyInfo service for more digital services. These will take place in the first half of 2018.

Beyond security and convenience, our larger goals include enhancing the efficiency of our enterprises and business processes. A fully functioning national identity system and e-payment platform will enable the delivery of more innovative services to a wider client base at lower cost. For example, there would be less need for counter services and the processing of paper forms. The National Digital Identity (NDI) will create opportunities for new business models.

To realise these outcomes, we need the public and private sectors to collaborate and to develop the appropriate industry standards. We have started consultations with several industry sectors, and plan to conduct trials for value-added services with the participation of companies. These services include digital signatures and document vaults. This will be developed in 2019.

We are also exploring various forms of biometric technologies, such as facial recognition, to enhance the security for identification, authentication and authorisation. We are particularly interested in form factors that make it convenient for the elderly, the young and the disabled to use and benefit from NDI. A Smart Nation must serve all segments of the population.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Mr Speaker, I have to declare that I am from a relevant industry, that is, the financial technology (fintech) industry. I would like to ask two quick questions. Firstly, with the increase in applications with biometric elements, how will this affect the current public services and systems, as they transition over? Secondly, may I ask whether some of the services or applications, such as PayNow, will be open to the private players to build on, such as through opening up of application programming interfaces (APIs)?

Mr Speaker, I thank Ms Tin for her questions. With respect to the first issue about the transition into biometric systems, for any of the transitions, we are not aiming for nor planning a complete cut-over. So, whatever solutions and processes that are in place, it will be a gradual phased transition. For any given platform, service, product or process, there is likely to be a transition phase where there will be multiple pathways. You should be able to use various ways to authenticate and verify identity. You will have that parallel process for some time. So, it will be a very phased transition. This will also allow us to make sure that whatever new solutions we put in place are robust, user-friendly, effective and we would be able to update the technology over time. It also requires us to put in place some discipline about how we design our solutions to make sure there is significant interoperability among the standards.

This feeds into the second question that Ms Tin asked. The various systems, including PayNow, are designed to be interoperable. We want that interoperability to extend into the private sector as far as possible. Private sector players would, of course, have to then comply with the various regulations that we impose. Effectively, it is in the private sector. The banks are private sector players and they are riding on PayNow.

So, we do expect and hope that more and more of our Smart Nation platforms will extend out from the public sector to the private sector.

The following question stood in the name of Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng –

3 To ask the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (a) what is the rationale for the policy of only penalising the management of food establishments when patrons flout the no-smoking regulation; and (b) why is there no accountability expected of those who intentionally commit smoking offences despite reminders by the food establishment staff, management and other patrons.

Question No 3.

My Ministry's long-term goal is to prohibit smoking in all public areas except at designated smoking areas. This is to protect non-smokers from the harmful health effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.

The National Environment Agency (NEA) actively conducts inspections and patrols to ensure compliance with smoking prohibition regulations. Persons caught smoking in areas where smoking is prohibited, such as in shopping malls and food shops, are liable for a maximum fine of $1,000. In 2016, about 19,000 tickets were issued to smokers for smoking in prohibited areas, including more than 2,600 tickets issued to those found smoking in food establishments.

As smoking is prohibited in more than 32,000 premises, it is not possible for NEA to watch over every location. It is also not possible for our officers to respond immediately to every report of smoking in a prohibited place before the smoker finishes his cigarette. The operators and managers of smoke-free premises, therefore, have a legal duty to stop patrons from smoking or to request patrons to leave the premises if they refuse to stop smoking. In cases where the patrons do not stop smoking or leave the premises, the operator or manager of the premises could seek assistance from NEA. In 2016, NEA took about 400 enforcement actions against the operators and managers of premises who had not fulfilled their duty under the law.

While my Ministry will continue to enforce against any person who smokes in a smoking prohibited place, I would like to urge all smokers to be considerate when smoking in public places and to smoke only in permitted areas so as not to cause disamenities to others.

4 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how many companies have currently adopted the Tripartite Standards for Employment of Term Contract Employees; (b) what percentage of all resident term contract employees do these companies account for; (c) whether the companies who signed on to these Standards are audited or reviewed for compliance; and (d) how will these Standards be further improved in the future.

Mr Speaker, the Tripartite Standard for the Employment of Term Contract Employees was launched just two months ago. Since then, well over 400 employers have adopted the Standard, accounting for more than 28,000 or 17% of all resident term contract employees.

Instead of relying on audits, the Standard spells out clearly verifiable actions that employers commit to undertake and relies on employers' self-assessments of their ability to comply. If their employees experience any difficulty arising from non-compliance with the Standard, they can report to The Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), which will contact the employer to clarify their practices or to change them, so as to meet the Standard.

Our current focus is to increase the number of employers adopting this Standard. We will also consult with our tripartite partners at an appropriate time to review the Standard so as to ensure it remains relevant.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I would like to ask the Second Minister whether there are any review mechanisms that are available to the Ministry to review the standards, in terms of compliance by companies and, at the same time, whether there are any mechanisms to give some sanctions to the companies that fail the standards or have to be removed from the standards because they did not comply.

Mr Speaker, the short answer to the Member's first question is yes. TAFEP is the administrator of this Standard and TAFEP is the one that will reach out to companies. TAFEP is also the party that coordinates positions taken by the Labour Movement, that is, the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), as well as the Singapore National Employers' Federation, to see if there are good opportunities and reasons to adapt the Standard or adjust it based on changing needs.

The Member asked if there are sanctions. We have to understand the reason for having the Tripartite Standard against the backdrop of the other schemes that are in place is to try and promote progressive workplace practices.

Firstly, there are laws. To supplement the laws, there are also tripartite guidelines that the employers are expected to adhere to. Those ensure that employees are able to enjoy basic rights. At the same time, on the other end of the spectrum, which is completely voluntary, we have tripartite advisories. These basically give encouragement to companies on the types of practices that we would like to see more of.

The Standard is somewhere in between. The Standard gives the companies an incentive to sign up. Because by signing up to the Standard, they will be able to demonstrate to the prospective employees or jobseekers in a very visible way what they are committed to do. And so, there is a natural incentive for companies to sign up, provided the Standard is not so onerous and burdensome that it becomes so hard for them to reach. What goes into the Standard has to be very carefully calibrated.

The Tripartite Standard Framework has just been launched, in fact, two months ago, at the same time that we launched the Standard for Term Contract Employees. In just two months, more than 400 companies with about 17% of the resident Term Contract Employees base is not bad. So, we will push for more.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Second Minister for the reply. Just a quick query. She said that there is self-assessment that is being done by the companies in terms of compliance to the Standard. Would these self-assessments be submitted to the Ministry so that there is a record of the annual self-assessments being done by the companies so that there is a track record that could be used if there are any complaints made by Term Contract Employees?

The intent of self-assessment is to make it easier for the companies. So, we do not want to load them unnecessarily with administrative work. If, however, they have employees who look at what the company has declared and say that, "This is quite different from what they actually practise", then, what we do is to encourage the employees to let TAFEP know. TAFEP will engage the employers and then we can have a conversation with the employers as to whether they are carrying out what they promised to do.

5 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Manpower whether his Ministry will consider setting up a grant that companies can apply for to partially offset their cost of hiring one temporary staff member for each female employee entering their second trimester of pregnancy until their employee's child turns two years old.

Mr Speaker, to make our workplaces more family-friendly, employers, supervisors and co-workers should support working mothers during pregnancy and parenthood. As the requirements of each company and needs of the workers may differ, we do not prescribe how the support should be provided. One main way is through flexible work arrangements (FWAs). To encourage companies to implement FWAs, we provide the Work-Life Grant of up to $160,000 over four years per company.

Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Speaker, I thank the Second Minister for the reply. A lot of our focus is on providing support during the maternity leave period. I am just wondering whether we can provide more support before and after. Secondly, in a lot of the dialogue sessions that I have, the feedback is really about this kind of discrimination at the workplace. So, I wonder if the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) can conduct a study into this so that we can come up with some solutions and recommendations.

Mr Speaker, Mr Louis Ng's comment brought to mind two instances that I encountered not too long ago. One was the case of a food services company, a very well-known company that has got a significant presence in Singapore and quite a lot of employees. The person whom I met from this company is, in fact, someone who is on a Term Contract. Why is this person on a Term Contract? She is providing relief for the duties of a permanent, regular employee who is with child and is unable to handle all of the work at the same time and so, needs a little bit of support. What this company has done is to bring on board this Term Contract employee so as to allow the pregnant employee to have a greater ability to cope with the twin challenges of work and also the pregnancy. That is one example.

Another example that I came across was an accounting services firm. This is not a very big firm. It provides accounting and corporate secretarial services. The nature of the work is such that, actually, they have got significant representation of women in their workforce. The owners of this practice are themselves very family-friendly. They wanted to be able to support their employees. But they did find that in their circumstance, the continued interaction with the customers is very important. In fact, even if they were to bring on board someone to relieve the duties or to help this person carry out the work, it does not quite satisfy the customers.

So, they were creative and they found an alternative solution. They took advantage of the Work-Life Grant and they put in place a system that is known as double robotics technology. What this equipment allows the company to do is to bring the clients to the office, and even though the staff is working from home, they are actually able to interact with each other, speak, look at each other's facial expressions, talk about the project that is being worked on and how to move forward, and they can do so using technology.

The point that I am trying to highlight is that actually there are very many different needs of companies that we cannot predict in advance, and we have to leave it to the companies to specify and to design interventions that work for them. This is the reason why when we draw up the Work-Life Grant, we make it quite broad. We do not overly prescribe, we do not say you must do only this or do that, we tell them the grant is available to them, they put up a proposal and we will take a look. If it seems to make sense to what they are hoping that it would achieve for their employees as well as for their business, then we would like to be able to support it.

I would also like to share with Mr Louis Ng that since the Work-Life Grant was launched, we have had well over a thousand companies which have signed up. They are making good progress.

Mr Louis Ng.

I would like to ask the Second Minister on the second point of the study, because, really, during the dialogue sessions, a lot of people are raising that this form of discrimination does happen at the workplace. In fact, this Parliamentary Question is filed on behalf of one of the working mothers who was pregnant and faced this discrimination. So, I am just wondering whether we can launch a study about this, so that, again, we can find what is happening on the ground and come up with some solutions.

If there is a party that would like to get involved in the study, MOM is happy to work with this party to see how we can support it.

6 Miss Cheng Li Hui asked the Minister for Health (a) over the last three years, how many egg freezing procedures have been carried out at our public and private hospitals respectively; and (b) how prevalent are the risks of the procedure, such as infection and bleeding.

Egg freezing is currently only allowed either as part of an in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure for married women, or for women diagnosed with medical conditions, such as cancer, for which the treatment may damage or destroy their ovarian functions.

At present, the Ministry of Health monitors the number of IVF cycles carried out, rather than the egg freezing procedures conducted. From 2013 to 2015, an annual average of 2,700 and 1,400 fresh IVF cycles was carried out respectively in public and private assisted reproduction centres.

Based on estimates from licensed centres conducting IVF, complications from over-stimulation of ovaries, which could result in abdominal pain and vomiting in severe cases, occur in less than 1% of the cases. Likewise, the risk of infection and bleeding is low, with a prevalence of less than 1%.

This is consistent with the low prevalence of operative risks conducted overseas. Studies overseas indicate that the prevalence of complications from over-stimulation of ovaries ranges from 0.1% to 2%, and that of infection and bleeding at about 1% of cases.

Miss Cheng Li Hui.

I thank the Senior Minister of State. I have just one supplementary question. In view of the prevalence of family planning, will the Ministry once again consider allowing egg freezing for young healthy women with no medical needs? Singapore is a premier healthcare service provider in the region and countries like the United States, Australia, Thailand and Malaysia allow this. So, I hope that our health policy can reflect the changing trends and allow this with proper counselling.

I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As the Member has rightly noted, social egg freezing is currently disallowed in Singapore and there are various reasons for this.

Whilst the medical risks can be addressed through regulation as well as enhanced public education and counselling of potential users, there are social and ethical implications that have to be considered carefully. Couples may delay marriage and parenthood thinking that egg freezing would assure them that they can have a child later on in life when they wish to conceive.

Age-related fertility issues actually affect both men and women. The best way to ensure having a healthy child, really, is when couples are relatively young and healthy. Nonetheless, we note the feedback that we have received. We are currently carefully considering the implications of allowing social egg freezing. We are monitoring international developments in the field of social egg freezing. We will review our position, taking into account the experiences of countries that have implemented this, as well as, of course, the proper safeguards that we need, for instance, the regulatory framework, to ensure or safeguard patients' safety should social egg freezing be allowed, as well as social and medical implications, and the prevailing societal norms and culture.

7 Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will consider making neo-natal insurance for IVF compulsory at the point of a positive pregnancy blood test rather than at the point of embryo transfer.

The Assisted Reproduction Programme (ARP) insurance scheme provides protection against possible high costs in neonatal bills incurred by babies conceived via in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). This is in recognition of the higher risks and costs that these babies potentially face at birth. For example, couples undergoing IVF run a higher risk of multiple pregnancies, and this may result in the premature birth of babies who may need neo-natal intensive care.

Couples are currently required to purchase ARP insurance at the point when they enroll for IVF. This makes the insurance premiums more affordable for all couples using IVF.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) is currently reviewing this policy. If the requirement to purchase insurance is deferred to a later stage, such as upon successful pregnancies from IVF, the risk pool will be smaller and the insurance premiums higher.

Mr Louis Ng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for saying that we are going to review this. One, what is the timeframe of this review? Second, it is not just the time you sign up for the IVF insurance, but I am also wondering whether we can get more companies to offer this neo-natal insurance because, at this point, only one company offers it. If we can get more companies, then, obviously, the pricing might improve as well.

The ARP insurance scheme was awarded via open tender to Great Eastern in 2011. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has decided that there is no need to have more than one provider currently because the pool is relatively small. In 2016, there were about 3,500 policies. But we will review this as necessary, going forward.

With regard to the review of our ARP insurance policies, the conditions and criteria, we are looking at them and several issues. We will come to a decision in due course.

8 Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) how prevalent and serious is bullying in our schools; (b) what preventive measures are undertaken to minimise and detect bullying; (c) whether our teachers are trained to handle bullying incidents; and (d) whether students involved in bullying and who are victims of bullying are given counselling care.

Mr Speaker, based on a student perception survey conducted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2015, about 10% and 20% of our 15-year-old students reported that they had experienced some form of social and verbal bullying respectively. Physical bullying was less prevalent at about 5%. This is quite similar to the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) findings and other local studies.

MOE does not tolerate bullying in any form and every child has a right to feel safe and secure in our schools. When students misbehave or make mistakes, schools will discipline and educate them so that there is learning and it will not be repeated. School staff will also counsel students who are involved in bullying as well as those affected by it.

Our school personnel have been trained to give attention to and address hurtful behaviours. Teachers are provided with training in classroom management strategies and positive classroom culture. There are resources which provide information, strategies and good practices to instill good discipline.

Through Character and Citizenship Education, students learn social skills, empathy, respect and awareness of the effects of mean actions on others. They also learn coping strategies, relationship management and help-seeking skills. Schools also actively create a positive and supportive environment for all our students. They have strengthened peer support by equipping students with relevant skills, such as befriending and active listening. The peer supporters will alert and seek help from their teachers when they observe situations that affect the safety of their classmates.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

I thank the Minister. There seems to be growing instances of people posting video recordings of bullying online which affect the students, the schools' reputation and the teachers' reputation, too. So, how does the Ministry respond to this? How will it do so in future?

Mr Speaker, the use of handphone in the classroom is actually prohibited. So, while the act is prohibited, the upstream measures that I have described actually are more important − teaching students how to cope with bullying behaviours, taking positive action to deal with those negative behaviours. And then, overall, in the classroom, how do you teach positive social behaviours like empathy for others, learning to care for others, beforehand? So, proactive measures are what we are doing in schools, and this would be the emphasis.

Generally, our students are well-behaved. Incidents in our schools in terms of bullying are very few and have been relatively stable.

Ms Chia Yong Yong.

I would like to ask the Minister for his clarification on the Ministry's definition of "bullying". At which point in time does the child's mischievous prank become bullying, and the kind of support that are given to students who have been thus identified, and, of course, how they are identified?

Mr Speaker, bullying is defined as persistent behaviour intended to cause hurt, distress or humiliation. It can be physical, verbal or psychological in nature. Cyberbullying is defined as any behaviour performed through electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that communicate hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort over time against a victim.

Because a post can be seen by many people and be easily reposted by others online causing hurt to victims, we understand that this is a growing area of concern and the schools are dealing with this.

In terms of support, the schools have put in place bullying prevention and intervention measures, such as providing accessible channels for safe reporting of bullying cases, investigating and following up promptly on reported cases, and, as I was saying in reply to Assoc Prof Daniel Goh earlier, adopting an educational approach to help all students, including bystanders, to learn from the incidents and prevent further bullying. These are the different support measures.

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Mr Speaker, my question to the Minister is: for those students who have committed acts of bullying, are there also initiatives to involve their parents in the counselling process of the bullies themselves, not just the victims? And further upstream, are there initiatives to involve parents in character-building and values-in-action education of students in schools?

Mr Speaker, students' parents, depending on the cases, if severe enough, would be called in by the schools, so that they will do the post-incident counselling together with the students. In severe cases, parents and child will be with the school to look at how the incident can be dealt with and how follow-up actions can be taken together − by the school, the student and the parents.

Beyond that, we are also in touch with stakeholders in the community. Organisations, like the Children's Society, are also in touch with our schools to extend further help and general education to students and parents.

Mr Leon Perera.

Just two supplementary questions regarding bullying. Is there right now a national hotline that children who are bullied can call up? Because, understandably, some children may have reservations about approaching their teachers, friends and parents. Is there a national hotline, and is there awareness of that hotline among all the schools? I believe the Minister mentioned the Singapore Children's Society. I believe there is one such hotline. So, I just want to clarify if there is awareness of that hotline across all schools. That is the first one.

Secondly, if that is the case, then does MOE analyse the data from this hotline − aggregated and anonymised data − to see if there are certain patterns? For example, are there more bullying complaints reported from a certain school and, if so, then should an intervention be done with the teachers of that school, that sort of thing?

Mr Speaker, there are different avenues for our students to do the reporting. And especially for bullying, where oftentimes it is local, the best way to deal with it is through the peer network, teacher network, counselling network and so on.

Where there is a hotline, that would be a useful medium as well. At the moment, I do not have the data on the patterns of the hotline reporting, and if the Member would like to file a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on that, then we can give the Member more details on the patterns, if there are any.

But on the whole, bullying, as I have mentioned in the PQ reply, has been stable and managed. Physical bullying is less than 5%.

9 Mr Gan Thiam Poh asked the Minister for Education (Schools) (a) on average over the last three years, what has been the percentage of Primary 1 school children who have successfully enrolled in their parents' alma mater; (b) of these children, what proportion has stayed more than eight kilometres from their schools; and (c) whether the Ministry will consider modifying the enrolment criteria to include both consideration for school ties and distance between the school and residence to ensure shorter commutes for these young children.

Sir, the number of applicants admitted at Phases 2A1 and 2A2 has remained fairly stable over the past three years at around 12% of the Primary 1 cohort.

Out of all successful applicants at Phases 2A1 and 2A2 in the past three Primary 1 registration exercises, less than 15% stay more than eight kilometres (km) away from their schools. So, they form less than 2% of the total Primary 1 cohort.

The current Primary 1 framework does recognise the need to consider school ties and home-school distance together, as priority is given to those who live within one km of the school, followed by those who live between one km and two km, and then only those who live more than two km from the school.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for the comprehensive reply. From my personal experience, we do have cases where the residents actually stay next to the school and could not get a place. So, would there be a further review probably to look at the distance, in other words, those who stay nearby will get the priority? Would there be any possibility for the Ministry of Education to review and look at all these cases?

Sir, I thank the Member for the question. There is always going to be a need to balance out the availability of spaces for proximity as well as to make sure that parents have some opportunity to send children to their alma mater or if the sibling is already in that school and the family has relocated. So, there is always going to be a balance that we have to strike between these varying needs. We will always be tracking the data around Primary 1 admission very, very carefully.

10 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) how much fail-safe redundancy is designed into (i) Singapore's domestic broadband Internet networks and (ii) offshore Internet connectivity; and (b) whether there are plans to enhance system redundancy in light of the growing dependency on Internet access which will arise from the Smart Nation initiatives.

Mr Speaker, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his question. He has raised an issue that is important to both my Ministry and the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA), which is the resilience of our international and domestic Internet connectivity.

Sir, let me start with Singapore's international Internet connectivity. Singapore is a major Asia Pacific hub for submarine cables. We currently have 19 cable systems that connect us directly to more than 33 countries. We have multiple direct connections to key hubs, such as China, Europe, Japan and the United States, which enhance the resilience of our international Internet connectivity.

We have benefited from this resilience. The recent episode where our Internet links remained intact, despite damage to submarine cables caused by typhoons in Hong Kong and Macau in end-August 2017, is a good case in point. The fact that we had sufficient diversity and redundancy in international Internet connectivity enabled us to reroute traffic through undamaged cables. In contrast, Internet connections in a number of countries in the Asia Pacific were disrupted.

Nonetheless, Sir, it is important that we continue to find ways to improve the redundancy and diversity of our international Internet connectivity. We will continue encouraging new submarine cables to land in Singapore, especially if they will provide Singapore with alternative connectivity routes to key hubs. To do so, IMDA will work with relevant Government agencies and submarine cable operators to incentivise the landing of submarine cables, ensure sufficient landing resources, protect submarine cables from damage in our busy shipping lanes, and route cables to avoid disaster-prone areas.

Let me now turn to our domestic broadband Internet connectivity. Broadband Internet services are offered by multiple operators over multiple networks. These include the Nationwide Broadband Network, mobile networks and operators' own fixed-line networks. This diversity reduces the risks due to reliance on a single set of infrastructure and makes our domestic broadband Internet connectivity more resilient.

My Ministry and IMDA regularly review and put in place measures to enhance the resilience of our broadband Internet services. One key measure is the Telecom Service Resiliency Code, which was last updated recently in 2016. It aims to ensure that operators of key telecommunication infrastructure invest in and enhance the resilience of their networks against service disruptions. Other measures include IMDA's requirements for key fixed and mobile operators to conduct regular audits on their network designs, operational processes, business continuity planning and associated infrastructure and facilities. We will work closely with the industry to ensure that these regulations remain appropriate, effective and up to date.

Sir, in conclusion, my Ministry and IMDA recognise the importance of ensuring that our domestic and international Internet connectivity is diverse and robust. This is all the more critical as we strive to become a Smart Nation and Digital Economy. We will continuously monitor and review our policies and regulations to achieve this goal.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I have two supplementary questions, please.

Firstly, I recall, in 2006, an earthquake near Taiwan damaged regional undersea cables and, for some time, Singapore Internet users had difficulty with overseas telephony and even broadband Internet access. Does our current planning consider potential major natural disasters, besides typhoons, for example?

Secondly, I was wondering whether at the national level there are ongoing table-top exercises to look at the impact of disruptions to Internet infrastructure that extends beyond just a single Internet service provider so that we can explore for potential systemic factors that individual service providers on their own might not have considered?

Sir, on the first question, as I have said earlier, we will continue to learn. In fact, we have learnt from the previous incidents so that we can enhance the resilience of our network. Following the Taiwan earthquake in December 2006, our operators have ensured that not all cable systems pass through the same earthquake-prone areas near Taiwan and Japan.

Secondly, some of our operators have made their cable network design more resilient to cable cuts by connecting the Southeast and East Asian countries in a ring manner which allows traffic to be rerouted via the unaffected part of the cable system when one part is cut. In other words, we learn, study and see where the points of systemic risks are and how we can overcome them.

On the Member's second question as to whether or not we conduct table-top exercises, what IMDA does is they work with the operators to ensure that, first, their own network must be resilient; and, secondly, the overall connectivity, and the possible systemic effects of one network over the other are also addressed. So, IMDA works very closely, firstly, to make sure that they implement the code that I mentioned earlier. Secondly, we ask them to do regular audits and IMDA will then take a global view across the entire sector to ascertain any risk at the network level.

So, we continue to explore this because we know that the systems will be getting more complex and a fourth operator is about to come in. So, we have to make sure that connectivity remains resilient.

11 Mr Saktiandi Supaat asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) what is the progress on the initiative to roll out a big data sandbox in Singapore; (b) what is the prevalence of local businesses making use of big data to increase their competitiveness; and (c) what measures will be implemented to encourage more local businesses, especially the traditional ones, to integrate big data in their business strategies.

Sir, data science and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies can help companies use raw data to make better business decisions. Unfortunately, many local companies are not taking advantage of this potential. A study done by the Committee on the Future Economy showed that about a third of businesses have not adopted data analytics and about 80% have not adopted AI. Many of these businesses said that they lacked awareness and the expertise to harness data science and AI or were concerned about breaching data protection regulations.

Sir, the Government is addressing these barriers to adoption. First, we are making it easier for our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to deploy such solutions. The Info-communications Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) SMEs Go Digital programme gives SMEs access to proven digital solutions to grow their businesses. These solutions come embedded with capabilities, such as data analytics, cybersecurity and data protection. Over time, IMDA intends to raise the standards of these solutions with new technological capabilities, such as AI.

Several SMEs have successfully taken advantage of these solutions. Let me share with Members one example. Poh Kim, a video retailer, has deployed Ishikawa's video analytics solution to analyse its customer traffic, so as to optimise its operations and improve its marketing efforts. These have helped Poh Kim to increase its revenue by 10%. So, I encourage Members to check out our #SMETowkay series showcasing SMEs, including Poh Kim Video, which have benefited from going digital. SMEs can contact their nearest SME Centres for advice on their digital needs.

Second, Sir, we are bringing companies together to realise the value of sharing data. IMDA established the Data Innovation Programme Office (DIPO) on 1 April 2017 to champion this effort. DIPO has made encouraging progress. For instance, it is working with the industry to scope problem statements through industry-led Data Collaboratives. These Data Collaboratives are essentially partnerships among businesses where the businesses identify a common business problem and share data with one another to solve those problems. IMDA is finalising the implementation details and will announce these when we are ready.

Finally, Sir, we are reviewing our regulations on data sharing. There appears to be a misconception amongst businesses that the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) prohibits the sharing of personal data. This is inaccurate. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the Guide to Data Sharing that PDPC released on 27 July this year. This Guide seeks to provide clarity to businesses on how they can share personal data within and between organisations. The Guide also introduced a regulatory sandbox for personal data that exempts businesses from certain obligations under the Personal Data Protection Act under specific circumstances.

Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

I would like to thank the Minister for the answer. I have two or three supplementary questions, but these are short questions.

First, with regard to the role of the big data sandbox in my question earlier, can the Minister elaborate more about the progress of the initiative? I think the Minister mentioned briefly, but maybe he could share a bit more on the progress.

Second, I have heard of the Go Digital programme and I laud that programme. A lot of the SMEs are looking forward to that and more should take up that programme. But one area that may need to be looked upon, and maybe the Minister could share on this part, is about the exchangeable business intelligence in the future. For example, the 10% or 20% that is taken up, the extent of exchangeable business intelligence that they can use to enhance their profitability, in terms of consumer behaviour and consumer actions that they can take.

Finally, in terms of costs, in the future, with the big data sandbox, can the Minister share a bit more whether there are cost issues with regard to SMEs and regulations? Will there be an increase in costs as well from that?

Sir, as to the first question on the data sandbox, as I have mentioned earlier, we are sorting out the details and when we are ready with the details, we will announce them. But certainly, we want to go forward in creating that platform to allow companies to come together and share data. So, as I have mentioned in my reply, once it is ready, IMDA will announce the details.

I think for the next three questions, they are all inter-related.

First, the SMEs Go Digital programme, by and large, has been quite successful. I have personally visited many companies, small SME companies. The solutions are not deep-tech, they are really simple solutions. And the most important thing is for us to prove to the SMEs that it will benefit them.

I have visited a cleaning company, a security company, a construction company and all of them are basically happy with the solution. So, what IMDA wants to do is to develop proven off-the-shelf digital solutions that can then be deployed and scaled to other companies. I agree with the Member that this is a good effort, and we will continue to push this.

The Member mentioned about business intelligence. I had mentioned in my reply that within the solutions that we offer, we have also embedded within it the use of data analytics, cybersecurity and data protection, and we hope they can tap on that.

In the SMEs Go Digital programme, there are many levels. Some companies are just starting off and, therefore, they need some basic solutions. Some are more advanced. The more advanced companies which have already deployed digital solutions, if they want to go into analytics, AI, or business intelligence, we will work with them. Sir, one of the key programmes under the SME Go Digital programme is the Tech Hub that we have started. Within the Tech Hub, there will be experts who can offer advice to the companies on how they can use what they have deployed, to basically further raise their business profitability by leveraging technology.

Cost will always remain a concern and that is why the current programme is highly subsidised. We work together with the SMEs. But we believe that, over the long run, if they are able to prove that it is profitable for their business, we hope they will be self-funded. The real task of the Government is to prove to the companies that going digital is the way to go for them, not just to stay relevant, but to be profitable in time to come.

12 Mr Chong Kee Hiong asked the Minister for Health (a) what are the main reasons for many healthier foods to be more expensive than unhealthy foods despite healthier foods requiring less processing than unhealthy foods; and (b) whether there will be public education campaigns to (i) help people understand and manage their calorie intake, (ii) increase public awareness of lower sugar choices in the food types commonly consumed by Singaporeans and the problems of artificial sweeteners and (iii) educate consumers on how to eat healthier without incurring higher food bills.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Health Promotion Board (HPB) introduced the Healthier Choice Symbol (HCS) to help consumers identify healthier food products. Ingredients and food products labelled with the HCS logo − this is the red pyramid − have been well-received by consumers. In a 2015 survey by HPB, 70% of Singaporeans recognise the HCS logo and have used it to make healthier food choices. The market share of HCS products has also increased from 15% in 2012 to 18% in 2016. There are currently about 3,500 food products with the HCS logo, spanning 70 food and drinks categories.

There are ways to eat healthily without buying expensive food. For example, we can eat in moderation and we can choose foods with less oil and salt, or drinks with less sugar or, even better, no sugar. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) Foodfare sells its pre-packaged drinks with the HCS logo at $0.10 cheaper to encourage more consumers to choose these healthier options. HPB has developed lower-cost healthier recipes which are shared with the community through partners, such as the Diabetic Society of Singapore, TOUCH Community Services and NTUC SilverACE.

HPB has also introduced the Healthier Ingredient Development Scheme (HIDS) and the Healthier Dining Programme (HDP) to support industry players to provide healthier ingredients and products to increase the supply and variety of healthier food options for consumers.

Since December 2016, HDP has been extended to hawker centres and coffee shops, where lower-calorie meals are tagged with a "lower in calories" label. HPB has also implemented various public education initiatives, such as the calorie literacy initiative My Healthy Plate and the Eat Drink Shop Healthy Campaign, to reward consumers when they choose healthier options.

On artificial sweeteners, there is consensus amongst international health authorities and medical professionals that such sweeteners can be used as part of a balanced diet to help a gradual shift away from high sugar food and beverages. However, the sale of artificially sweetened food and beverage (F&B) is not allowed in schools in Singapore as we want to prevent children from developing a habit of consuming sweet-tasting food and drinks from a young age. This complements our healthy meals programme in schools which promotes the drinking of plain water.

There is now a growing variety of healthier sugars available for product formulation, such as those derived from natural sources like beetroot. They do not increase blood sugar levels as much as conventional sugars like sucrose and fructose. The Ministry of Health (MOH) is working with the F&B industry to explore the use of these natural sweeteners as part of their product innovation.

We will continue our efforts to raise public awareness and foster a supportive environment for consumers to make healthier F&B choices, and to keep Singaporeans healthy and active.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Very often, we go to stores and we find items that are labelled with "low sugar content" cost more than those with "normal sugar content". To the general public, they do not understand why items with low sugar, which is healthier, which they want to choose, but it costs more. The simple thinking is that low sugar means put less sugar, so it should cost at least the same, or not much higher.

I have seen items that are, for example, "normal sugar content", cost, say, $3 and the one with "low sugar" costs $4. The price difference is quite a lot. So, if we want to encourage people to move to a healthier diet, could MOH educate the public on why there is such a big difference?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not familiar with which product Mr Chong is referring to, but based on the information that we have, there is a range of different healthier products, including house brands, that are offered by supermarkets that need not cost a lot more and, sometimes, can be very competitive, compared to the other brands that are available in the market.

So, this is one way of helping consumers to be able to have options, including healthier options, to help them to make healthier F&B choices. But Mr Speaker, I want to go back to what I mentioned in my main reply earlier that, eating healthily, there are many different ways of doing so. For example, it is about choosing the amount we eat, deciding on how much we want to eat, eating in moderation.

It is also about how we prepare the food, such as if we steam, compared to deep fry. If we use less oil, less salt, less sugar, less sauces, all these are steps which we can take to prepare healthier food options.

We are also working with our research institutes to look at how the food is prepared as it can also make a difference to the glycemic index. This is a way of measuring, after we have consumed the food, how quickly our blood sugar level will rise. For food with lower glycemic index, there will be a smaller increase in the blood sugar level.

What the studies have found is that if we prepare our food, for example, if we cook the rice, leave it to cool and reheat it later, the amount of resistant starch in the rice will go up, and this helps to lower the glycemic index. So, for the same type of rice, the same amount of rice, we can actually lower the glycemic index by preparing it in a different way.

Other things that they have found include adding, for example, a little bit of chicken stock, or a small amount of healthy oil to the rice will also help to lower the glycemic index.

How we eat the food also makes a difference. Before we begin our meal, if we consume some proteins, for example, clear chicken stock or a glass of unsweetened soya bean milk before we eat our main meal, these will also help to lower the glycemic index of the meal. Or eating it with vegetables, not just the rice alone, and with protein.

So, there are many, many different ways that we can educate consumers and give them more information to help them to make healthier choices.

Mr Chong Kee Hiong.

I should have been clearer. I was referring to the same brand of kaya. Identical brands. The only difference is which one is less sugar. The actual price is $2.95 versus $3.95 for the one with the lower sugar content.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chong for his clarification. I do not know which brand of kaya he is referring to. I myself like kaya. But because it is quite sweet, I try not to eat too much of it. I think that is one way of making a healthier choice, which is to consume less of it. When we spread the kaya on the bread, do not spread it so thickly. That will be one way of helping to lower the amount of sugar that we consume.

I am not familiar with the brand that Mr Chong mentioned. But sometimes, the reason why certain types of healthier food cost more on a per unit basis is because there is lack of scale. So, when we produce it and there are inadequate economies of scale, the merchant finds it difficult to price it at a very competitive level. We see this happening with healthier cooking oils, with wholemeal bread. During the initial phase when the healthier products are being introduced, it will have to go through this phase where consumers are getting used to it, and the demand is not quite picking up during the initial phase. So, during this period, the lack of scale then leads to prices being higher on a per unit basis.

I do not know if this is the reason for the particular brand of kaya that Mr Chong spoke about, but this is a general observation that we see for different types of food products. With scale, the merchants are able to lower their per unit cost and this can then be passed through to consumers, in terms of lower prices.

Given the Senior Minister of State's passion for healthy food, the least we can do is to take heed of his advice at the tea break later.

13 Mr Dennis Tan Lip Fong asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry tracks the number of medical professionals who currently have agreements with third party administrators (TPAs) and, if so, how many of such medical professionals are there; and (b) whether the Ministry can consider requiring TPAs to adhere to practices which are consistent with the Singapore Medical Council ethical guidelines or other regulations which bind all doctors working with TPAs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Third Party Administrators (TPAs) provide a wide range of intermediary services to healthcare providers, doctors and employers. These include the management of employer medical benefits and claims administration. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have the number of healthcare providers or doctors who have arrangements with TPAs.

MOH does not regulate TPAs or their business arrangements today. The Singapore Medical Council's (SMC's) Ethical Code and Ethical Guidelines (ECEG) provide guidance on appropriate fee arrangements between doctors and TPAs so as to ensure that patients' interest and welfare are protected. The SMC has statutory powers to take action against medical professionals who violate these guidelines.

Mr Dennis Tan.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his reply. Yes, I do understand the current position, which I think has also been enunciated in past Parliamentary Question replies. I have this concern which I would like to address to the Senior Minister of State. There are concerns about TPAs driving up healthcare costs. Please let me quote from a Business Times article and I will just quote from the relevant extracts, "Health Economist, Phua Kai Hong, is of the view that third party healthcare financing, which includes insurers, TPAs and medical concierges will drive up Singapore healthcare costs in the long term, as they capitalise on the existing information gap between patients and doctors." Given there is a free market here, Dr Phua said, industry players will continue to take advantage of this asymmetry, unless relevant, regulatory and appropriate laws are in place to regulate the sector and improve transparency.

Would the Senior Minister of State agree with me that we should, therefore, have some form of regulatory control over TPAs so that they will approach all issues with a similar mindset expected of the doctors working with the TPAs and we can then better minimise conflicts between business and professional ethical concerns?

I would like to thank Mr Dennis Tan for the supplementary questions. Like I have mentioned before, MOH does not regulate TPAs who do not provide medical services directly. Those who do will be regulated under the Private Hospital Medical Clinics' Act. However, MOH acknowledges that the TPAs' fee arrangements may have an influence on the doctors' behaviour which can impact the charges and patient care.

While doctors are currently regulated by SMC to ensure that such TPA arrangements do not lead doctors to overcharge or compromise care, MOH will continue to monitor the situation and consider if further actions will be necessary to protect the well-being of the patients and also to prevent the escalation of healthcare costs. Indeed, we have been engaging the TPAs as well. In fact, prior to the implementation of the revised ECEG, MOH, together with the three professional bodies, have engaged major TPAs to highlight the principles and the spirit of the ECEG. They have been advised to provide more clarity in the contracts and how the fees charged must reflect the complexity of the work done by them. I am happy to say that the majority of the TPAs understood the intent of the ECEG and has since revised the contract so as to not violate the ECEG.

14 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the rationale for requiring 75% support level from eligible households for the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) where residents do not need to co-pay; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider setting a timeline for the calling of a tender for NRP works when the NRP for the precinct is announced.

Mr Speaker, the Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) emphasises the active engagement of residents in shaping their living environment. The requirement to have at least 75% support from residents before NRP proceeds provides certainty that the proposed improvements meet the needs of the majority of residents. It also promotes a sense of ownership for the proposed improvements and enhances residents' sense of belonging to their neighbourhood.

The recommended timeline for calling of tender for NRP works is within 12 months from announcement. This has been communicated to all Town Councils which carry out NRP.

In practice, however, the time taken varies from one project to another, and may not fall within the recommended timeline. Factors that could affect the calling of tender include the size and complexity of the project, consultation processes adopted by Town Councils, and the extent of feedback and suggestions received from residents. As far as possible, Town Councils should expedite the NRP process where possible.

Mr Png Eng Huat.

Just one supplementary question. Would the Minister consider reviewing the 75% support level? Because the awareness of NRP is already achieved through 100% direct mailing to the houses. We also have two exhibitions, the Public Consultation and Consensus Gathering. We also have house visits. Furthermore, the NRP plan would have undergone multiple reviews even by the Housing and Development Board and then also taken into consideration the wish list from the Town Councils, residents, Members of Parliament, the Residents' Committees. So, that plan itself is almost like optimised for that precinct. So, would the Ministry consider reviewing that 75% requirement, even 50%? Because when we do house visits, a lot of residents asked us why they still need to vote when they do not need to pay for this external thing. They also said that they were also not consulted. For example, they do not need to vote whether they want the silver zone or—

Can we keep this succinct, please?

So, could the Minister review that?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. As I said earlier, the requirement to achieve at least 75% support from residents for NRP is to ensure that residents, or the majority of the residents, indeed support the proposal. Getting the residents aware of the project through direct mailers, exhibitions, community consultation is but one important part of that process. Getting feedback and ultimately persuading residents that this plan benefits them is best evidenced through residents' support for the proposal.

If you reduce or do away with the poll requirement, then the question is how certain are we all that these facilities, indeed, are welcomed, or are needed by the residents? Even though the residents do not have to pay for these improvements, they relate to that immediate lived environment and I think they ought to have a say.

15 Ms Sun Xueling asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether the Ministry will consider piloting the installation of sensor-activated alarm systems in HDB studio apartments for the elderly or in new HDB flats catered for the elderly; and (b) what will be the estimated cost increase for such installations.

Mr Speaker, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) has been working with partner agencies and solution providers to explore the use of suitable elderly monitoring and alert systems to monitor the safety and well-being of elderly HDB residents. For instance, a trial is ongoing at Yuhua involving residents who have purchased the Elderly Monitoring System (EMS), a smart system that automatically sends notifications and alerts to the next-of-kin of the elderly when irregular behavioural patterns are detected at home. Other options include wearable devices with panic buttons.

HDB will study the outcome of this trial as well as the cost and business models for installation of such system before deciding on the next steps.

Ms Sun Xueling.

I understand that some Executive Condominium (EC) developers also have some of these products and suites available but the purchase by residents have been low. I think the cost is about $6,000 to $8,000 for such applications. It does not sound very expensive compared to the overall cost of the housing unit. So, would the Minister share if this phenomenon is due to it being an opt-in kind of a function or is it because residents are not educated and do not think that such a product is usable or friendly enough for use?

Certainly, for the trial taking place at Yuhua, HDB has helped to subsidise the cost in order make the take-up for the trial more prevalent. But nevertheless, we find that not all residents, and certainly not all elderly residents, felt the need to subscribe to this. This, in part, relates to their personal choice and their own assessment of their personal mobility and caregiving needs. So, finding scale and getting economies of scale would be very helpful in making such a project in any estate a success.

Currently, HDB is looking at working closely with the Pioneer Generation Office, hospitals and the physiotherapists to identify seniors who would most greatly benefit from such an EMS system. Even after that, you need to talk to their families to get the sense of whether there is someone that the system can auto-dial to and alert, or whether their neighbours who would respond or there are service providers who are monitoring the system and to be able to respond.

So, cost is one. But these things can be worked out through various packages and, ultimately, it is awareness and it is about whether the seniors' caregiving arrangements and caregivers find value in having such a system as a protective factor for them.

Mr Leon Perera.

Just a supplementary question to the Minister. Has the Ministry considered this technology that is quite widespread, I believe, in Japan, which is attached to the hot water pot? It monitors the frequency at which an elderly resident consumes hot water. When they do not consume for a while, it sends a short message service (SMS) alert to their next-of-kin. Apparently, this is widely used in Japan, it is very economical. And is that being considered to be something that can be pushed out here?

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his suggestion. There are a variety of systems out there in the market, as well as a whole suite of projects that technopreneurs and researchers are working on. Not only is HDB working on this, but we are also looking and working with vendors out there in the market to see what we can put together as an offering to residents and then they find, together with their family members, the most optimal device.

There are some which are attached to their wrists and they can then press if there is an issue. Some are attached to phones or part of a phone app and if it detects a sudden drop in height, it will send out an alert message. Other products we have seen involve motion sensors that would monitor movements within the flat and if there is no movement for a certain period of time, a few hours or so − of course, you must teach the machine when a person is or is not at home − it would then be able to alert people.

So, the whole suite of options, whether it is worn, pulled, motion detected or attached to a hot pot, it is the whole range that we are looking at.

16 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development (a) how many places of employment provide childcare centres on their premises currently; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider encouraging companies of a certain staff size to provide onsite childcare facilities for their employees.

Mr Speaker, as of June this year, there are about 470 workplace childcare centres located in commercial premises, Government buildings, industrial estates and other places of work. These centres make up about a third of all childcare centres in Singapore.

Many factors, aside from just staff size, determine whether an employer would consider setting up a childcare centre at the workplace. These include the profile of employees, the employees' preferences in the location of childcare services, the location of the workplace and business viability of the centre. Employers would want to take all these factors into consideration.

To facilitate and encourage developers and employers to set up workplace childcare centres, we have put in place various measures and schemes.

The Community and Sports Facilities Scheme, for instance, provides bonus gross floor area to developers who set aside space in commercial buildings for childcare centres. Another is the Enhanced Workplace Childcare Centre Scheme, where eligible workplace centres may receive a furnishing and equipment grant as well as a development grant to cover the costs of converting space in workplaces for childcare use. In addition, for new commercial developments, the Early Childhood Development Agency has worked with the Urban Redevelopment Authority to require the developer for selected Government Land Sale sites to provide space for childcare centres.

While the Government supports the setting up of workplace childcare centres, we note that many parents would still prefer childcare centres near their homes as well. As such, the Government will continue to ramp up the number of childcare places island-wide, mostly at new Housing and Development Board residential developments. Parents can look forward to over 40,000 new full-day preschool places by 2022.

17 Mr Leon Perera asked the Minister for Transport what measures are in place to handle accidents where passengers fall onto MRT or LRT tracks in terms of (i) educating commuters on what they should do in the event of such an accident, whether they are victims or bystanders and (ii) the safety protocols that rail operators are required to conform to if such incidents occur.

Mr Speaker, the safety of commuters is our top priority. To prevent passengers from falling onto the tracks, we have installed screen doors on every Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) platform. We are also installing safety barriers on all Light Rail Transit (LRT) platforms. Works for the Bukit Panjang LRT have been completed, and that for the Sengkang-Punggol LRT will be completed next year.

In the unfortunate event that a passenger falls onto the tracks, the passenger should immediately alert anyone nearby. Fellow commuters can raise the alarm by pushing the brightly coloured emergency stop plungers located at every platform to stop the trains from entering or leaving the platform. This will simultaneously alert the station's Passenger Service Centre and the Line's Operations Control Centre. When alerted, rail operators will immediately shut off traction power to the trains and dispatch trained personnel to the scene to provide assistance and first aid until the Singapore Civil Defence Force arrives.

Currently, rail operators are required to inform commuters about safety practices through prominent signs and regular announcements at train stations. The Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the rail operators will do more to raise commuters' awareness. LTA and the Singapore Mass Rapid Transit are also jointly trialling the use of video analytics to alert train operators to incidents on the tracks.

18 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health whether the Ministry will study the implementation of a unified appointment tracking system for polyclinics and restructured hospitals to facilitate appointment rationalisation and reconciliation.

19 Dr Tan Wu Meng asked the Minister for Health (a) whether the Ministry studies the median and 90th percentile number of outpatient appointments per patient, stratified by age; (b) what measures are in place to optimise the number of outpatient appointments as part of holistic healthcare; and (c) whether elderly patients with multiple outpatient appointments can have them converged on the same days where possible to reduce caregiver stress and repeat blood tests.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos 18 and 19 together?

Yes.

Singaporeans have access to outpatient services at different institutions, including polyclinics, national centres and hospitals within our public healthcare system. The Ministry of Health (MOH) does not have data on the median and 90th percentile number of outpatient appointments per patient stratified by age. There are patients, including the elderly, with multiple medical conditions who make multiple visits to more than one institution over a period of time.

Our public healthcare institutions have put in place systems to allow patients to schedule their outpatient appointments together where possible because we understand this will be more convenient for patients. For example, patients can do their blood tests and X-rays during the same visit.

Our hospitals have also started to consolidate Specialist Outpatient Clinic appointments from different specialties so that patients need to make fewer visits. At Tan Tock Seng Hospital and the National University Hospital, for example, some patients have their care consolidated under one doctor. At the Singapore General Hospital, diabetic patients visiting the Diabetes and Metabolic Centre can make appointments for related specialties and services, such as podiatry, eye, orthopaedic surgery, on the same day. As I have mentioned earlier, this is with the intent of bringing about greater convenience and better care for our patients.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Dr Tan Wu Meng that more unified or harmonised appointment systems will benefit patients. We will be piloting more of such systems across institutions within our healthcare clusters to facilitate better appointment, rationalisation and reconciliation. MOH will also study the next step of harmonising appointments across our three healthcare clusters.

Dr Tan Wu Meng.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for his answer. If I may also ask: will the Ministry explore involving our primary care practitioners in the community as well? So, the Family Medicine physicians, the general practitioners, the intermediate and long-term care sector as well as the nursing homes, as part of this data sharing, so that all stakeholders can have a better overview of each patient's journey so that caregivers and patients can have a smoother, more seamless experience.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Dr Tan Wu Meng for his supplementary question. Indeed, the services that we provide across the different parts of the healthcare system are something that we need to better coordinate from a cluster point of view. We have what we call Regional Health Systems which start from even before primary care. It starts from health promotion and keeping people healthy. So, that is right at the beginning, upstream. Primary care, the acute care in hospital, the step-down care, community hospitals, home care, community care, long-term care, so, that whole spectrum is coordinated through our Regional Health Systems and now we have three clusters. That is why I mentioned earlier that we will work through our clusters to reach out to not just the public healthcare institutions, but also our partners in the private sector and in the community.

20 Ms Joan Pereira asked the Minister for Home Affairs with regard to home smoke alarms which must be installed in all newly built homes from June 2018 (a) who will be responsible for maintaining the alarms, especially in rental flats, to ensure that the detectors and batteries are working; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider connecting these alarms to a central alert system since many of our elderly have vision and hearing problems and may not notice alerts from the alarms.

Mr Speaker, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has not announced the mandatory installation of home fire alarm devices (HFADs) but let me provide some background why MHA is studying the idea.

In 2016, about 70% of fire injuries are from residential fires, compared to about 40% 10 years ago. HFADs can help to minimise the number of fire injuries or fatalities in residential fire. HFADs are standalone devices that are not connected to any central alert system. The purpose of an HFAD is to provide early warning to the occupants in the event of a fire, so that they can quickly extinguish the fire or swiftly make their way to safety before the fire escalates.

In the United States, a 2015 report by the National Fire Protection Association found that the fatality rate arising from residential fires in homes with HFADs was 40% lower than those without HFADs.

The Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) has been encouraging home owners to install HFADs. There are several HFAD models available in the market that cater to different user needs and requirements. Residents who have vision and hearing problems may consider models with additional features, such as alerts via vibrating pads or visual alarms. Developers who install such systems should, likewise, be mindful of the needs of their property users.

Fire safety is everyone's responsibility. As with other fire safety provisions within homes, such as fire extinguishers or fire-rated doors, generally, the owners and occupiers are responsible for ensuring that the HFADs are kept in good working condition.

We note the Member's concern about rental tenants and the elderly. SCDF will take into consideration feedback from advisers, including Ms Pereira, before finalising the details of the scheme.

Ms Joan Pereira.

I thank the Second Minister for her reply. Would the Ministry consider instituting maintenance checks as well as battery replacement or repairs for the alarms, especially for rental flats and our studio apartments, given that our elderly may not always know how to check and it may be dangerous for them to do the maintenance check or replace batteries?

Mr Speaker, from my understanding for these home fire alarm systems, the battery life usually can last about 10 years. Maintenance, as I also understand, mainly involves pressing a button to test if there is still battery life left which then means that the alarm ought to be functional. Among SCDF, the Housing and Development Board and the People's Association grassroots, I am quite sure we can work out a good approach to maintenance. So, let me give Ms Pereira the assurance that this is something that SCDF considers very carefully and we will take the feedback from the advisers and incorporate it into the design of the scheme.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have one supplementary question for the Second Minister. I was consulted on this recently and I was told that it will only be installed in the rental flats that have elderly residents, not in all the rental flats. But then rental flats, people shift in and out, so I would like to ask the Second Minister: will she consider installing in all rental flats?

The short answer is yes.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), provided that Members had not asked for questions standing in their names to be postponed to a later Sitting day or withdrawn, written answers to questions not reached by the end of Question Time are reproduced in the Appendix.]

[(proc text) "to provide for the construction, maintenance, operation and regulation of cross-border railways between Singapore and Malaysia in accordance with bilateral railway agreements, and to make related and consequential amendments to certain other Acts", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng) (for the Minister for Transport); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, "That this House fortifies Singapore's resolve to stay united against the threat of terrorism by reaffirming the core values of multiracialism and social cohesion and calls on the Government to continue (a) promoting vigilance and resilience among Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks; (b) preventing the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism; and (c) investing in multiracialism as the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills that terrorism seeks to sow".

[(proc text) *The Motion also stood in the names of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Mr Murali Pillai and Dr Tan Wu Meng. (proc text)]

Sir, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) may have powerful weaponry; the Home Team may have sophisticated arsenal, but our nation's best artillery against a terror attack is multiracialism. Multiracialism is the bedrock, the foundation that will neutralise and defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.

We have effective, professional and responsive uniformed teams working to keep us safe − the Singapore Police Force (SPF), the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), working together with SAF, working in turn with the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the Security and Intelligence Division (SID). But terrorism is not a fight they are to battle against alone. Every Singaporean has a role to play. Why the need to debate this now? There are three reasons: first, we face a regional threat; second, we face a global threat; and third, we have been specifically targeted.

Let me deal with the regional threat first and, with your leave, Mr Speaker, may I display some slides on the light-emitting diode (LED) screen?

Yes, please. [Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Thank you. Terrorists are returning from Syria and Iraq to Southeast Asia. Misguided, they form terror cells which seek to influence others. It is estimated that in the next two years, about 200 terrorists would be released from prisons in the region. They could return to terrorist leanings after their release. Reports have shown that the Marawi conflict has generated potential terrorists, adding to the regional threat we face.

But this threat is not just regional. The threat confronts the globe. In fact, every single inhabitable continent in our world has suffered a terror attack since the beginning of this year alone, 2017.

In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a man shot and killed five people at the airport. That was January 2017. Just last night, we heard news of a possible terror attack in Las Vegas, 59 people tragically killed.

In Manchester, an explosion killed 22 children, youths and adults at an Ariana Grande concert. That was May 2017. Again, just over the weekend, in Marseille, France, two women were stabbed to death.

In Jakarta, two explosions at a busy bus station killed three police officers and injured 10 people. That was May 2017.

In Melbourne, a woman was taken hostage, two men were shot, and three police officers injured in the line of duty in June of this year.

In Colombia, South America, an explosion at a shopping centre killed three women and injured 11 others.

And in Mali, West Africa, five people were shot at a tourist resort in June.

So, should we move on the assumption that an attack will never happen to us? I do not think so. Rather, we must prepare now.

In 2016, plans to attack Singapore were avoided and foiled. Terrorists from Batam planned to launch a rocket attack on Marina Bay Sands in August 2016. The Straits Times reported that there was an Arabic publication circulated last October that identified two entities here, the Singapore Exchange and a port, as targets as part of a wider bid to damage American and Western interests. In a separate report by the Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, those heading the Marawi network had urged militants on Telegram to attack targets in Singapore, Thailand and Japan.

For these three reasons − one, our region is facing a heightened threat; two, the threat is global; and three, our country has been explicitly targeted − we need to promote vigilance and resilience.

According to a report on "Risk and Resilience" for the Department of Homeland Security in United States (US), pre-event activity is key to resilience. It places importance on the capacity to anticipate, plan and prepare to cope with threats. An important aspect of this pre-event activity is being vigilant.

Why is this so? In London, recent attacks involved vans being driven on pedestrian walkways and knife attacks. It happened in very public areas, accessible to pedestrians and vehicles. Low cost, highly visible, possibility for lone-wolf operations, vulnerable targets, are dangerous concoctions.

These attacks are very difficult to prevent. Without concrete bollards on every crowded street, checks on every bag carried on the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT), restriction on the sales of all kinds of knives ─ even kitchen knives ─ this would be near impossible. As Minister K Shanmugam has said, "You can't turn the entire city into a garrison." No matter what interventions the state puts in to try to prevent a terrorist attack, it is very likely that the first responders will be the citizens on the ground.

Therefore, it is not just for the specialist forces or the Police to be alert to such threats. The possibility of a terror attack needs to be ingrained in the consciousness of everyone. It should not cripple us in Singapore with fear. Rather, that consciousness should help us to know how to spot suspicious activities and how to react to them in a calm and systematic fashion.

Firstly, there is a need to identify the threat. The signs of suspicious persons, articles and vehicles have been disseminated through the SGSecure App and other means. But knowing the signs is not enough; we need to instil the culture of vigilance that will cause people to look up, observe their surroundings and know how to make a judgement call. That judgement call includes following instructions in the SGSecure App, which are "Run, Hide, Tell".

But what to tell is also important. How well we are able to respond to the terror attack would very much depend on how we, the first responders, cooperate with the Police by giving information through the SGSecure app. Information communicated is crucial. Hence, according to the SGsecure guide, we should TELL. T-E-L-L. T for the total number of attackers, E for equipment or weapons being carried, L for look of attackers, and L for location of attackers ─ where they are now and moving towards.

Our response as citizens will be crucial in order for the response from our uniformed staff to be even more effective. It could be a vehicle marauding through the crowd on a footway, or a knife-wielding group of men in a crowded restaurant. The attackers could be a moving target. It is our duty as citizens of Singapore to help report suspicious activity before the threat materialises.

If the threat is so well-disguised and an attack does occur, then we should provide as accurate information as we can through the SGSecure app. To be truly secure, all of us − very Singaporean − has a part to play to be vigilant.

It is also important that Singaporeans work synergistically with the uniformed forces in the face of a terror attack. Equally, the uniformed services − Home Team and SAF − will need to work synergistically with each other. Very interestingly, Australia amended their laws this year to allow military deployment alongside police personnel after a terror incident has been declared.

A synergistic response is needed. Singapore is increasing exercises and trainings between the Home Team and SAF as well as between the Home Team and the citizenry, through local Emergency Preparedness days. But a look at how other countries are planning their responses to terror attacks may be useful for Singapore's policymakers.

For example, in Hong Kong, the Standing Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Planning Group meets regularly to formulate contingency plans and procedures for threatened or possible attacks, including terror attacks. It is made up of specialists from various departments and agencies, such as the hospitals, laboratories, police force, civil aid service and fire service. It is a multidisciplinary team on call, 24 hours a day, to assess threats and give advice on the spot.

In Australia, the Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull wanted personnel from the defence force to be placed within law enforcement agencies to assist in coordination efforts. We could study the Hong Kong and Australia models to assess what best practices we could import into Singapore's anti-terror regime.

Another key strategy to secure resilience against the psychology of fear that terrorists seek to sow is to promote unity in the aftermath of a terror attack. How we respond to a terror attack is important. A response using Home Team and SAF military hardware is key but let us also realise that Singapore and Singaporeans must win the psychological battle. Our unity will ensure we are victorious over any ill the attacks seek to incite. That is why communication is very important.

According to SAFE-COMMS which was commissioned by the European Union, a key message should be, "We will not allow terrorists to spread fear and horror and gain the upper hand." The next message is, "We know what we are doing", then the next message is, "All those affected will receive all the support that they need." The basic principles are rapid restoration of confidence and security, transparent trust-building information policy, calmly competent yet sensitive treatment of all those that are directly and indirectly involved, leadership with integrity and credibility, and decisive action.

The message of social connectedness and hope is important, especially in the aftermath of an attack. In December 2014, a lone gunman held 17 hostages at a cafe in Sydney for more than 16 hours. Two hostages eventually died. Within a few hours of the attack, a hashtag campaign entitled "I'll Ride With You" went viral on the Internet. Australians stood together with their Muslim brothers and sisters.

The point is, we need to win the psychological value. It is not just the day itself, but the day after the attack.

How will we act? How will we move ahead? We do not point our fingers but hold hands and stand united together against terror. But to do so, we need to prepare now. How? A first step now could be to prepare posters and other paraphernalia to send such messages quickly and visibly.

These are some of what the residents in the constituency I serve, Ulu Pandan, organised in terms of banners. These are day-after banners. They have been printed, they are in the Community Centre, ready to be put up at locations throughout the constituency should there be an attack. "We are one people, one nation, one Singapore", "Deny terrorism a victory, let's stay united".

The four hands of our races ─ Singaporean Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasians ─ protecting our precious Singapore, holding it together. Red and white chosen ─ the colours of our flag. "No to disunity", "Terrorism will not win". These messages displayed the day-after are what Singaporeans can see and will stir them to say, "Yes, we are in this together", "Yes, it will be okay."

So, first, we need to promote vigilance and resilience amongst Singaporeans to deter and overcome terrorist attacks. And that was the first part of the Motion. Allow me, Sir, to move on to the second point, that we need to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings which promote violent extremism.

There were 18 radicalised Singaporeans arrested in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding years. Let us study that statistics: 18 in the past two years, compared to 11 in the preceding seven years. To take the appropriate action, we have a range of laws that may be applied. We only need to look to the recent terror attack on London Bridge in Borough Market to see why muscular laws which gives police proactive and pre-emptive powers are important.

The Independent reported that Scotland Yard acknowledged that the ringleader of the terrorist who carried out the London Bridge attack was known to the police and MI5 for extremism before he went on his rampage of murder and maiming. The British Broadcasting Corporation reported that the ringleader had previously appeared in a Channel 4 documentary about the presence of violent extremists in British cities. In the end, that ringleader led a rampage which killed eight people and injured 48 others in an attack at London Bridge in Borough Market on 3 June this year.

In Singapore, the laws must not work to hinder investigation. When pre-emptive detention is necessary, we must act and administer it. We cannot have our hands tied behind our backs. More so, in light of what the Minister for Home Affairs shared just three weeks ago. Minister K Shanmugam said that before the Islamic State militant group came on the scene, authorities assessed it will take about two years for individuals to become radicalised. But now, some individuals may be radicalised in as little as one or two months. The rate of being influenced has decreased from 22 months, not to 20 months, not to 12 months, but to two months. Our laws in Singapore must facilitate early action, pre-emptive action, to reduce the possibility of terror threats.

Laws are important. They are important tools. Our laws do help deter the spread of radicalised teachings, which promote violent extremism. And with the changing nature of terrorist attacks in the world, the shorter period for radicalisation, we may need to review our laws to ensure that they are flexible enough, that they are robust enough, to mitigate against and ameliorate the morphing nature of terror attacks.

Allow me, Mr Speaker, to go through the Acts and, by so doing, hopefully get across to those who wish to do us harm that we have the requisite laws to act pre-emptively and swiftly.

For example, under section 7 of the Public Order Act, the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit if he is of the view that the proposed assembly or procession may glorify the commission or preparation of acts of terrorism, whether in the past or future.

A different raft of laws targets the action of spreading violent extremism. These can be found in the Penal Code and the Sedition Act. Section 267C of the Penal Code makes it an offence to distribute or possess documents or communicate electronic records that incite violence. The Sedition Act makes it an offence to commit an act which has a seditious tendency. Seditious tendency is defined to include "promot[ing] hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore."

When the need arises, there is the Internal Security Act (ISA). For instance, section 20 empowers the Minister to prohibit or set conditions regarding the possession of documents that contain any incitement to violence.

But, to add real value, the laws should also aim to assist the detained and help rehabilitate them. Rehabilitation and reintegration are important strategies to stem the spread of such violent extremism.

This makes crucial the work of organisations, such as the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). Its mission statement expands on the importance of rehabilitation to the detainee: "Rehabilitation seeks to counter detainees' ideological misunderstanding of religion and help them come to terms with the fact that they have been misled."

It was reported that the restriction order of one of the former members of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) was allowed to lapse; he is no longer required for further supervision under the restriction order regime. This is not the only example. ISA detainees can be released from preventive detention and put on restraining orders after they are shown to have made progress in rehabilitation and no longer pose a security threat that requires preventive detention. Therefore, we have an arsenal of laws to empower pre-emptive action, preventive detention, leading to rehabilitation and, hopefully, reintegration. The laws are effective and noble. But laws alone cannot offer Singapore's complete counter-offence to terrorism.

Multiracialism is the best socio-weapon to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. What does terrorism seek to sow? Terrorism seeks to sow division, disunity, discord.

Terrorism is not the problem of a single race. It is not the problem of a single religion. Terrorists come in all forms. Look at Anders Behring Breivik. In 2011, he committed Norway's worst attack and was convicted of mass murder and terrorism offences. At that time, it was the world's deadliest terror attack by a lone gunman. Many of his victims were teenagers on a recent summer retreat.

Besides the shooting rampage on the island of Utoya, he planted a bomb in a van in Oslo's city centre. In total, 77 people were killed. He was a self-declared fascist, who held strong anti-Muslim sentiments. What he did was detestable, horrid and inhuman.

There can be no room for violent extremism in Singapore. Violent extremism is an affront to humanity. Therefore, acts of violence, such as those acts towards all vulnerable communities in the Rakhine state, should stop. To see children suffer like that grates against humanity.

In the case of terror attacks around the world, people of different races and religions have shown through their actions and courage that they will not condone violence and the killing of the innocent.

In July this year, Channel 4 News ran a documentary on a group of Christians in Mosul who were rescuing Muslims from the fire of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) snipers there. They risked their lives to save innocent Muslim people. Let me give another example. It was reported by Channel NewsAsia on 5 August that during the fighting in Marawi, a Muslim villager chose to stay put in his house and put his own life in danger, even when his friends and relatives begged him to vacate it. Why did he choose to stay? Because he had people he was protecting there. Who? Christians. They had run out of food and he helped them escape from the militants' rampage.

Terrorism is an affront to all of us, regardless of race or religion. And so, we can and need to have a collective counter-offence to it. How? By continuing to strengthen multiracialism and social cohesion in Singapore. We need to view our multiracialism as an asset, a muscular asset.

Sir, allow me to share what my view of multiracialism is. Different ethnic communities define their identity in different ways which may change over time. Multiracialism does not mean we give up our ethnic identity which is informed by race, our culture and upbringing and, to an extent, by our religious beliefs. It is not about everybody becoming the same. Multiracialism is about appreciating diversity − diversity in race, language, religious beliefs and, at the same time, being loyal to our duty we have as Singaporeans, that is, the duty to advance Singapore and Singaporeans.

In fact, multiracialism makes Singapore a multiskilled, multitalented and multifaceted country. Within Singapore, our population can lean on the different skills, thought processes, talents and languages of the people from the different races who live in Singapore. When foreign governments visit Singapore, explore trading opportunities and collaboration, our multiracialism becomes an immediate asset. Foreign governments, trading partners and tourists can relate to the cultures within Singapore which may be present in their own home countries. That is an asset.

Internationally, when Singapore Government leaders and businessmen visit China, Indonesia, Malaysia, India and many other countries, we are able to connect with them. Why? Because cultures are understood well and sometimes shared. We offer those whom we visit and with whom we trade a multiracial Singapore − multicultured, multiskilled, multitalented. It is a previous asset.

For me, multiracialism is not an academic issue. Singaporean Eurasians are multiracial in our very genetic makeup and believe in Singapore's multiracialism to the core. We do not want to discard the English, Portuguese, Dutch, Burmese and the Indian influence in us but, at the same time, we have a duty to Singapore. We are multiracial in the very core of our identity but, at the same time, profess fierce loyalty to Singapore. Over the centuries, in terms of ethnicity, we have become an amalgamation of many races, including Dutch, English, Portuguese, Ceylonese and Burmese. One cannot divide us and put a bit of us back into the different countries our ancestors came from. We have no homeland but Singapore. This is it. Our duty is to Singapore and her future. So, being part of the Eurasian race, I can understand what it means to be culturally aware of ethnic heritage and all the richness it offers but, at the same time, being completely focused on being Singaporeans first and foremost. This is my experience of multiracialism.

I hope we will all aspire towards retaining cultural identities coupled with a strong duty to Singapore. Terrorism seeks to destroy unity. It seeks to disunite communities, make us point fingers at one another, become factious. But with a cohesive spirit and multiracialism, we can defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow.

That multiracialism is a strength can be illustrated in tangible ways. Look at sports. In the 2007 Southeast Asian (SEA) Games, women's 4x100-metre relay, Wendy Enn, Shanti Pereira, Dipna Lim-Prasad and Nur Izyln Zaini became the first local women's team to go under 45 seconds, cutting the national record from 45.51 to 44.96 seconds. Each runner's race did not matter. Rather, what mattered to them was the RACE Singapore had to win. What mattered was the mission − advancing Singapore's flag on the track. Working together, they broke the national record.

Growing up, when I was playing lots of hockey, I had Chinese, Indian, Malay, Punjabi, Eurasian teammates. When we played against teams from other countries, our teams used to communicate on the pitch in different languages − Malay, English, Mandarin, Punjabi, Tamil, Hokkien. Sometimes, using very colourful verbs and nouns, best not repeated, especially here. The other teams were confused at hearing this collage of languages. We used our multiracialism and multilingual ability as assets. Diversity was a strength for our team. What mattered most to us was whether Singapore was up against the opponent on the scoreboard.

Singapore has been recognised as a multicultural society and that has also been independently recognised as a strength. According to the Gallup World Poll 2016, Singapore ranked top out of over 140 countries for tolerance of ethnic minorities. According to the 2015 Legatum Prosperity Index, Singapore ranked the highest among 142 countries where people feel that their country is tolerant of ethnic minorities. In an article in September 2017 in the Asian Tribune, the author cited the Singapore Government as having recognised "the importance of maintaining and fostering racial harmony" and that it had implemented policies and safeguards to that end.

Multiracialism does not come naturally. Left to itself, people tend to gravitate along racial lines. In France, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks on 7 January 2015, it was reported that the then Prime Minister Manuel Valls identified 64 ghettos in major cities where significant portions of the population were being left behind economically, marginalised into ethnic enclaves. When there is an unfamiliarity among ethnic groups, lack of social cohesion exists. The unfortunate consequence is a sense of distrust among the races. So, multiracialism does not come naturally. We have had to work hard at it and we need to continue to work hard at it. It is an aspiration, an ideal that we strive and need to continue to strive towards. It is a long work in progress. So, what have we done to move towards our aspirations?

When it comes to housing, the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's), Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) programme ensures that there will be racial diversity in each block of HDB flats. People of a different race, of a different religion, live next to one another. There is some familiarity, a platform for social integration through interaction, transcending ethnic boundaries. There is a kampung family.

Another important pillar is the Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs). They bring leaders of the different religious, ethnic and community groups together to build friendship and trust. Their good work had brought all of us of different races and religions together and has greatly contributed to furthering our ideal of multiracialism. This picture was taken at the reappointment ceremony of our constituency's IRCC this year. All of us, the races, Chinese, Malay, Indian and Eurasian, and many religions were present and represented at that table, cutting a cake together, symbolising the re-appointment of the IRCC. That was a very meaningful ceremony, possibly only in Singapore. I think all of us do ceremonies in each of our constituencies. What I mean by "only in Singapore" is that this type of ceremony happens only in Singapore.

In conclusion, Sir, terrorism is an affront to the Chinese community, it is an affront to the Malay community, it is an affront to the Indian community, it is an affront to the Eurasian community. It is an affront to Singapore and her values.

This photo is significant. These are our anti-terror frontline task force patrol officers. Armed, ready. Look closely. They are a multiracial group of men. Multiracialism is what terrorism seeks to destroy. But in Singapore, it is that same strong multiracialism that will be used to defeat the ills terrorism seeks to sow. That way, we secure for ourselves a happy irony. In the very face of the threat, we deploy a united multiracial force.

So, I ask this House, do we let terrorism divide us? Or do we say no, not on our soil. When an attack vests on our shores, will Singapore shut down in fear? No, Singapore will not. We will respond as one united people. And that way, Singapore will win. [Applause]

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

Dr Intan Mokhtar.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important matter.

The threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism cannot be underestimated nor taken for granted. With advancements in technologies and increasing global connectivity, terrorist and separatist cells are emboldened and have more convenient platforms to recruit similar-minded individuals to fight their cause, no matter how insidious that cause may be, usually made under the guise of seemingly religious or cultural grounds.

The new Infrastructure Protection Bill that we passed yesterday is testament to the Government's resolve in ensuring that we continue to strengthen our security measures and minimise risks and threats, in light of the recent spate of terrorist attacks. However, fighting terrorism goes beyond legislative enactments and enforcement.

Some may think the onus and responsibility of looking out for such threats lie within the individual or those closest to the individual. However, just as fighting crime and ensuring public safety is a shared responsibility which requires a common effort and resolve, so is the threat of terrorism and the risk of radicalisation and extremism.

Sir, let me first speak on the first two foci: to promote vigilance and resilience, and to prevent the spread of radicalised teachings.

The work of addressing and mitigating the threat of terrorism, radicalisation and extremist ideologies have traditionally been done by the RRG, first set up in 2003. While RRG has been instrumental in rehabilitating Jemaah Islamiah detainees and their families, as well as ISIS supporters more recently, the work of rehabilitation is correction after the fact.

There is a need to work further upstream in preventing radicalisation at its core, before it can even evolve into extremist ideologies or acts of terrorism. And this upstream work cannot just be the effort of asatizahs or Islamic religious scholars and teachers alone. In fact, there is a need to work across religions, races, cultures and even languages in tackling these threats upstream.

First, I would propose involving as many first points of contact as possible, be it through our grassroots movement, Family Service Centres, Social Service Offices, non-government organisations (NGOs) and voluntary welfare organisations. Volunteers and officers in such organisations are in frequent and direct contact with Singaporeans on a daily basis.

They ought to be trained to pick up tell-tale signs or potential problems which may escalate into situations of an individual being radicalised or, worse, committing acts of terrorism, be it religiously motivated or otherwise. Some tell-tale signs could include being reclusive or withdrawn, spending too much time online, developing sudden changes in views or perceptions or behaviour, or developing intense frustrations or having anger management issues.

Upon the detection of such worrying tell-tale signs, these first points of contact should make referrals to the RRG or other certified counsellors for further assistance and follow-up. The call has always been for families and friends to look out for such tell-tale signs, but families and friends may not always be impartial or neutral enough or may not always be quick enough to inform the relevant authorities for follow-up help. Hence, we would need many other first points of contact to manage this better.

Second, I would urge the Government to support initiatives where some of our youths are trained to be youth ambassadors and youth leaders, to mitigate the threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies through youth activism. Our youth ambassadors or leaders are the ones to lead our youths on meaningful engagements and socially constructive projects that build communities and not partake in missions or causes that tear down communities. They are also the ones who are trained to pick up tell-tale signs of the possible threat of radicalisation and extremist ideologies among their fellow youths, before these evolve into acts of terrorism.

These youth ambassadors and leaders are in constant touch with other trained counsellors and members of the RRG to help refer other youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. There is a need to work closely with our institutions of higher learning (IHLs) in the training of such youth ambassadors and leaders, and in supporting their socially constructive projects, such as Roses of Peace or Youth Ambassadors of Peace, appointed by several of our Muslim organisations.

Third, there is also a need to seek the involvement of significant others in promoting vigilance against and mitigating the threat of radicalisation and extremism among our youths. An important group of significant others is made up of our teachers, in both our mainstream and secular, as well as religious, educational institutions. Just as some teachers are trained as psychological counsellors in many of our mainstream schools, we would also need teachers to be trained as first points of contact to identify students or youths who are being radicalised or may be at risk of developing extremist ideologies or being involved in acts of terrorism. These teachers would work closely with the RRG, the Ministry of Home Affairs or other Government agencies that would be able to follow up with these students or youths, such as getting in touch with their parents or families, counselling them, enrolling them in rehabilitative programmes, or getting them involved in meaningful and socially constructive activities to redirect their ideas, energies and focus. At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The involvement of educators and religious teachers in countering the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism amongst our youths is very important and necessary. Just as how some teachers from mainstream schools are trained to become counsellors to help students who may be stressed or have personal problems, we also need religious teachers in our madrasahs who are trained to help our students and youths who may be at risk of being radicalised. These religious teachers can refer such students or youths to the right persons for further assistance.

At the same time, we should also encourage our religious teachers to be more active in sharing their knowledge and views about the context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore with our youths, especially through the social media platforms. We do have religious teachers who are active in social media in order to engage our youths, like Ustaz Mizi Wahid and Ustaz Irwan Hadi. But I hope that the number of such social media-savvy religious teachers will increase. They have the potential to become positive influencers who can shape the views and perceptions of our youths.

Here, I would like to welcome the establishment of the Islamic College of Singapore under the ambit of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). Around 1,000 of our students are currently studying in Islamic educational institutions overseas and, in the context of an increasingly uncertain global security situation, I believe that having an Islamic College in Singapore will open opportunities for our students to further their studies in Islamic education at the post-secondary level within our shores. I also hope that our Islamic College will become a symbol of Islamic education and scholarship that is excellent, progressive and inclusive, and able to become a renowned global Islamic institution.

I would also like to touch on the third item of this Motion, that is, investment in our pillars of multiracialism and multi-religious life, to defeat the threat of radicalism and terrorism. We should continue our efforts to uphold multiracialism and multi-religious life in Singapore, not only to achieve racial harmony, but also in our efforts to counter the threat of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. These efforts should continue at all levels and by every person, and not only by the Government or religious teachers and educators.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue in English. Each individual plays an important role in our efforts against the threats of radicalism, extremism and terrorism. At the same time, there is another endeavour that we need to partake in, that of ensuring that we do not swing to the other extreme of allowing any form of stereotypes or deep-seated biases to develop against any particular race or religion.

For instance, we need to work together to prevent Islamophobia, racial stereotypes or racial profiling against the Malays, or religious suspicion against the Muslims, from ever influencing the way we deal with one another, just because of the atrocities committed by ISIS, Al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups who claim to act on the Islamic faith. And we cannot allow Muslims to feel apologetic for what these terrorist groups, which proclaim to carry out their heinous acts in the name of Islam, have done. As a Muslim, I abhor their actions and I refuse to be associated with them, and I refuse to feel apologetic for all they have done, for they do not represent me or the faith that I believe in and uphold.

What we have nurtured here in Singapore − inclusivity and trust based on multiracialism and multiculturalism − are very precious. We must continue to work and do good together, and we need to continue to be sensitised to the needs of others, especially the minorities among us. And here, when I speak of the minorities, I am not just referring to those of race and religion alone; I am also referring to those of abilities and which happen as a result of social constructs, be it cognitive, communicative and so on.

As we progress as a nation, let us strengthen the bonds that exist among us, continue to be inclusive and magnanimous, and make sure we do not leave anyone behind, stranded or paralysed because of their race, religion or abilities.

"The beauty of the world lies in the diversity of its people". Let us continue to uphold multiracialism, multiculturalism and inclusivity, for it gives us fortitude as a people. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the Motion. The spectre of terrorism has been with us for slightly over 15 years since the bombing of the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001. Many of us remember the shocking revelations of Al-Qaeda-inspired plans to attack foreign embassies and commercial establishments in Singapore with truck bombs, and the arrests of some members of the JI terrorist organisation in Singapore shortly thereafter.

More than 15 years later, Singaporeans may be surprised to know that, even up to today, there is no internationally agreed upon definition for terrorism. One reason for this is the objection of groups and communities fighting for nationalist or separatist causes as a result of being disenfranchised or excluded by the state.

In other cases, some communities have to face up to a state that uses overwhelming force to punish an entire people or ethnic group because of the acts of a disproportionately small number. We are already seeing this scenario allegedly play out in Myanmar where more than half a million Rohingya Muslims have been forced to abandon their villages, fearing more violence against them by the state. Such atrocities are fertile ground for terrorism, and some acts of terror undertaken by oppressed people do not lend themselves to simple understanding or even condemnation. At times, the reality of any multiracial country hosting different communities, races and religions, including Singapore, is that atrocities in lands far away from ours will affect our people and pull at our heartstrings and our identities, too.

This prospect has taken on a whole new dimension with the advent of social media. Even though we are one people as Singaporean citizens, many of us host other identities and even biases, alongside our status as Singaporeans, regardless if we are a minority community or in the majority.

In the 1980s, the ISD stepped in to prevent the Singapore Sikh community from taking their support through Sikh religious institutions for an independent Sikh homeland in Punjab too far. Most historically, in the war years, many Chinese in Malaya contributed and supported the resistance against the Japanese Imperial Forces through China and in Southeast Asia. Muslims are deeply affected when innocent Palestinians die in reprisal killings carried out by the Israeli state.

While all these examples are not directly comparable, the point is that no matter what our race or religion, many of us do feel a deep sense of outrage when our kinsmen or women are bullied or wantonly killed anywhere in the world. The reaction is only human. But add religion to the mix, and feelings can cut to the bone.

As a multiracial nation, we are susceptible to this reality of contested identities and even more so now, as our population grows in size and newer Singaporeans join our ranks. However, whether we are Singaporeans by birth or by choice, we are all invested in the well-being of this country, in all aspects. We have to acknowledge that we pay allegiance to the President, our flag and to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, a Constitution that makes it the duty of any government to look after the interests of racial and religious minorities in Singapore. And so long as we do, our first loyalty is to Singapore and our way of life, which includes the well-being of families and friends regardless of race, language or religion. This must be so, and we must never relegate this first loyalty under any circumstances.

To that end, I have observed ordinary Singaporeans, local NGOs and institutions, and even the Prime Minister in some cases, being openly supportive of humanitarian initiatives in some of the most politically tense and fraught regions of the world. The tragedy in the Rakhine state in Myanmar is not without controversy. But as a Singaporean, I was deeply moved to read of the Singapore Buddhist Federation and all Buddhist institutions strongly supporting the call by MUIS to raise funds to provide relief to victims of the tragedy. As a Singaporean, I identified with the call of the Buddhist community and it made me proud to be a Singaporean.

Mr Speaker, a common sense of humanity is a very power adhesive to fortify our social cohesion and multiracialism against the reality of terrorism. And it is this common humanity that we will have to call upon to deal with the type of terrorism we see today.

The advent of ISIS has inspired a new generation of extremists who find no compulsion using armed violence in any form against anyone. Catalysed by developments in the Middle East and the rapid advancement of mobile technology, in particular, the prospects of self-radicalised and outwardly unsuspicious Singaporeans joining the ISIS cause have infused a dangerous new dimension to terrorism. Well-equipped and well-endowed security agencies have nothing substantive in their arsenal to prevent a determined, lone wolf attacker from going on a knifing rampage or hijacking a truck and mowing down innocent people waiting for a bus, for example.

This could well happen in Singapore. For example, a successful ISIS terrorist strike in Singapore falsely carried out in the name of Islam will test our social cohesion and resilience as one people. The Malay/Muslim community will come under the spotlight. Some extremist Muslims, particularly those overseas, may even celebrate such an attack, seeding more doubt against the entire Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

The ubiquitous nature of the social media will see some viral commentary which may prove hard to ignore, affecting the morale of the country and precipitating senseless reprisals, not all of which may be physical acts of violence. Avoiding the Malay/Muslim community and the desire not to have anything to do with them are equally, if not, more damaging, because turning on the Malay/Muslim community is the magic pill ISIS seeks to legitimise their narrative, one of oppression against Muslims.

In the event of an ISIS atrocity, all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion, must stand up to defend and protect the Malay/Muslim community from vilification. To reiterate, to turn on any community, let alone the Malay/Muslim community, would be to blindly walk into the playbook of the terrorists who seek to divide Singaporeans and justify their cause.

A few days ago, as the Workers' Party Members were discussing this Motion, Mr Low Thia Khiang recalled conversations with his constituents and friends of some Chinese Singaporeans being shielded from violence by their Malay friends and neighbours who invited them to stay in their homes with family members during the racial riots in the 1960s. We will have to harness such examples of our common humanity to get on with our lives in the advent of a terrorist attack in Singapore. Such stories serve an important unifying purpose, as is the pursuit of knowledge on matters pertaining to faith in the context of a multiracial society.

I do appreciate that not all stories are comfortable to discuss, but they do need to be shared because a sense of perspective, even if it is the Government's perspective, can be critical. Some years ago, but less so now, in the course of house visits, I hear allegations about the Government discriminating against the Malay community in the banning of the call to prayer or azan over loud hailers, a policy introduced many years ago. When I share that some of our Chinese friends occasionally raise concerns about the Government reserving land for Chinese temples within industrial estates, unlike mosques, which tend to be centrally-located within our communities and with good transport links, the conversations suddenly take on a very different complexion. Views which originally started out as outright discrimination by the Government start to moderate.

When one hears the azan walking around Jalan Sultan today, one realises that there can be nuance to policy decisions. And there must always be scope for nuance in policy decisions.

This is one reality of living in a multiracial country, the inevitably uneven nature of give-and-take in matters of race and religion, a matter to which I will come back to shortly.

Members of this House would agree that HDB living and urban living in general, with the races co-existing cheek by jowl does increase the prospects of interracial misunderstandings to take place. They are usually innocuous, such as a shift worker trying to get some sleep or a student studying for exams, just as your Malay neighbours are hosting a marriage or your Chinese neighbours are carrying out funeral rites at the void deck or of your Indian neighbours pounding spices. Just as often as we hear complaints in our HDB estates of open burning of joss paper and the illegal parking of vehicles by congregants of various faiths at temples, mosques or churches which spill over outside, we also hear of neighbours who are comfortable amongst one another and can rely on one another in times of need, exemplified in not just the food or greetings they share, but the willingness to be race-neutral, open-minded and communicative, traits which are vital to living in a multiracial society. All Members of this House would have experienced this in the course of their grassroots work.

I do appreciate that things can get more complicated in the workplace. But race or religion should never be reasons not to hire or to discriminate against someone. Chauvinistic behaviour, an attitude of superiority, an intolerance exhibited by superiors or co-workers at the workplace where we spend a large part of our day-to-day lives, will permeate not just into our attitudes but into the values we pass on to our loved ones.

This damages the quality of our multiracialism and we must be mindful of passing on our prejudices and biases. In the same breath, workers of any race must recognise that we all must strive to do our best, not just in words but in deeds. A can-do spirit, a positive work ethic and a common sense of mission aligned with the needs of your company or organisation can actually play a pivotal role in teaching racists about the futility and irrelevance of holding on to racist attitudes.

Some Singaporeans might have to leave a job because of latent or even perceived discrimination, but whatever the bad experience, leave the prejudice or the racism you have experienced behind too, for not all five fingers are the same.

Mr Speaker, it is clear a certain degree of tolerance is critical to living in a multiracial society like Singapore. It is a testimony to Singaporeans and the sort of people we have moulded ourselves to become over the last 50 years, that we have come to live in peace with one another in spite of the occasional hiccup, which is not unusual for a multiracial society. To that end, I see our multiracialism not just as a constant work in progress, but a glass that is half full, as opposed to half empty. To live in peace and harmony, it is imperative everyone practises some give-and-take and accept that for multiracialism to succeed and thrive, we must move forward with a live and let live attitude with respect to our racial and religious differences.

On this note, I would like to acknowledge the real and optical comfort the presence of members of the Inter-Religious Organisation (IRO) have communicated to many Singaporeans when they appear at various events. The Government should look at how the good work of the IRO can be further enhanced and communicated in newer ways to better reach out to the next generation of Singaporeans and represent the common grounds Singaporeans must cherish and protect.

To conclude, Mr Speaker, for tolerance to flourish, we must take the initiative as Singaporeans to learn more about and increase our knowledge and understanding of one another's faiths and practices. This process must come from the bottom up, from within each Singaporean, and it is just as important as any movement to prepare Singapore for a terrorist attack. In doing so, we will unwittingly but crucially facilitate a deeper and more respectful understanding of one another and, by extension, strengthen our social bonds and the quality of our multiracialism. Such an outcome will not only serve to inoculate Singapore against the negative fallout of a terrorist attack, it will represent the sort of society we strive to be and determine the Singapore we wish to leave behind for our children and our children's children.

Ms Sun Xueling.

Mr Speaker, I was at Gardens by the Bay. I marvelled at the boldness and imagination to create giant man-made trees in the middle of the city and to create a wonderful garden where plants of various species could be housed, tended to with great care to let them flourish. I recall that when plans for the Gardens were first unveiled, I had thought how unreal it was. But now, when I see the happy faces of families and visitors there, I have no doubt that the endeavour has paid off.

It occurred to me that what we have in Singapore is somewhat similar to our Gardens by the Bay. With boldness and imagination, we had economically transformed Singapore and, with the ideals of a multiracial and multicultural society in mind, we created social policies to bring about equal opportunities for our citizens regardless of race, language or religion to flourish and co-exist peacefully together. Our diverse cultures are like the diverse exotic flowers at Gardens by the Bay.

There is nothing preordained about our economic transformation. We created what we did not have. Land was reclaimed to build more housing and specialised industries, technology to recycle and desalinate water. And we attracted investments to create jobs we otherwise did not have. Similarly, there is nothing preordained about the social harmony among our citizens of different races and different religions. According to a Pew Research Center study released in 2014, Singapore is the most religiously diverse country in the world, compared to the 233 territories and countries studied. As the incident in Charlottesville, US, and in the Rakhine province of Myanmar and in various suburbs in France show us so vividly, in countries where there are racially and religiously diverse populations, when interracial or interreligious issues are not handled well, there can be bloodshed and chaos in society.

Our Government has taken a practical and unbiased look at what drives communities. While nurturing each community, our Government is cognisant of what outcomes may naturally arise, given inherent preferences and motivations, and takes actions through social policies to ensure that the delicate balance among different communities is maintained and trust built.

For instance, our towns are multiracial from the onset by deliberate design through our EIP. In Punggol recently, I welcomed three religious organisations to my constituency. Recognising the need to have places of worship to serve their respective communities, the mosque, temple and church each set up their places of worship in Punggol, a new town. They are located within 500 metres of one another. They each serve their congregants but they are close enough to one another for their congregants to see one another and to know one another if they make the effort to do so.

Would it have happened naturally if the Government had not put it into the town plans? It is natural for members of a community to want to group together. This is instinctive and understandable. But there could be downsides as communities can end up being segregated. So, while providing spaces for communities to practise their ways of life and religious worship, social policies have also been needed to create more common space through town planning in this case to bring communities closer together.

As individuals and as communities, we also can, through our own efforts, reach out to build bridges across communities. But we also need a system to support individual and community effort to nurture, guide and also protect. In this example, town planning provided a conducive environment for congregants of different religions to get to know one another. Grassroots organisations then proactively reached out to all three religious organisations to do good for the community together.

Does the Government's practical and realist approach make the policies any less aspirational? Like our young, we all wish for a progressive and equal society. But just wishing for it will not make it a reality. Recognising human nature, natural tendencies, objectively distinguishing causes from outcomes, and then taking action, step by step, to strengthen and protect what has been created may bring us closer to realising the ideals our nation aspires to.

Recently, we have seen growing religious extremism in many countries around the world which heightens tensions and differences among communities. Local grievances and regional conflicts provide a rallying cause, which charismatic preachers can leverage on. Racial and religious fault lines are fertile ground for domestic political exploitation.

Singapore is not immune to these factors. Extremist ideologies are also finding their way to our shores via online platforms, carrying persuasive but dangerous messages. Such influences accentuate differences, create walls among different communities and isolate groups. How do we address this? Is it by looking at the social harmony we currently enjoy and assuming that all is well? Or is it to continue investing in multiracialism so that it becomes the best socio-weapon against threats to the cohesion of our society?

We have to be careful not to be lulled into just saying the pretty words by not wanting to point out realities which may be inconvenient. In Hokkien, they say, "Mai zou pai nang", that is, "do not be the bad person", and allude to higher aspirations of multiracialism while leaving the work to others to do, and offer no practical solutions. Because if we all do that, then, we may inadvertently dismantle what has brought us here and discourage those who have contributed and are still contributing to our social harmony.

Our local religious organisations are mostly members of our IRCCs, volunteers who make up our RRG, and religious leaders who have pushed for the Asatizah Recognition Scheme to be made compulsory. Was it an ideology that the Minister Mentor had asked rhetorically in Parliament as recently as in 2009 over a debate on our founding tenets of multiracialism and multiculturalism? No, it is an aspiration, he remarked in return. Will we achieve it, he asked again. "I do not know," the Minister Mentor said, "We have to keep on trying".

We have to, so that our people, regardless of race, language or religion, can flourish in our unique garden city where there is always sufficient nutrition for everyone. Perhaps, individual care unique to their backgrounds, but always safe where no weeds can harm them. Our garden will be more beautiful and a greater wonder to all through its diversity. Mr Speaker, I would like to now continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Last month, I attended a very special event. It was proposed by the Punggol grassroots organisation, organised by the Al Islah Mosque, and attended by the local Catholic church and Buddhist temple. They did charity work together by delivering daily necessities to the residents and giving blessings. The theme of this event was "Blessing in Harmony". The decision to do this was jointly made by the three religious organisations, because they felt they shared a common cause.

I remember we came up to one flat with a cross hanging on its door. We naturally turned to the Catholic priest who then went up to knock on the door. A Chinese lady opened the door. She was Catholic but she can only speak dialect. The priest, however, can only speak in English. They made many gestures and tried to communicate but still failed. Luckily, there were people from the temple and the grassroots organisation who could speak dialects. They stepped forward to help with the interpretation. Both the priest and the lady were very happy, and we were also very happy seeing that.

I was touched. I think perhaps this scene can only be seen in Singapore. Here, the distance between the different religions and races can be very small. Although we are different, we can still support one another and be inclusive.

Integration does not mean homogenisation. We are not looking for uniformity. However, we can respect and accommodate one another.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said: "I do not expect the Government to assimilate everyone. I will not even try because that would be a meaningless attempt. …However, I would say integration is possible. Our integration is based on shared values, attitudes, language and, ultimately, a common culture."

We look forward to what Mr Lee had envisioned. We also need to act. We know that religious and racial harmony does not come out of the blue. Instead, it needs to be nurtured by our efforts, bit by bit.

Biologists say that living beings have a natural tendency to protect genes similar to themselves. Human beings also have a natural tendency to prefer one's own race. If this natural tendency is not developed properly, racial divide will occur, and racial divide is the beginning of ethnic confrontation and conflict.

The US has always been troubled by the race issue. The racial conflict in Virginia in August this year resulted in three deaths and dozens injured. If we take a look at the deeper issue, we can see that the long-time separation between the whites and the blacks has sowed the seeds for racial confrontation. Ethnic issues in other parts of the world are roughly the same. Separation creates misunderstanding, misunderstanding leads to confrontation, and confrontation leads to bloodshed.

The solution is to bring the distance closer.

The Singapore Government has been bringing the distance closer all these years. For example, EIP allows residents of different races to live together. Another example is to implement English education but, at the same time, keeping the mother tongue. This enables various races to communicate better and avoid misunderstanding and estrangement.

Racial harmony is not the work of the Government alone. In fact, we can all play a part. As long as we can take a small step forward when dealing with Singaporeans of different races and religions, show respect and understanding, we will then generate positive energies.

Just like during the Al Islah event, people from the temple and the grassroots organisation take a small step forward to help people from other religions and races. This one small step can change a lot.

Human beings also have another natural instinct, and that is love and tolerance. Love and tolerance allow us to love and help one another beyond race, religion and border. Love and tolerance are not just a slogan. It must be reflected in our actions. From the interreligious and interracial event which our local mosque has organised, we see love and tolerance.

Singapore's Malay/Muslim organisations have been playing an important role in preventing extremism and promoting racial harmony. For example, recently, leaders from the local Muslim community urged that the accreditation of asatizahs be made compulsory. Against the background that overseas terrorist organisations are spreading extremist thoughts, this initiative is very timely and will help guide local Muslims in the right direction. In addition, the RRG has also made active contributions to preventing extremism. The step taken by the local Muslim community has prevented social divide and made the distance between people smaller.

In order to maintain Singapore's racial harmony, we must act and continue to improve our system, so that we can create a common space among different religions and races. Let us work hand in hand and do good together.

When everyone takes one small step forward, the distance between us will become smaller. We will be more united, and we will be safer, too. Racial harmony begins from each one of us. A small step from one person will be a big step for the society towards social harmony. This is my aspiration. Let us work together!

Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I support the Motion and would like to make some suggestions towards the effort to strengthen social cohesion so that Singaporeans of all races and religions can stand strong together, with one voice, and prevent, combat and defeat the scourge of radicalism and terrorism together.

Sir, news about terror attacks have become commonplace over the past decade. It has frequently been reported that terror incidents taking place, either by certain groups or by individuals, were committed by those who have been influenced and lured by radical ideologies. Many experts who monitored and observed this situation have concluded that the scourge of terrorism and radicalism cannot be easily countered and stopped, and it is highly likely that this situation will persist in the future.

The question is, what makes a person become so influenced by radicalism until that person becomes so caught up in it and dares to commit acts of terror, killing innocent lives and destroying public property? How can someone's mind be able to accept that there is nothing wrong with committing acts of terror that are based on the justification of achieving change and justice?

Sir, we all know that the process of radicalisation usually involves the use of religious doctrines and politics to manipulate minds so that these individuals see terrorism as a way or approach that is acceptable and, in fact, some feel that it is compulsory in order to achieve an objective. This process is usually used by hardline extremists who submit to certain religious or political ideologies. Hence, the best way to counter such radical elements is by inculcating authentic religious values, knowledge that strengthens one's character and also community and national values amongst Singaporeans.

Sir, in Singapore since the early 2000s, we have seen cases of radicalism that involve Singaporeans related to the use of religious doctrine. We have seen how JI and ISIS have misused Islamic teachings to manipulate and radicalise the minds of individuals and, hence, influencing them to turn towards violence and terrorism by claiming that this is meant to uphold truth and justice.

In Singapore, preventive and rehabilitative steps have been taken and implemented to counter religious ideologies that are radical or extremist in nature. The establishment of RRG is a measure to implement educational and rehabilitative processes for individuals who are lured and influenced by radical beliefs. Local religious teachers and Islamic scholars have stepped forward, worked together and contributed their time and energy voluntarily to help rehabilitate individuals who were taken in by radical propaganda. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record the appreciation to all religious teachers as well as Islamic scholars who have worked hard, patiently and sincerely in this effort.

The introduction of the Asatizah Recognition Scheme (ARS) is another effort to ensure that religious guidance being delivered is in line with our context of Singaporeans of different backgrounds living together and, at the same time, prevent any teachings that are based on violence and radical ideologies.

Both initiatives, the RRG and ARS, showed that it is important and necessary to have efforts that inculcate fundamental and authentic religious values to counter and prevent radicalism and extremism in religion.

Sir, there is an English proverb: "prevention is better than cure". Prevention is a very effective way to counter the scourge of radicalism. Efforts for upstream intervention should be done by inculcating relevant knowledge to counter the wave of radicalism, a scourge that is haunting the global community.

Here, I would like to suggest that efforts to inculcate religious values at a young age should be done through the national education system. This can be done by reintroducing the Religious Knowledge (RK) subject in secondary schools.

Sir, I admit that Singapore is a secular nation and that my suggestion to reintroduce the RK subject is contrary to secular values, but I feel that this step is necessary. This is because the scourge of terrorism, globally as well as in Singapore, has shown that religious doctrine has been used to radicalise individuals. I believe that the inculcation of authentic religious teachings at a young age through the national education system is a more effective method in the effort to prevent radical religious thinking. We should be open to make slight adjustments and changes if the situation calls for it, in order to guarantee social cohesion and the prosperity of the nation.

Sir, apart from the RK subject, I would like to suggest that Psychology be introduced as a component of the science subject in secondary schools. Why Psychology? Earlier, I shared how extremists and terrorists manipulate minds in the effort to radicalise an individual. The manipulation of minds is done by planting perspectives and perceptions that are prone to accept and allow such propaganda that is presented to them. I feel that such manipulations can be countered by learning Psychology.

Psychology is a field of science pertaining to the mind and behaviour. It covers subjects like human development, social behaviour and the cognitive process, including knowledge about perceptions. A person who is equipped with knowledge of Psychology will likely be able to develop an awareness of himself or herself, as well those around him or her.

Psychology is also very relevant in the current context, not only to counter the manipulation of minds in relation to radicalism, but also for other social ills that arise from the usage of social media. We have seen many situations where conflicts arise in social media due to different perspectives and perceptions about current issues and sensitive issues. Often, it descends into insults, through the use of inappropriate words and phrases. I believe that, with a knowledge of Psychology that is obtained in school, this will enable one to have an open mind, because the person understands that it is natural for different perspectives and perceptions to exist, and we should practise mutual respect when encountering such differences. As the Malay saying goes, "we will have dark hair, but we have different hearts" which, in English, means, "we can agree to disagree".

Aside from imparting religious values and learning psychology, the inculcation of community and national values is also important. In our country, the inculcation of community and national values is done in schools through the National Education subject. This move has been applauded and has been very beneficial.

Sir, I am of the view and belief that the amalgamation of these three aspects, namely, religious values, learning Psychology, as well as community and national values, is a necessary combination in our efforts to strengthen the existing social cohesion. This is because this combination can produce individuals who possess positive characteristics who are proud of their identity as Singaporeans, and this will further enhance efforts to strengthen social cohesion in Singapore.

Mr Desmond Choo.

Mr Speaker, as a racially and religiously diverse society, Singapore has a mix of fault lines and differences that can divide people and tear our society apart. The racial riots of the past are a grim reminder of what it can be like if there is no mutual trust and understanding among different societal groups. We have developed a Singaporean approach that worked for us. Although it is not perfect, we have enjoyed decades of peace and harmony. Singapore has been fortified but not impregnable.

In late 2015, I attended a seminar called "Celebrating Humanity, Faith and Love". It was organised by Jamiyah Singapore, held in Soka Association in Tampines, and attended by Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Taoists and Freethinkers. I stood at the rostrum and could not help but marvel at the miracle that we have created. A week ago, I attended the 100th Anniversary of the Sheng Hong Temple and it was well-attended by leaders of Singapore's major faiths. We are probably one of the few places in the world where this can happen regularly, celebrated widely, and perhaps even taken for granted at times. We have forged a common space where Singaporeans can practise their faiths freely. This freedom is precious. Ironically, because we are a successful example of a multicultural society, we are on the terrorist hit list.

Terrorism threatens to rip our hard-earned social fabric apart. Extremists can then lay claim that multiculturalism just does not work. The chaos and destruction from a successful terrorist attack in Singapore will drive wedges right along our fault lines. Will we unite and overcome the challenges together as one Singapore, or will we crumble and fall apart?

The ties that we have nurtured during peaceful times can hopefully endure such a test. Even though we have differences, I believe that what divides us pales in comparison to what unites us. However, this is something that we should not take for granted, especially when terrorism is almost at our doorstep. It is imperative that we strengthen our bulwark against these winds of evil.

We have certainly made much progress through our many emergency preparedness programmes. Yet, videos and posts online continue to show that unattended bags or items in public spaces were often ignored and unreported. This reminds us that we have our work cut out for us. How can we further scale our efforts, especially in schools and workplaces?

The social media is an important battleground that must be won. Social media has a critical role to play in times of crisis. It can be an agent in uniting or dividing us. I would like to ask if we can have a group of social media influencers who can be roped in as "first responders" on social media in times of crises. In the event of such an incident, these "online first responders" could be the first ones to put out their thoughts and, hence, lead discussions in a productive manner. If there are groups that try to spread falsehoods or rumours online that can confuse the public in times of chaos, these "first responders" could help Government agencies spread the correct messages to resolve the issue.

I will next touch on fighting hate speech and extremist thinking. Incidents in other countries have shown a growing trend of extremist thinking. We must not allow our people to be influenced by these unhealthy trends which will create fear and suspicion among different races and religions. We must not only counter these perceptions online but also in our private lives daily. It can be when a family member makes a careless remark to us, or when a friend circulates such messages through WhatsApp or other means of communication. We must stand up to such seemingly innocent but are really soft approaches of spreading division and disunity. We have a duty, both moral and national, to not participate in spreading such messages. This is our Singaporean duty.

With regard to hate speech online, the European Union (EU) has said that it wants tech giants like Facebook and Twitter to do more in cracking down on hate speeches online by providing automatic deletion technology and other ways to prevent hate speech from being propagated online. Could we also look into whether we will call for the same provisions from such companies? While Singapore has laws to curb hate speech, such legislation may not be the only or the best way to deal with such matters.

The safety and security that we have enjoyed for many decades are not something that came about by chance, but it is a result of hard work over a long period of time. The Government's strong and consistent enforcement of the law, a dedicated and capable Home Team and SAF, and the forward-looking social policies have kept terrorism at bay. We have been fortunate thus far to be spared from terrorist attacks. The threat is real and we must all play our part in being vigilant in our daily lives. I support the Motion.

Ms Thanaletchimi.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for more than five decades, Singapore has created a multiracial and multi-religious society not by chance but by choice, delicately balancing meritocracy with multiracialism. Since young, through education, every Singaporean has been continuously reminded that the peace and stability that we enjoy should not be taken for granted. Today, we often hear the word, "terrorism", both offline and online. There are a number of incidences, including the recent attacks in London, reminding everyone that there is a need not only to be vigilant but also a pertinent need to be resilient.

I welcome the SGSecure initiative. It is vital for all of us to look out for security threats and to know how to respond to such threats. We should acknowledge that terrorism is not far away and it can come to Singapore in both physical and psychological forms. We should not think of it as "if it happens", that is, if terrorism comes to Singapore, but rather think of it as "when it happens", what do we do? Are we prepared to confront it or hide behind the veil of fear and trepidation?

Our Singapore workforce constituents comprise a combination of local and migrant workers. Hence, it is not only important to inculcate the value of multiracialism and multiculturalism among Singaporeans, but also to the migrant workers from various countries.

In the case of the healthcare industry, other than the Singaporean Core, the industry is supplemented by migrant workers from the Philippines, Myanmar, China, India and many other countries. With such diversity in the workplace, it is pertinent to place emphasis on workplace integration and management of diversity. There should be platforms for the employees to understand the local culture, and this should be an integral part of the organisation, such as during employee orientation.

For example, I would like to quote some positive examples from Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. As the President of Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU), I have attended as an invited guest to their festive celebrations, such as Chinese New Year, Hari Raya Puasa, Deepavali, to mention a few. I am so heartened and impressed by the efforts put in by the management of all levels, including doctors, to integrate their staff from various cultural backgrounds. It is strongly supported by the Chief Executive Officer and the Senior Management staff. The event is designed in a manner that the audience understands the rationale as well as the practices of each culture. The entire event, including the emcees and performers, are employees of Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. The organisers, who are employees themselves, take a deep interest in trying to understand the cultural practices and translate them into easily comprehensible acts or performance to the audience, that is, their diverse employees.

For instance, during the period of Ramadan, non-Muslim employees were encouraged to fast for one day so that they can participate in the fasting process with their Muslim colleagues and, at the same time, understand the reasons for doing so. In this case, it is beyond theory but also in action, showing the unique practices of each culture. In fact, at this year's Hari Raya Puasa celebration at Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, our hon Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Amrin Amin, was the special guest at the event. He can concur that the kind of enthusiasm, high spirit and atmosphere of gotong royong amongst the staff of all races and nationalities dressed up in the traditional Malay outfits were, indeed, highly commendable.

The above example is an illustration of how organisations can weave in the workplace integration efforts as part of their staff inclusiveness in the social setting. In fact, I fully support the launch of the Community Integration Fund by the National Integration Council in September 2009 to support organisations in implementing ground-up integration initiatives. I urge that more organisations should step forward to tap on this fund, not only to lessen the financial burden of these events' costs but, essentially, with the altruistic objective of promoting inclusivity and social well-being amongst employees. In addition, I personally feel that the organisers need to put in dedicated time to design the programme in a style that the audience can capture the essence of workplace integration and harmony.

As we go through the major economic transformation, it is vital that we focus on both the hardware and the heartware so that our social fabrics at workplaces are strengthened. Similar to how we treat health and safety as an important value and culture at our workplaces, likewise, workplace integration and harmony must be regarded and treated with equal importance for Singapore's progress, not only in today's global climate, but also for tomorrow.

While we place great emphasis on workplace integration and inclusion, it is of paramount importance that we always stay guarded against the potential threat that confronts us, be it in the community or at the workplaces, and be better prepared to confront the threat and overcome the fear. Companies must be better prepared with contingency plans or business continuity plans in the event of being succumbed to terrorist acts. The employees must be trained to be conscious of their surroundings and be better prepared to identify potential dangers, such as strange behaviours of their fellow employees or strangers loitering at the workplace. There must be an independent channel for staff to raise alert should there be a likelihood of threat, and that companies must be willing and be prepared to deal with such alerts.

Workplaces must continue to maintain harmony, and it is the corporate social responsibility of every employer to do so. In the event such threats should happen despite much vigilance, companies must have the means to deal with the recovery to attain the normalcy state swiftly. For this, it is crucial for companies to have professionals who could better address the psychology of employees who are affected. Incidences at workplaces should not divide a society or stigmatise people based on race, religion or nationality. We need to preserve harmony and industrial peace, as societal disruption is a perfect recipe for a country's downfall.

Therefore, I would urge the Government to encourage and, where required, mandate the following to prepare workplaces better to confront terrorism.

First, regardless of multinational companies (MNCs) or small and medium enterprises (SMEs), companies should be urged to perform SG Secure drills or at least tabletop exercises minimally once a year. Companies must be well-connected and work with various Government agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Home Team, as well as healthcare institutions at a geographical cluster level.

Second, companies must be encouraged through tax rebates or incentives to set up mental wellness or mental health counselling sessions for employees who are undergoing stress, depression or psychological challenges. The availability of professionals, such as psychotherapists, psychologists and professional counsellors, will certainly be of great help in identifying individuals who are much affected, both mentally and behaviourally, so that early intervention will certainly defuse potential explosive threats from taking place. It will also prevent such vulnerable individuals from being preyed upon by terrorist cells.

Third, we must ensure that workplaces are better prepared to provide first-aid or first line rescue, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), and be equipped with automated external defibrillator (AED) devices. When incidents happen, the workers have only themselves to help one another until rescue comes. Companies must invest in this effort to train their employees for the possible eventuality. Companies should also encourage their employees to support blood donation and be prepared to do so when called upon.

Lastly, the relevant Ministry to continue to promote workplace integration and the use of the available funds for companies to establish a framework that includes sustainable diversity management programmes and promote the establishment of "Diversity Ambassadors" to ensure unity in diversity and to propagate the message of workplace integration and workplace harmony. The unions in the unionised companies can partner this effort.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to commend the Government for its effort to bring about SGSecure and its resolve to make it pervasive both in the community and at the workplaces. The challenge is to sustain the effort and, essentially, to remind ourselves that the threat is constant and psychological preparedness is key. With this, I support the Motion.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, terror has many faces, many names and many causes. It has no nationality, race, religion, language nor gender. Terror has been around for many centuries. But perhaps none has been more potent or devastating than those who have espoused their warped cause, falsely and illegitimately, in the name of religion in recent times. Yet, we must make an important distinction. Terrorism cannot claim to represent any particular religion, it has nothing to do with religion, it is plain and simply born out of warped human fundamentalism.

Islam, like all mainstream religions, is a religion of peace. Yet, various groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, all claim the right to inflict wrongs and inflict it on their Muslim brothers and sisters and establish an Islamic Caliphate, which they promise will be heaven on earth, but it is more like hell.

Mr Speaker, I am not a Muslim myself and I do not claim to be a subject matter expert. But from what I have read and learnt from my Muslim friends, Islam does not support terrorism. Islam calls upon Muslims to submit to the will of God. Yet, terrorists have misappropriated the words of the Quran for their own agenda. Their actions are completely at odds with the message contained in the Quran.

Fundamentalism, therefore, has no place in our present world. Adherence to a strict, literal interpretation of scripture does more harm than good to mankind. And just because we can pick and choose and memorise particular verses from the Quran, the Bible, the Torah and any other religious text does not make us religious at all. Religion, in fact, provides all of us with a pathway to be better human beings. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, leads one towards the corruption of the human soul.

In the Friday sermon on 29 September at all mosques in Singapore, MUIS did the right thing by explaining that verses contained in the Quran should not be tweaked for convenience and for setting of an alternative agenda. This is a very apt reminder under the present circumstances where a Singaporean, reported to have been recruited by ISIS, is misleading Muslims in Singapore and in the region with false statements to follow his path of terror. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they say. This terrorist, who was neither religiously inclined nor formally trained, was infused with deviant thoughts and teachings while in the Middle East. But, if we consider this very carefully, he is but one of the many Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu youths who are now being influenced by deviant teachings widely available on social media and the Dark Web.

It is, therefore, incumbent upon all Singaporeans to be on a look-out to report family members, friends and individuals who display signs of having been radicalised in their thoughts and actions. They will be doing not only themselves and our nation a favour but also the affected individuals as well.

Betterment of society is the key word and I am glad that MUIS, in the same sermon on 29 September, preached that Muslims will continue to contribute to the prosperity and development of the community that they are living in.

Singapore is blessed that it has enlightened Muslim leaders who are in sync with the larger good of the community. Their enlightened and progressive approach to many issues, such as organ donations, the Milk Bank, cord blood donations, only serves to strengthen our social fabric.

Keeping Muslims informed and ensuring that their need for proper and religious knowledge is not compromised as well, MUIS introduced the ARS last year. To this end, registering religious teachers to ensure proper qualifications and training, and within the context of our multiracial and multi-religious society, is a welcome move. One can only imagine the havoc that can be created by self-serving rouge teachers.

The ARS' emphasis on contextualising around a multiracial and multi-religious societal core is also an important development. I hope that other religious communities in Singapore would also be able to mould their own religious teachings in the same way. Ultimately, deviant teachings serve two purposes: to turn the follower against the world and the world against the followers. Feeding the cycle of hate and fundamentalism only makes the world a far more restive and tense place, where every action can spark the tinder box of suspicion and violence.

Mr Speaker, Sir, multiracial and multi-religious Singapore was a hard-fought prize that is to be treasured by all Singaporeans. But even after more than 50 years of nationhood, this is still fragile. This calls for all of us to think very hard. The Prime Minister, in his recent Kopi Talk, highlights this concern aptly.

The social cohesion and racial harmony that we are enjoying now are not a given. It needs nurturing; it needs tender loving care because harmony, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not a luxury for Singapore. It is an absolute necessity for our very existence as a nation, as a people. So, how do we go about nurturing racial harmony among Singaporeans? By getting them more involved and interacting with Singaporeans of all races and religions. Schools could take a greater lead in this by encouraging students to interact with students of other races not just on the surface, but more in-depth and an understanding of the cultures and traditions and what motivates them. This really needs to start at a young age.

Our leaders have also been emphasising Singapore's potential as a prime target for terrorists. We talk about "when", not "if". Minister Shanmugam's recent statement that there is still some way to go for terror preparedness among Singaporeans is also worrying.

The SGSecure movement is already a year old. Yet, a recent Sunday Times poll shows that four in five Singaporeans are not prepared for the eventuality of a terror attack. Preparation for any eventuality has been a way of life for Singapore. A good example of this is our concept of Total Defence. It focuses on five key areas − military, civil, economic, social and psychological. Many of my fellow hon Members have mentioned different aspects of this. So, these five key areas have stood us in good stead over the years but how prepared will we be for the actual event, when it happens? How strong will be our social fabric? So, we need to focus also a lot on psychological preparedness which needs a lot of work.

We talk about unity in diversity in Singapore. It sounds very nice, warm and fuzzy but, in reality, it is a concept that needs lots of practice to make perfect. We have to admit that even in Singapore, casual and sometimes even overt racism is still an ugly fact. Religious chauvinism is also becoming part of our landscape, yet this is often hidden away in the relative safety of inner sanctums. It is these that we must be weary of. It is quite one thing to be proud of what you believe in and quite another to use that pride to deride another's beliefs. Casual racism and religious chauvinism are just one step shy of hate speech.

For many of us in this Chamber, as members of the majority race, it may seem hard to comprehend. Some people have asked me why I have constantly worn a lapel pin of the Singapore flag. I have done this since I was in university. I studied in the United Kingdom (UK) and it was in the university overseas that, for the first time, I was not the majority race. It was also the first time I experienced what it meant to be a minority. It was not violent, it was not always in your face, but it was always there lurking.

Regardless of my actual surname, to many of the shopkeepers in town, I was a Ching, Chang and Chong and they never did it with any sort of malice, it was always with a smile. It almost seemed normal to them.

Regardless of my actual nationality, I have been called a communist from the mainland or a boat boy from Saigon. And regardless of my faith, I was a papist practising popery in the Anglican heartland. Again, none of this was in your face, but it was always there. People spoke about you. It was always slightly percolating beneath the surface. I found comfort in the community in church but I did not retreat away.

To be honest, I was angry when I first experienced this, but I was encouraged to do something positive about it. And so, I ran for the Students Union as the Ethnic Minorities Officer, won the seat and then served on the Chaplaincy reaching out to other minorities. And because of those experiences, I also started wearing the flag as a visible sign to others and also a reminder to myself.

Today, back here, in Singapore, I belong to the majority race. I still wear the flag as a reminder that there is much work for us to do. How do our brother and sister Singaporeans from minority races cope because I am sure they faced the same difficulties I did overseas and, perhaps, even to a deeper level because it is not violent, it is not always in your face. It is not always apparent but it is there.

I have also discovered that the worst that we can do is to retreat into our own false security of our small racial and religious circles. Because it is only when we reach out that we can reach in to strengthen our own identities. We can have pride in who we are, but it is in the sharing and learning of others' cultures and practices that we can fully appreciate our very own. The strength of our own conviction should not come from the denigrating of another's.

Mr Speaker, we have come a long way as a nation, a nation that almost should not exist in some people's books. Yet, we do and we thrive. But we must not pay lip service to the harmony that we enjoy, our multiculturalism and multiracialism, because terror can strike at any point. We are buffeted on all sides by deviant thoughts, we are drawn towards the seductive call of separatism, of living apart from others. But I also see in Singapore a horizon filled with bright lights. If only we work hard at it.

While our very existence as an oasis of harmony is also the reason for us to be targets but it is also our harmony that will bind us closer together should something happen because we are Singapore. As One People United, we can weather any storm. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Motion wholeheartedly and I pledge to do my own small part so that all of us can stay united against any threat.

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important Motion that touches upon the state of foundation of our nation. Multiracialism is the bedrock for our nation. When we were trying to get out of the colonial mess of divide and rule, using race to split the people in Malaya, our founding patriots in the 1950s pledged on unconditional multiracialism to bring peace and security to our land. The image of "Merdeka" that is burned into my mind is the image of the four main races linking arms in solidarity and marching forward.

More than anyone else, the late S Rajaratnam had been the one who defined our foundational multiracialism in the 1960s. He saw the four main races of our nation as four independent circles brought together by history, now overlapping in terms of social bonds, cultural practices and political and economic interests, creating a common space in the middle of the overlap that could be called truly and uniquely Singaporean. The task of our multiracial nation-building was to keep working at enlarging that common space.

In the 1980s, because society was becoming very individualistic and uneven competition was leading to some groups being left behind in education and employment, the emphasis shifted to bolstering community bonds and identities. Self-help groups, namely, the Council for the Development of the Singapore Malay/Muslim Community (Yayasan MENDAKI), the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC) and the Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), and later the Eurasian Association, were founded. Cultural preservation became a key thrust. The consciousness and appreciation of our cultural heritage was promoted.

Then, in the 2000s, there was another shift. One speech that I like to quote in my own academic papers is that of Minister of Community Development and Sports Yaacob Ibrahim's speech at the Wee Kim Wee Seminar on cross-cultural understanding. In that speech, he mapped out what he saw as the third phase of the evolution of our multiracialism. He called this phase, multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is about mutual respect and understanding. It is also more than mutual respect. Multiculturalism is also about us Singaporeans adopting and modifying cultural values and practices from one another so that we become more like one another and yet, still diverse.

Minister Yaacob used food examples, of course. He said, "When a Malay colleague of mine invited me to his home to have a steamboat dinner, my understanding of what it means to be Malay in Singapore had to be updated. When I visit Komala Vilas with my family and tuck into the vegetarian food, the crowd there is truly varied and Singaporean."

This 2003 speech on multiculturalism is important, given the historical context. It came in the wake of the 9/11 attacks in New York and the arrest of the JI members in Singapore.

Multiculturalism signalled to Singaporeans and the world we would not adopt reactionary approaches that could lead to backlash, we would not stigmatise any particular community and turn neighbours on neighbours with suspicion and phobia. Instead, we would fortify our multiracialism foundations to promote inclusivity, harmony and cross-cultural dialogue. The IRCCs were founded then as a significant innovation to build trust across communities, to invest in social capital development through dialogue and friendship, so as to be ready for any adverse event threatening our cohesion.

The situation is not too different today, except that terror is now cellular and social mediatised, harder to detect and more unpredictable. It is tempting to turn the institutions and social capital Singaporeans have built up into security instruments to counter terrorism. But I would like to sound a warning. We should not weaponise multiracialism. Multiracialism is our foundation and we do not rip up our foundation to build defensive walls. Multiracialism gives us the firm ground for us to stand and fight extremist threats to our nation; we do not tear up our ground to use as stones.

A weaponised multiracialism is a double-edged sword. It will heighten racial thinking and we will risk unintended consequences. A weaponised multiracialism will not only hold back progress to our post-racial aspiration. It can also turn xenophobic and be used against the many migrant communities and cultures that have come to our shores.

A weaponised multiracialism can cause race consciousness to feed on itself, leading people to judge one another on the basis of race, making us ask one another and ourselves: what makes a Chinese-Singaporean Chinese, whether a Malay-Singaporean is Malay enough, when an Indian-Singaporean is acceptable as family and leader?

Indeed, we need to strengthen our foundation and invest in multiracialism. But how? There is much to learn from the past, even as we celebrate the present and prepare for the future. Returning to the 2003 speech by Minister Yaacob, we should start to think about the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. We need to build on the inclusive multiculturalism that was adopted in the 2000s to deepen it. As Minister Yaacob said in 2003, the evolution did not happen by design but by choice. We have to be careful not to over-engineer the evolution, or we cause multiracialism to become irrelevant or, worse, cause people to lose faith in multiracialism. We have to look at the choices we have now on the ground.

So, what choices do we have on the ground? What choices are being made by our grassroots multiracial institutions on the ground? There are three examples I would like to highlight. The first is the growth in the number of collaborative tuition centres operated by the four self-help groups to help students of all races, which is an acceleration of the collaborative tuition programme started in 2002.

The second is the Ministry of Education's (MOE's) strategic partnership with the four self-help groups to operate 30 student care centres for students of all races which was announced in August 2015.

The third is the recent initiative by the four groups to set up the pilot self-help group centre in January next year to run race-neutral workshops and enrichment programmes to cater to everyone.

The name "self-help group centre" is actually an oxymoron. The centre will become a mutual support centre, where Singaporeans of different races seek to help one another to overcome their difficulties in life. It is no longer communal self-help as we know it. It is mutual support. The self-help groups are fast becoming mutual help groups. This captures the movement on the ground, the choices that Singaporeans, originally caught up in their orientation towards their own community, are making. Singaporeans are choosing to forge trans-racial ties, that is, creating social bonds that transcend racial identities. And Singaporeans are choosing to engage in intercultural exchange and, that is, doing cultural practices across ethnic lines. Multiculturalism is becoming interculturalism.

In this respect, I would like to suggest that the Government could help to catalyse these trans-racial, intercultural collaborations by providing three things: one, space, funds and administrative support; two, special cohesion grants; and three, synergies in the public education sector.

First, space, funds and administrative support. When I read about the self-help group centres in the news recently, I was thrilled. This initiative converges with the Workers' Party General Election (GE) 2015 manifesto proposal to set up multicultural help centres to house the race-based self-help groups, so as to provide mutual help and educational support to all underprivileged children in every town. The setting up of multicultural help centres in all Community Hubs would be more beneficial to the Singaporeans needing help than to rent out public grassroots spaces to private tuition centres.

Our proposal also goes further to call for the IRCCs to be enhanced to operate as programme providers at the multicultural help centres. We also proposed a coordinating secretariat be set up within the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) to help oversee the work of the centres. This coordinating secretariat could transform Community Development Councils (CDCs) into regional offices for multicultural programme resources and services. This would greatly extend the impact and reach of the inclusive and collaborative multiculturalism being pioneered by the self-help groups.

Second, special cohesion grants. One of the problems that groups promoting collaborative multiculturalism face is the lack of knowledge of innovative methodologies for cross-cultural exchanges. Another problem is the lack of knowledge of content materials, such as best practices and case studies of successful cross-cultural collaborations to solve community problems, that could be used for the workshops and enrichment programmes. Cultural studies is an important field of study that would increase the capacity of the self-help groups to collaborate with one another, but cultural studies is still an underdeveloped academic field in Singapore. The Government could step in to provide special cohesion grants to fund collaborative mutual learning trips and cultural studies research projects involving collaboration between the universities and the social sector.

Third, synergies in the public education sector. One of the reasons for the success of multiculturalism in diverse, migrant societies is the emphasis on multicultural practices and pedagogy in schools. Teachers are the frontline officers in this effort. They could inspire students to multicultural values or cause cynicism reinforcing racial thinking. National education programmes can only do so much with its content-rich approach. Teachers are the real-life role models for students. Teachers should receive special training in multicultural pedagogy so that they can better engage students from different backgrounds and bring together them for effective cross-cultural interactions. Schools can also work closely with self-help groups in their multicultural help centres, so that multicultural practices would not be limited to performances and food but involve real-time collaboration to tackle real-life issues.

Mr Speaker, Sir, 15 years ago, the Government recognised the evolution of multiracialism to multiculturalism, the third phase in our march forward to becoming a strong and united nation. We have built up important institutions and a rich cache of social capital since. Today, as we confront extremism, as we always have, I hope the Government will resist the temptation to weaponise multiracialism as instruments to counter terror. Multiracialism is only effective for countering extremism when it is not treated as a measure and means to counter extremism, but respected as an end in itself, the good that defines the essence of who we are as Singaporeans.

We need to look to the ground to see the features of the next phase of evolution of our multiracialism. Interculturalism appears to be the coming fourth phase and the Government would do well to facilitate its development. Deepen the trans-racial collaboration and intercultural interactions, and we would be one step closer to our post-racial aspirations.

Minister Yaacob Ibrahim.

Mr Speaker, societies around the world face serious threats from ideologies that profess faith but preach hate and violence. Extremism in the name of religion and race has brought fear and death in its wake.

But just as dangerous are exclusivist beliefs and segregationist practices that result in communities not only staying apart from one another but making no effort to understand one another. These are societies in which the views of one community about the other are informed only by stereotype or prejudice. On the surface, all may appear calm and peaceful, sometimes for years. But when groups segregate themselves from others, social harmony is easily lost and hard to recover. So, when a crisis hits, when a terrorist attacks, or when times are tough, such societies can fall apart.

The extremism of ISIS has also spawned another monster, that of Islamophobia, in the West. Far-right groups in the West are gaining political ground by openly campaigning against Muslims. A few prominent religious leaders in the US have openly accused Islam of being a religion of violence.

So, Singapore is faced with a triple threat of extremist and radical ideology, segregationist beliefs and practices, and Islamophobia. All of us, regardless of race or religion, must squarely face and defeat this trifecta of disunity and not let it take root in Singapore. As a country founded on multiracialism where all races live together in mutual respect and equality, this is a threat to our very existence as a nation.

As a minority in a plural society, our Malay/Muslim community and its leaders are acutely aware of the challenges. Racial riots defined the fears of our founding generation. Our community's Pioneers saw clearly the importance of a united and strong society, where all communities are well-integrated.

Earlier this year, during my annual Hari Raya function with community leaders, I emphasised how the Malay/Muslim community has faced evolving challenges with resolve. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the uncovering of the plot of JI members planning terror attacks in the region and at home, there was intense scrutiny of the community. Yet, the community and our religious leaders rallied together to tackle this threat, along with the rest of Singapore society.

Over the past decade, our community has enhanced the capabilities of our religious teachers, or asatizahs, strengthened the curriculum of our madrasahs and revamped the delivery of part-time religious education to meet the needs of the community. We have the RRG, initiated and led by senior asatizahs who volunteered themselves as counsellors to help rehabilitate and reintegrate radicalised individuals. We launched the Harmony Centre@An-Nahdhah mosque in Bishan and supported inter-faith dialogues. To live out the ideals of Islam as a religion of peace, we created the Rahmatan Lil Alamin Foundation, or Blessings to All Foundation, to aid universal humanitarian causes to bring aid to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

The emergence of ISIS-inspired ideologues and extremists and their methods of operation have magnified the challenge ahead of us. Their sophisticated use of the Internet, coinciding with the ubiquity of Internet access, influence and corrupt the impressionable and gullible. Similarly, such contents help plant the seeds of doubt and fear in non-Muslims.

The security agencies have put in tremendous efforts to safeguard our country against terrorism. They have stepped up vigilance and, in recent months, have issued detention orders to radicalised individuals who planned to travel to Syria to fight for ISIS. But beyond law and enforcement, ultimately, it is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans, whether Muslim or non-Muslim.

The Malay/Muslim community, on our part, has stepped up efforts to address this triple threat to our social cohesion and national security. Allow me, Sir, to highlight the key thrusts of the community efforts.

One major thrust of our community efforts is to develop a corps of religious leaders and teachers who provide the community with sound guidance and who can counter dangerous ideologies.

Our asatizahs can act as a bulwark against extremist and segregationist ideologies. They play a key role in guiding our local Muslims in practising their faith in accordance with the context of a multiracial and multi-religious Singapore. Last year, reflecting on the views and concerns raised by the community, MUIS and the Singapore Islamic Scholars and Religious Teachers Association (PERGAS) decided to make ARS mandatory. This meant that all existing and aspiring asatizahs and Islamic Education Centres and Providers (IECPs) must register with the Asatizah Recognition Board, headed by MUIS and PERGAS, before they can teach Islam in Singapore. Central to the ARS status is the need for all asatizahs to abide by a Code of Ethics, which includes not denigrating any racial or religious group.

Anyone who crosses the line will be dealt with decisively. One example is Rasul bin Dahri, a Singaporean preacher who is not ARS-recognised but published books on Islamic doctrine. In June this year, his books were prohibited under the Undesirable Publications Act, as they contained extremist views under the guise of "religious guidance". This action, Sir, shows that we have zero tolerance for individuals and publications that promote ill-will among different groups.

To date, we have more than 3,000 ARS-registered asatizahs and Quranic teachers, as well as 174 IECPs. MUIS encourages these asatizahs to continuously upgrade themselves, under the Continuous Professional Education (CPE), and organises various training platforms, including modules on "moderation in religion", counselling workshops on developing engaged families and learning journeys to the RRG.

Many of our asatizahs receive their training in renowned overseas Islamic universities. MUIS, together with the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)-S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) has developed a two-week programme "Islamic Thought in Context: Living in Plural Societies" to familiarise returning graduates with the need to contextualise religious doctrines for Singapore.

While we have all these programmes in place, we want to do more to develop future religious teachers steeped in Islamic learning able to inculcate sound religious values that are appropriate for our unique Singapore context. So, I am glad that MUIS has started looking into the development of a Singapore Islamic College. With this, our community will be able to train a new generation of asatizahs here. At the same time, MUIS will strive to learn and adapt best practices from the best Islamic universities in the world to our local context.

Mr Speaker, Sir, developing religious leaders alone is insufficient. Effective community engagement is urgent and important. To do so, we need to tailor programmes that cater to the different segments of the community.

MUIS has strengthened its part-time religious programmes to include lessons that inoculate our youths against extremist influences. The aLIVE programme, an acronym for "Living Islamic Values Everyday", is an age-appropriate and interactive class for children aged nine to 16. For the working adults, MUIS has designed ADIL, or Adult Islamic Learning, which includes modules about the universal Islamic values and ethics, such as mutual respect between among communities.

To address the serious concern of online radicalisation, MUIS has started parenting seminars to advise parents on issues, such as authenticating online Islamic content and dealing with digital addiction among children and youths. MUIS has also developed and distributed an info-kit on "Resilient Families: Safeguarding Against Radicalism" to help parents identify tell-tale signs of a person who may be at risk of radicalisation and how parents can respond should such a situation arise.

Earlier on, Sir, I touched on the establishment of RRG in 2003 to rehabilitate radicalised individuals. RRG has, over the years, expanded its role in building social resilience. RRG has organised briefings, forums and dialogues to educate both Muslims and non-Muslims about key Islamic concepts that have been perverted by terrorists and extremist groups. RRG has also published content online to explain and debunk the fallacies of ISIS ideologies. It also offers over-the-phone counselling through its RRG helpline. RRG also launched a Resource and Counselling Centre at Khadijah Mosque in Geylang to provide training and resources to RRG counsellors, asatizahs and members of the public who are interested to do research on extremism. RRG has hosted over 1,500 visitors, ranging from foreign delegates to students and community groups.

To complement the good work of RRG, MUIS is setting up an Asatizah Youth Network (AYN). The recent arrests of radicalised Singaporeans have highlighted how family and friends could see how a loved one was becoming radicalised, but not refer these individuals for help. We have a number of our asatizahs who have a strong online presence and have youth-centric programmes that appeal to the young. We want to work with them so that they can serve as the "first line of response" to guide these youths seeking answers and address incipient leanings towards problematic ideologies. The more serious cases will be referred to RRG for rehabilitation.

As for the general public, from time to time, MUIS prepares Friday sermons, as Mr Alex Yam has noted, specifically to educate the community on the threats of ISIS and radical ideologies. Topics include dispelling the notion of the call for armed jihad, condemning ISIS and how it is undermining Islam, and emphasising moderation in Islam. MUIS also works with RRG in conducting pre-sermon talks covering themes, such as cyber wellness, building resilience against extremist and exclusivist ideologies, and the importance of looking out to save friends or family who may be falling under the influence of radical ideology.

Mr Speaker, Sir, what I have just shared are some of the many efforts that the Malay/Muslim community has embarked on. It has been a difficult and challenging journey for my community. As Deputy Prime Minister Tharman recently said at the NTU Majulah Lecture, "growing up as a minority is different from growing up as a majority…never pretend that it's the same". Sometimes, the majority does not know what it feels to be a minority community. And for the Malay/Muslim community, this sense of being misunderstood is deeply felt, having been in the spotlight for quite some time. It is not a pleasant experience when your religion and your religious orientation are under constant scrutiny. But we persevered.

When other faith communities stepped forward to lend support to our struggle, it gave us comfort that we are not in this alone. So, while Muslims have come under scrutiny in recent times, Singaporeans recognised that it is not only our community's battle, it is everyone's battle. So, I was glad, like Mr Pritam Singh, when our Singaporean Buddhist brothers recently stepped forward to lend support to Singaporean Muslims who felt a sense of anguish for the situation in Rakhine state in Myanmar. They did so, despite sharing a common faith with the majority in Myanmar.

Each and every one of us is a part of Singapore, and we are interconnected in many different ways, linked through history, living side by side in our neighbourhoods, schools, workplaces, recreational activities and, sometimes, through marriage. These connections are the social glue that binds us together as a nation.

We all sing the same national anthem and hold our right fist to our hearts when reciting the pledge. These, and many other experiences of being a Singaporean, must mean something to every one of us, especially when the going gets tough for a member of the Singaporean family. We must all work together to ensure that we preserve a cohesive Singapore society. We can defeat extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia and other threats only if we feel for one another and do whatever we can to tackle these challenges. We require a Team Singapore approach that must become our way of life.

We must build friendships and strong bonds among different communities. With solid foundations of mutual understanding and respect, different communities will stand by and help one another. Through the good work of our community organisations, the grassroots and the IRCCs in every constituency, religious and community leaders regularly come together to network and collaborate on projects that help members of different communities work together for common causes.

Nevertheless, we need more individuals to step forward in and outside of social media to reach out to as many as possible. New media and the anonymity it lends have led to individuals denigrating other religions or sowing discord among communities over the Internet, inadvertently or otherwise. We need netizens to speak up with moral clarity against injustice and stereotypes, and those who promote hatred and intolerance.

Earlier this year, I met Noor Mastura, co-founder of Interfaith Youth Circle, who organises inter-religious dialogues and engagements in safe spaces to better understand one another's religions and traditions. Last year, I met Muzakkir Samat, who co-edited a book "From Walden to Woodlands", an interfaith anthology of poetry about nature in Singapore. I understand that the Nanyang Confucian Association in Singapore has organised three Chinese-language forums on "Confucianism and Islam" earlier this year and in June last year to raise the level of understanding of Islam in the Chinese community. The Singapore Buddhist Lodge donates rice to mosques annually before Ramadan to be cooked for the breaking of fast and distributed to needy families. Sir, I commend these efforts. We need more to step up and reach out across the boundaries of race and religion.

The Government can and must deter wrongdoing with laws, and we can support with resources and advice, but we need good people, like Noor Mastura and Muzakkir Samat, to come forward to take action and build bridges across communities. We need Singaporeans to make racial and religious harmony happen in the everyday, through the friendships that are forged in school, in the workplaces and at play, and the deeper understanding that can happen when we try to discover and appreciate a little more about beliefs and customs different from our own. It is through the sum of all these efforts that we can become a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society. Sir, allow me to continue in the National Language.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, the global community is currently struggling with extremism that threatens our harmony and social cohesion. At the same time, we face certain groups which adopt exclusivist practices and isolate themselves, to the point that when a crisis occurs, it will result in divisions within society. The extremist influence spread by ISIS has also resulted in Islamophobia which points to Islam as a religion that propagates violence. We, in Singapore, are not immune to such threats. As a small country that is multi-religious and multiracial in nature, we have no choice other than to strengthen our country's resilience.

As a minority in Singapore's plural society, the Malay/Muslim community and its leaders have always steadfastly upheld the principle of solidarity where all communities integrate well. The dark chapter in our history, when racial riots took place prior to Singapore's Independence, was a lesson for our Pioneer leaders. When we were tested with the 9/11 incident and the terrorist plot by JI in this region, including Singapore, our religious leaders and community stood together with the rest of Singapore to overcome those challenges.

Now, the influence of ISIS has created new threats, especially through the manipulative use of social media to influence Muslims, and also to sow fear and suspicion in non-Muslims. Although security agencies have enhanced enforcement measures, this is not enough. Every Singaporean, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, has a role to ensure that terrorist ideologies do not spread here.

Over the past few years, the Malay/Muslim community has enhanced efforts to contribute towards Singapore's resilience, especially in two areas of strengthening religious leadership and forging a more comprehensive community engagement. In the effort to strengthen religious leadership, it is important that our religious teachers are empowered to guide the community in practising religious teachings that are appropriate to our context of multiracial and multi-religious life in Singapore.

Earlier this year, ARS was made mandatory, and all asatizahs who wish to teach here must register themselves and abide by the ARS' Code of Ethics. Currently, MUIS is working hard to establish an Islamic College in Singapore in order to produce even more religious teachers who can support this objective.

In addition, we are also increasing efforts to enhance community engagement through programmes that are appropriate for all ages. Apart from further improving the quality of part-time religious programmes, MUIS has reached out to parents so that they are more aware when they evaluate religious content and cyber addiction in their children. In fact, other organisations also play a role to counter terrorism. For instance, RRG has done a lot to engage Muslims and non-Muslims through community programmes as well as by providing information online. To complement RRG's efforts, MUIS is forming a network of asatizahs and youth groups so that they will become the first line of response for young people who are seeking answers about religion and those at risk of being influenced by dangerous ideologies.

Mr Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community cannot act alone in the effort to counter extremist ideologies and terrorist influences. We must work together with the Government and all Singaporeans to defeat the triple threats of extremism, exclusivism and Islamophobia. This effort must continue in order to further strengthen understanding and mutual respect among all races and appreciate our differences. The biggest victory is when we stay united in the face of any challenges. More individuals should step forward, whether online or in the real world, to fight prejudice and intolerance towards one another. Only by doing so can we progress towards a stronger, more resilient and more harmonious society.

Please allow me to conclude in English.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, we should take heart in what we have achieved so far. If we stand together as one, we will keep Singapore, our home, safe and secure for all of us and for the generations to come. So, let us continue helping one another, reaching out to one another, and be a blessing to everyone around us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.15 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

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

Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I would like to thank Mr de Souza for this Motion to call for Singaporeans to stay firm and fight the threat of terrorism together.

The current threat level is at the highest and our security forces are staying vigilant all the time to prevent terror attacks from happening in Singapore. However, terror attacks in other countries have become unpredictable, like the many lone-wolf attacks that had happened in Europe and the US.

We know it is impossible to have 100% security assurance. We may well already be in the situation whereby it is not a matter of "if", but "when". We must be fully prepared for the day when a terror attack eventually happens.

What is equally important is the preparedness at the people's level. We should be prepared at the psychological level and build resilience and mutual trust among different races. We need to focus on how to cope with the "Day after" effect and recover quickly and resume our normal life as fast as possible.

For the past 50 years, we have been fortunate in that we have not experienced any serious racial or religious conflicts. This is due to the continuous efforts of the Government as well as people of the various races. Most Singaporeans recognise the importance of living in harmony and social stability. Hence, they respect and tolerate one another, mind the sensitivity of different races and respect the differences.

But we also know that Singapore's social harmony and resilience have not really been tested by a major incident. Should a terror attack in the pretext of race or religion happen and result in large casualties, can we continue to maintain racial harmony and not be mired in racial tensions? This would be the real test.

Since Independence, be it legislation, governance or policies, the Government has spent a lot of energy on formulating forward-looking policies to build a harmonious multiracial society. We have integrated multiracialism as part of our country's core values and enshrined it into our pledge, the Constitution and the state institutions, such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights (PCMR) and the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony (PCRH) under the President. We have also introduced the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act to strengthen the legal framework to ensure social harmony.

We put in place EIP for HDB estates. In order to have enough representation of minority groups in Parliament, we have implemented the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. Recently, we also introduced the Reserved Presidential Election system to make sure that, every now and then, there will be a President from the minority groups. We have self-help groups for different ethnic groups to create a caring and harmonious multiracial society. Of course, we can further strengthen our legislation and policies, such as focusing on solving upstream problems. But we also know that it is not enough to rely on policies and laws alone to build strong and long-lasting trust and a harmonious relationship. We need to further strengthen the relationship among different races by working harder in the communities, schools and workplaces to build mutual trust and confidence.

Fortunately, our Pioneers had the firm belief that a multiracial Singapore must be built upon strong social harmony. By setting up the People's Association (PA), we have created grassroots organisations which can bring together residents and promote a harmonious relationship among people of different backgrounds. The purpose of grassroots organisations is to build more common spaces in the community, facilitating residents of different races to have more opportunities to interact and build rapport.

Promoting integration and harmony does not mean that we will neglect our own cultural heritage. We will continue to promote the culture of different races and this will help different races to appreciate and understand one another's culture. Seeking consensus while allowing differences is a sustainable way to bring different races together and make our multicultural society attractive. Based on this, we can deepen our interactions. During the engagement and the interaction process among different races, we can adopt light-hearted ways that are close to people's daily life to build rapport and trust.

In recent years, I noticed that while we have a stronger awareness of tolerance and the need to respect one another's differences and sensitivities, we have become more reluctant to discuss issues concerning race and religion at the personal level. In fact, many people do not know how to talk about these issues with friends or neighbours. They are worried that if they say something inappropriately, they may offend friends of a different race or religion. If this situation continues, or people only say politically correct things, not only will it not help build the trust, but hinder the efforts to build a long-lasting bond. A strong, long-lasting bond is, in fact, the key to whether a society can withstand a major incident.

We should create more opportunities and an environment whereby Singaporeans can have sincere and candid discussions concerning race and religion without much inhibition. Grassroots and other community organisations have provided a very good platform. We should make good use of these platforms and expand the scope of interaction, plan engaging and interesting dialogues to deepen understandings amongst us.

I am pleased to see that Singapore has enlightened and well-respected religious and community leaders. They continuously contribute to the country and our unity. What is more, they all know the importance of the overall interest of the country and speak out when necessary. They also condemn terrorism without hesitation to protect our harmony. Although what they say may be criticised or even attacked by their own community, they do not shirk. This has demonstrated our community and religious leaders' courage and faith.

I would like to thank leaders of the Muslim community and the whole community for their efforts and contribution to Singapore's peace and harmony, and their very firm stance against extremism. For example, the Asatizah Accreditation Scheme under MUIS is very commendable. This scheme stipulates that asatizahs must register with MUIS. This is to make sure that their teachings can help the community practise their faith in a way that is suitable in our multi-religious society.

Just now, I listened to Dr Yaacob's speech. I can imagine the stress and challenges faced by our Muslim community leaders. In Parliament, we often see Mr Masagos and Dr Yaacob speaking up on sensitive policies that could affect the Muslim community. They do so to defend Singapore's multiracialism. Their stance is firm and they have never shirked.

Building a harmonious society is an endless journey. We should see this as something that can enrich our lives, broaden our views, and a unique Singapore way of life. The key is to promote unity in a natural and sustainable way and not to see it as a burden. We already have a strong foundation. Going forward, we need to continue to build our multiracial society in an organic and sustainable way. I believe this little red dot will be able to withstand the test by demonstrating our unity and resilience at critical times.

Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. First, I would like to congratulate the hon Member for Holland-Bukit Timah Mr Christopher de Souza for introducing this Motion to this House. I fully agree with the points that he made in his speech and I support the Motion.

The specific focus in my speech is on two overlapping areas identified in the Motion: preventing the spread of radicalised teaching that promotes exclusivity and violent extremism; and investing in multiracialism to inoculate ourselves against the ills of extremism and terrorism.

One preliminary point which I want to discuss first though is: what exactly is meant by "multiracialism" as a policy? The common refrain is that we forge a common life whilst we preserve our own separate heritage and identity. How does that play out? Does that mean that we are required to put Singapore ahead of our own individual backgrounds and heritage?

It may be useful to refer to the objectives of our founding fathers who embarked on this journey of multiracialism. The late President Yusof bin Ishak, in his first Address in this House in December 1965 upon Singapore's Independence, said as follows:

"The four months since 9 August have given us time to take stock of our bearings, time in which to push emotions into the background for a calm and realistic appraisal of the new opportunities which Independence offers us, the greater authority to bring about what we have always thought necessary, a tolerant society, multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, welded ever closer together by ties of common experience into a satisfying society, satisfying for both the indigenous peoples and those of migrant stock…Needless to say, the more extreme any community is about one race, one language and one religion, the more likely it is to arouse counter chauvinism amongst the other communities to the detriment of all."

So, from the start, we see the implementation of multiracialism as a social weapon to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in our country. I heard my learned friend, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's worry about weaponising multiracialism. I understand his concerns but I would not be too worried because, really, the reference to multiracialism as a social weapon is a call to arms on the part of the people to put in their energies to invest in multiracialism as a policy that will bring peace to our country.

I also wish to highlight an excerpt of Mr George Yeo's speech at the inauguration of the Association of Muslim Professionals in 1991. He said as follows:

"We use the term 'multiracialism' so often that we sometimes forget what it means. It does not mean that in becoming Singaporean, we deny our heritage…That is not acceptable. Part of the essence of being Singaporean is the right to retain our separate ethnic character. But that right carries a corresponding duty to accept that others of other races also have the same rights."

This is not a theoretical musing. A good understanding of the underpinnings of multiracialism policy will help us formulate the responses we need to make as a society to issues pertaining to extremism and terrorism. I will now proceed to deal with some of these issues.

On the topic of preventing radicalisation through radicalised teachings and other modes, means or methods, it may be useful to take a step back and understand what are the contributing factors that promote radicalisation. I wish to highlight three.

One, socio-economic factors − not being able to improve economically and being trapped in the poverty cycle. The late Mr Lee Kuan Yew recognised this when he stated in his first National Day Rally speech on 8 August 1966. He said:

"If groups are left behind either on the basis of language, race, religion or culture, and if for these groups the line of division coincides with the line of race, then we will not succeed in our long-term objective of a secure future."

Hence, the importance of always ensuring social mobility and preventing a permanent underclass in appearing in our society, especially along racial lines.

Two, power of radical ideology expoused by charismatic idealogues focusing on exploiting unhappiness amongst a group of people, often leveraging on social media, too.

Three, presence of oppressed communities in the world, especially along racial and religious lines. The hon Members who spoke before me also highlighted this point. This provides the fuel to the ideologues.

In the context of the recent incidents of Singaporeans being radicalised, we have seen our Malay/Muslim community working very hard to rehabilitate the persons involved and prevent the spread of deviant teachings leading to radicalisation. Their efforts are very commendable.

In particular, I wish to acknowledge the laudable work of the RRG to rehabilitate persons who have become radicalised through deviant teachings. Over the years, we have seen that RRG has even upped the scale of resources. They have set up the Resource and Counselling Centre and a hotline and mobile app to allow better access to the religious teachers. They have also embarked on reaching out to young people through the Internet.

I note that the RRG teachers and academics are mostly Malay and English-speaking. Given our experience of the language backgrounds of the persons arrested under the ISA in Singapore, there may be a case to expand the group to include people speaking in other languages, such as Tamil, Malayalam and Bengali.

In the book, Majulah, 50 years of Malay/Muslim Community in Singapore edited by Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed and Mr Norsharil Saat, there was an interview published of Habib Hassan, the Imam of Baalwie Mosque and an esteemed member of IRO. I have the pleasure of knowing him personally. He said that there is a need to reject teachings that seek to divide Muslims and Muslims, and Muslims and non-Muslims. In particular, he highlighted there should be no problems in wishing Hindus "Happy Deepavali" and Christians "Merry Christmas".

He also saw a need to evolve a Singaporean model of religious teachings which excludes Middle Eastern culture and politics. I am sure Members of this House will also applaud the concrete steps that have been taken within the Malay/Muslim community to prevent radicalisation.

We need, however, to recognise that members of other races have a responsibility, too. My learned friend, Dr Intan Azura, also spoke about this. The question arises: why? I start with the definition of "multiracialism" as a concept in Singapore, because while we have a right to identify ourselves, based on our ethnic background, we also have a duty to recognise and strengthen the bonds and preservation of a common space with members of other races. That is the quid pro quo. People are not born terrorists; they undergo a process of radicalisation and buying into violent extremist ideology.

This is where members of other races and religions have a common duty to reach out to all people of all races, actively promote inclusivity and a sense of common destiny. As Mr Christopher de Souza said, we live and die here.

We have a duty to respect, understand and accept and have a keen interest in one another's culture as well. This would be a more holistic response to the trend of radicalisation. All racial and religious communities have a responsibility in preventing radicalisation.

I now move on to my second area: promoting multiracialism as an instrument against terrorism. On this point, it is noteworthy that across the world, there is a trend of voting towards the Far Right. You see that in Germany. Recent polls last month showed the Far Right getting more influence, receiving 13% of the popular vote.

While people in Singapore got startled by this, actually, this was predicted in a Pew Research survey published last year in the UK Daily Express on 12 July 2016. It was entitled "EU nations rejecting multiculturalism − the ISIS effect".

More than 50% of people interviewed by the survey felt that the incoming migrants and refugees increased the likelihood of terrorism in their country. And this caused the rise of the right-wing parties. We have had similar trends in other countries, such as in the UK and US. This is exactly what ISIS wants: divide multiracial communities, sow discord and hatred amongst these communities. For that reason alone, it is not difficult to understand why Singapore is a target.

Singapore faces the same danger of populism, majoritarianism, intolerance and racial chauvinism. This is not empty talk. In the 1960s, communal extremism was commonplace in Singapore. President Yusof Ishak referred to them in the same speech I drew this House's attention to earlier. He pointed out that within 10 weeks of Independence, the communalists were advocating a change in the status of Chinese language because of the large Chinese majority in Singapore, even though Chinese was already one of the four official languages. In June 2017, the hon Minister for Home Affairs mentioned that internal surveys show that opinion is hardening against Muslims. It is not realistic to assume that communal extremism will not rear its head again in Singapore. The danger of Islamphobia, in particular, is real. We need to ensure politics of responsibility within Singapore when it comes to multiracialism.