Hansard, Wednesday, 28 May 2014

[(proc text) "to amend the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Chapter 65A of the 2000 Revised Edition)", (proc text)]

[(proc text) presented by the Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr S Iswaran); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. (proc text)]

Page: 9

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

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

[(proc text) ‘We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Zaqy Mohamad]. (proc text)]

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

Dr Lily Neo.

Mdm Speaker, at this debate to mark the reopening of this Twelfth Parliament, I want to raise an important issue facing this Government going forward. This is the issue of "rising public expectations and its challenges".

It is a fact that public expectations have been rising over the years, but can these expectations be met satisfactorily going forward? Are they attainable in the long run with our limited resources? Will they erode the confidence and the trust of this Government if these public expectations are not met satisfactorily? Should there be a need to prioritise certain aspects of public expectations for the common good of all?

Madam, public expectations cannot exceed available resources, statutory responsibilities and institutional capacities. What are the mitigating factors that have to be considered going forward to ensure equity, diversity and choice?

I would like to suggest the following four approaches.

First, setting realistic expectations. Studies have shown that prior performance is positively related to expectations of what performance will be. Providing information about excellent performance frequently raises positive expectations. In Singapore, prior performances are definitely positive since this Government had always delivered on all its promises with flying colours. Good reputation usually results in little tolerance for error. Studies in psychology have concluded that the better the reputation, the higher are the

Page: 10

expectations. Thus, is it the main contributory reason for the rising public expectations here? Although I am not implying that this Government should not deliver to the best of its ability.

This Government had, in the past, also always emphasised to be the best achiever compared to other countries. Thus, has this Government been inflating public expectations? For example, we prided ourselves to have the best airport and the best transshipment port and so on. Going forward, should we always strive to be the best in these areas and at what cost? Is there a need to change the stance of our Government in order not to heighten public expectations further unnecessarily? Going forward, should we adjust and set realistic expectations?

It demands continuous maintenance, resources and demonstration through good practices, in order to maintain our excellent reputation. Much of our resources are necessary for the maintenance of an excellent reputation; but more importantly, innovative ways must be put in place to maximise the outcome of Government efforts. Service provisions must be able to garner the approval and recognition from the populace.

Secondly, public expectations study and research. Being mindful of public expectations is a timely topic in the present day where unhappy citizens are able to quickly and widely publish their experiences online. Mdm Speaker, there is a need for us to deliberate on this issue. It will be good for the Government to do research on this issue in depth. It is necessary to involve all Ministries to study their own uniqueness in these areas and to formulate their own strategies. The final evaluations can then be adopted as a policy going forward. This is to ensure that people can appreciate what each Ministry is doing, rather than finding fault with it. The study and research for example should examine: (a) what aspects of service performance the public sees as important to be satisfied with; (b) the influence of social interaction on citizens' expectations, and (c) what the public values, whether they really are rising, and how they can be more effectively managed.

It will also be useful to have a data monitoring system to examine satisfaction levels, which can be used to improve services. Components of such satisfaction data are: (a) identify priorities for improvement; (b) determining citizens' priorities; and (c) identifying key satisfaction drivers and priorities regarding what to improve.

Satisfaction data can be used to set targets that focus effort on outcome measures, the wishes of citizens and adaptability to changing conditions. Benchmarking performances of various Ministries on satisfaction data can be used to benchmark the performance of different Ministries.

Page: 11

Thirdly, prioritising meeting public expectations. There are always situations where Government's response to public expectations cannot be met satisfactorily. This might be because of competing demands between the needs of service users and those of taxpayers. In such situations, there may be a need to "damp down" public expectations. An example would be subsidising World Cup telecasts.

Our Government is facing increasing diversification of public demands and our resources are finite. There will be times and situations where citizens' satisfaction should not be the binding goal. For example, there will always be groups of people who would argue that the expenditure on defence and national service is unnecessarily high.

Policy priorities on the use of limited funds should be accorded to those that can benefit the majority of the population. Considerations should also be given to the vulnerable groups of the society. These groups, Mdm Speaker, may be the silent majority but their interests, though usually not expressed, must be registered. This calls for good governance to ensure fair redistribution to benefit the majority and the vulnerable groups of the society. This also calls for good governance on efficient use of the limited resources to prove their value.

Fourthly, mitigating public expectations with better communication. I personally like the concept of "shared decision-making" as an approach to mitigate public expectations. Madam, this approach will lessen the challenges of demands that cannot be met.

In medicine, it is used as the means to achieve a higher quality of care and more effective outcomes, as well as rebuilding trust between clinicians and patients. The concept of "shared decision-making" or "partnership" implies joint responsibilities as a result of active engagement of citizens in deliberation about public policy.

The end result of successful deliberation will be more likely to prevent the anomaly of "mismatch between perceptions and realities" or "paradoxical outcome" situations. The paradox arises because the public does not believe in, or does not know about, objective improvements in service quality. This is the situation where improved performance is not reflected in rising satisfaction levels. This may be due to unrealistic public expectations of services or due to communication of service improvements being ineffective. The failure here is not with service provision, which has objectively improved, but with the public's understanding.

Policy needs to be supported by a well-designed communications strategy. At the end of the day, Mdm Speaker, it all comes down to communication. Good policymakers must also be good communicators. Skills in communicating are worth pursuing to equip everyone

Page: 12

in charge of policymaking.

The following are the essential components of communication skills: (a) produce clear, persuasive and accessible communication products; (b) use the most effective and appropriate channels and technologies to deliver communications; (c) understand policy priorities and leads on the transformation of organisational communications; (d) understand, respond to and satisfy communications needs of diverse audience; (e) plan, build and manage delivery of strategies, campaigns and day-to-day marketing and communication services, and (f) gather and interpret data on the effectiveness of communication strategies, campaigns and services and their impact on audience behaviour and outcomes as well as identify improvement opportunities.

Mdm Speaker, the success in communications is politically as important as the success of the policy itself. Public satisfaction, trust in Government and good governance are not interchangeable concepts. Rather, trust and satisfaction are better conceived of as necessary parts of a set of indicators for good governance. Mdm Speaker, let us chart a new chapter with the Opening of the Second Session of the Twelfth Parliament and strive for better governance.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks. In his Address, President Tony Tan affirmed that the Government will give substance to the many voices of citizens who have participated in the "Our Singapore Conversation".

When it became clear that the conversation sessions that were taking place in 2012 had little or no environment content, many people concerned with environment issues felt the need to have one, specifically to discuss the wide spectrum of environment matters, in line with the "Our Singapore Conversation".

As a result, in January 2013, with the support of the Our Singapore Conversation Secretariat, together with sustainability consultant Mr Eugene Tay, I co-organised a gathering in what was arguably the first time that close to 80 people ranging in age from 17 to 70 representing a wide spectrum of the environment community, from nature conservationists to waste management experts, from animal welfare groups to advocates on sustainable living, from veteran environmentalists of 30 years advocacy experience to fledgling school groups, came together.

Page: 13

The upshot of this conversation was a recognition that the conversation format was useful in seeking and discussing views and issues, and a strong desire by all the participants that there should be more conversation, open to the public, with each session focusing on specific environmental issues.

Subsequently, the "Our Singapore Conversation on Green Spaces" was organised by Nature Society and Young NTUC in November 2013 to focus on nature conservation. We succeeded in gathering about 50 people, some of whom were completely new to advocacy.

When the plan to review the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint was announced recently, and to complement dialogues organised by MEWR, three more conversations called "Conversations on Sustainable Singapore" were organised. Thanks to the tenacity and much to the credit of Mr Eugene Tay, together with the Nature Society and SMU Verts, a student organisation of the Singapore Management University, in a span of just a month and a half, these sessions succeeded in generating constructive and workable solutions on three specific themes: Energy and Climate Change, Waste and the 3Rs and, finally, Food Security and Food Waste. The last session was held just last Saturday.

Speakers from both Government agencies and private sectors were invited at each of these sessions to provide some context and fodder for discussions. From them, not only did we learn about what has been done, more importantly, we were all inspired by what more can be done. The reports from the last three sessions, like the first two, will be disseminated to the Government and agencies, and I trust will, in due course, be given substance.

In all, the five events affectionately known to us as the "Green Conversations" provided an avenue for more than 300 people the opportunity to share concerns, ideas and workable solutions. Credit must go to the "Our Singapore Conversation" platform for giving us this impetus and motivation.

Mdm Speaker, in all of these conversations, a few common lessons became very clear. Firstly, a call for environment education in its widest spectrum is to be given greater focus in both the formal and informal channels by both the Government and civil society, based on the premise that eco literacy, that is, the relationship not only between humans but also between all non-human species and with human beings and with the earth, leads to compassion, caring and love, values that are good for society as a whole. Secondly, the growing awareness that there is an urgent need to language our concerns in different and creative ways as we engage with different sectors of society as well as different Government agencies so that we are able to convey our message more coherently and effectively. Thirdly, the growing awareness of the urgent need to educate ourselves on the Parliamentary process and to engage with the people we voted into office to mainstream the issues so that

Page: 14

environment issues become as commonplace as any other municipal issue.

This came about particularly with the session that I facilitated in March for the environment community on the Parliamentary process for a more effective environment advocacy. I believe that such education will engender an informed citizenry that is able to engage in a responsible manner for a more empowered advocacy, good not only for the green community, but also for the policymakers and for the country.

What all these conversations show, Mdm Speaker, is this: the environment community is willing to take responsibility for initiating discussions, in educating, engaging and empowering the public, the private sector and the Government. We are also willing to take responsibility for generating workable solutions and are ready to get going with action from the ground that are the highest good of all Singaporeans. At the same time, we believe there is much the Government can do to facilitate the process from ideas to action by opening up the space for more dialogue.

Mdm Speaker, in the two short years that I have been in the House, I have seen greater willingness on the part of Government agencies for engagement with environment advocates, for example, the unprecedented eight-month engagement with Land Transport Authority (LTA) over the Cross Island Line ably facilitated by Senior Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo, specifically in raising awareness of the importance of an environment impact assessment process, and the recent Ubin Conversations, a timely and much-welcomed initiative by Minister of State Desmond Lee.

Mdm Speaker, I echo what the hon Member Mr Laurence Lien talked about yesterday to the effect that the Government must not see civil society as "the other" to be feared or guarded against and that civil society in turn must engage responsibly. I believe the examples I have given are positive models of how open honest dialogues can lead to greater understanding and appreciation that civil society has workable solutions that the Government may not.

Differences do not have to lead to divisiveness, a point that the President had taken pains to refer to in his Address.

However, Mdm Speaker, from the five Green Conversations, we believe that whilst we are ready and willing to take responsibility and take action, it often seems to us, especially in the area of nature conservation, that this is still fire fighting. Sometimes, we are the last to know.

Page: 15

With the growing demand for consultation and participation, there is a danger that this form of engagement is neither empowering nor sustainable. So, what do we want to see as this Government goes into the second half of its elected term?

To name just two. Firstly, to remember that we are equal partners not just in conversations but that we are citizens that have a stake in the well-being of our country; beyond the issue that we champion, and are able to come up with workable alternative solutions. Secondly, the notion that the Government acts under a public trust – a trust that land and resources belong to the people and major decisions that impact on the land and the resources cannot be made without prior informed consultation. In that regard, impact assessments for major projects that include not just environmental but cultural, heritage and social as well, have to be put in place and must be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

Mdm Speaker, half-time is a good time for some self-reflection. As I, too, reflect on my two years in this House, and with a few months left of my appointment, I realise how strange it is that environment matters in its fullest spectrum are not given as much airing in this House as they deserve.

How is it possible that something so fundamental as the very thing on which our entire life depends and even more fundamental than the so-called ‘‘bread and butter” issues is so marginalised in the highest law-making body of the land?

From my many chats with Members of this House, I know that this is not for "want of caring or not knowing". Many do care. Many do know. Perhaps, environment concerns are not seen to be "vote winning".

Mdm Speaker, I have mentioned that the environment community is ready and willing to engage with the public and the people we elect into office to mainstream these issues. That is not enough.

All Members of this House must make the conscious choice to realise that far from this being a "special interest", environment matters concern us all because of how completely dependent we all are on the environment in all aspects of our lives. It is not just the purview of an environmentalist or an environment Nominated Member of Parliament. In fact, in the Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme, there is no such platform, unlike that for the arts or sports.

Rather than ask, "Should there be such a platform?", I would much prefer this scenario – all Members of this House should go beyond what I call the human-centric issues that have been the hallmark of this House, important though these are. All Members should speak on

Page: 16

environment issues in this House.

To give some examples, all Members of this House should ask why our domestic recycling rates are so dismal and demand to know why can we not have the structure that an equally developed country like Taiwan has, and how this dismal rate impacts on the spaces that we are constantly reminded are limited. All Members of this House should be alarmed and ask why the rate of our food waste is so high for a comparatively small population, especially when at the same time we raise concerns in this House on behalf of the constituents on the rising cost of food.

As we speak, there are reports that the haze will be worse this year than last. All Members of this House should resist the temptation of pointing fingers at another country again when this happens, go beyond enacting laws to penalise companies and ask the deeper question, "Who, after all, are the beneficiaries of the products of oil palm plantations if not all of us, the people living in a country rich enough to afford those consumer products?" The Indonesian farmer or the companies burning the forest, is only part of that equation.

All Members of this House should ask, "Why exactly are we leading such a massive consumer lifestyle in this country, from the car that we drive, to the food that we eat, to the things that we buy and the things that we throw away such that we are part of the problem and not part of the solution?" All Members of this House should be conscious and aware of the fact that all that we need, all that we desire, have to come from somewhere and end up somewhere in the environment. All Members of this House should raise environment issues because it is the right thing to do; it is the mature and wise thing to do.

It is time to take back personal responsibility. Why? Because no environment means no arts, no sports, no business, no income, no jobs, no health, no economy, nothing. It is really that simple.

To end, Mdm Speaker, I want to share just one of the many invaluable lessons I have learnt through my forays in the forest over the last 30 years, learning from my greatest teachers, the orang asli, or the indigenous people of the forest, and how this has moved me to leave behind a corporate legal career towards something more meaningful to me, that of an environment educator.

In my recent trip to the forest, an orang asli by the name of Alang, who is in his late 40s, showed me a sapling of a tree they called the "berbau", which he had recently planted in a cultivated part of the forest. When I asked him how long that sapling will take to grow into a mature tree, Alang said "Oh, about 30, 40 years or so." When I remarked that "You may not be alive then at that time, Alang", Alang's response was "That's the point. I did not plant

Page: 17

it for me. I planted it for my children and my children's children. It does not matter that I may never get to see it. That is how we walk lightly on earth."

Walk lightly on earth. Whether we take that literally or symbolically, it is a good thought for half-time as we dream of a better future and as we journey towards maturity and responsible stewardship for our country's 50th birthday.

Mdm Speaker, a fortnight ago, the President emphasised that, "Government spending, by itself, does not create a wealthier, a better or a happier society. It must be matched by individual and community effort and initiatives." He said that "active community involvement engages the human spirit, provides personal fulfilment and strengthens our collective well-being."

During his speech in this Chamber yesterday, Mr Laurence Lien also suggested that we should see how we can strengthen civil society as well as Government's engagement with civil society and recognise the contributions to Singapore. This is very much in the same vein as what Ms Faizah Jamal has just spoken about a moment ago.

Madam, civil society, an active citizenry as well as Government can be strong partners to build a better and brighter Singapore. In many instances, active citizens and civic groups can bring Government schemes and assistance even closer to the ground. In my constituency, for example, members of the local Volunteer Aid (V8) scheme regularly visit families and individuals facing difficulties, and work closely with Government agencies and VWOs to bring Government schemes and other forms of community assistance to them. I know this also happens in many places across the island. These volunteers are active social change agents.

I have been working in MND for about eight months now. During this time, I have had the tremendous privilege of meeting and working alongside many passionate Singaporeans, including those in the environmental sphere, who give their time and energy to pursue a range of very worthy causes.

For instance, on the heritage front, I have been struck by volunteers like Kwek Li Yong and Jasper Tan, who are founders of My Community, a civic group that champions the preservation of history and heritage in Singapore. Together with grassroots leaders and residents of Queenstown estate – Singapore's first satellite town – Li Yong and Jasper, who are both in their 20s, have set up their own Queenstown heritage trail, complete with a smart-phone app to boot. They are now dedicated to raising funds and collecting artefacts

Page: 18

to establish a Queenstown Heritage Museum.

Some have turned passion into their life's mission. Take Lim Chen Sian from the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), for example. Probably, our one and only Singaporean archaeologist, he has been actively involved in the last 12 years leading major archaeological investigations in Singapore. Mind you, he is young – he is in his mid-30s. I had the opportunity earlier this month to visit him and his team of volunteers and staff as they dug and investigated a site at Fort Canning without any fanfare.

Over the last 30 years, individuals and volunteers such as these have been quietly and assiduously working on sites across Singapore, uncovering troves of artefacts from Singapore's 700-year old human history. Such is the depth and age of our land. In so doing, in Chen Sian's own words, they "breathe life into the arid history composed of innumerable dates and dusty personages" and "animate the people who lived in the past". He shared with me that, some time ago, for example, they had discovered, among other artefacts, pieces of a rare Chinese porcelain compass at Fort Canning, dated to the mid-14th century, which is believed to be the only example known to date in this world.

Our animal welfare groups (AWGs) have been just as admirable, engaging Government on concerns that they have about the state of animal welfare. I meet some of them from time to time and invited them on a working trip with AVA and some veterinarians to study animal management practices. One of the projects which we have been working closely with the SPCA and with the Action for Singapore Dogs on is Project ADORE – a pilot initiative proposed by these welfare groups, run for the re-homing of stray dogs in Housing and Development Board (HDB) estates.

Re-homing of stray dogs is not a straightforward issue. It involves more than just animal welfare groups. We have to balance animal welfare concerns with broader public sentiments and try to create win-win solutions for everybody. Some HDB residents have reservations about having their neighbours keep larger dog breeds. So, we have moved cautiously on a pilot basis through ADORE, educating the adopters to train their dogs well and sterilise their pets.

ADORE has been a great success because SPCA and Action for Singapore Dogs, both civic groups, understand the broader sensitivities and the different dynamics at play and have run the pilot well. As a result, HDB residents are slowly accepting these re-homed stray dogs. We have therefore decided to transit Project ADORE which is an AWG proposed scheme, from a pilot scheme to a permanent programme.

In fact, MND, AVA and HDB have started partnering another animal welfare group known as Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD), on the re-homing of strays and have recently

Page: 19

included them in Project ADORE. So, it is a clear example of how civil society, with good proposals, mindful of sensitivities and dynamics across the border society, has been able to actively seek and achieve change in tandem with Government.

Civil society may not always agree with Government, or indeed with each other, or in certain groups even among their own members. This is the nature of ground-up initiative. This can either be a source of strength or a weakness, depending on the nature of the relationship. With civility and open-mindedness on all sides, there is strength in diversity, even if ultimately stakeholders agree to disagree on certain areas.

Government does not have a monopoly on all knowledge; in fact, it is well recognised that Government decision-making can benefit greatly from wide and inclusive consultation on many fronts. By having a mature and robust conversation, Government, civic groups and Singaporeans can move towards common ground and win-win outcomes, even on difficult issues. This is not to say that everyone falls in line or that people are compliant – there is often intense discussion and people push their points of view robustly and passionately, but, ultimately, they respect one another and are prepared to listen to one another's concerns and consider one another's views. Through genuine engagement and consultation, participants feel that they have a stake in the outcome.

On the other hand, if there is no civility in the conversation and people are close-minded or unwilling to recognise the legitimacy of other people's points of view, then the difference of views and opinions becomes a source of division, friction and gridlock. People congregate around opinion-leaders whose views they subscribe to, echo-chambers are formed and groups shout at one another from the mountain tops. If a decision is made to move and break the gridlock, it may be perceived by some as unilateral, top-down, heavy-handed or zero-sum. Outcomes, if any, are more likely to be sub-optimal compromises rather than genuine win-win outcomes.

There are many recent examples of Government and civil society engaging more deeply and constructively on a range of issues. As a whole, we are feeling our way forward as society develops and matures, to find the right balance for constructive debate and inclusive decision-making.

The Ubin Project, which I announced during the Committee of Supply and which is mentioned in the MND Addendum to the President's Address, is structured for such open dialogue. Our purpose is to see how we can sensitively enhance the natural environment of Ubin and protect its heritage and its rustic charm.

Page: 20

Over the past two months, we have formed a broad network of stakeholders who are passionate about Ubin and keen to share their ideas. They include biodiversity experts, conservation activists, history buffs, socio-anthropologists, students, volunteers and Ubin community leaders and residents. They come from organisations as diverse as the Nature Society, Singapore Heritage Society and the Raffles Museum of Bio-Diversity Research, or they join us in their own personal capacities. We call this the Friends of Ubin Network, or FUN. It is diverse, but we can open up even more. I am excited by the many interesting ideas shared by our Friends of Ubin thus far.

The discussions at the Network centre around five broad themes: (a) biodiversity conservation; (b) heritage, history and community; (c) sustainable design and practices, (d) education and research, and (e) nature-based recreation. But instead of discussing each of these topics in silo, where there is a risk of echo-chambers forming where people of similar interests come together, we decided to discuss all five in sequence and broaden participation so that for every theme about Ubin, we get a broad range of views from people with different perspectives. I think we will get better outcomes this way. So, this is not just about Ubin, it is important to many of us, but also about the way in which we try to engage across the spectrum of society.

Our consultation will not be limited to the Friends of Ubin Network. In fact, we will be reaching out to an even wider spectrum of Singaporeans, through a microsite which will be launched later today. This microsite provides updates on our Network discussions and our agencies' engagement efforts and allows everyone to submit ideas on what they think and would like Ubin to be. We will also go out and about to talk to people and gather their views.

Mdm Speaker, the Ubin Project is another good opportunity for the Government and the community to work together on something close to our hearts. I encourage all Singaporeans to participate in the process because it is as much with process as it is an outcome. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion to thank the President for his Address.

Madam, the Government has always prioritised creating economic growth and nobody seriously disputes that growth is one of the ingredients for social progress. However, the surge in the population since 2005 has had its repercussions on our quality of life. Singaporeans were waiting longer to board public transport with less comfortable rides, wasting more time and petrol stuck in traffic jams, and increasingly feeling like strangers in our own country.

Page: 21

As everyone fights for scarce resources, we must ensure that Singaporeans have the assurance that we live in a safe, fair and just society, and have access to essential services at a standard we can be proud of. To this end, I would like to highlight two areas we should pay attention to, namely, challenges for the Home Team and access to justice. I will later argue for a culture of greater research and gathering and sharing of data in crime and justice matters.

First, I would like to talk about some challenges facing the Home Team.

Let me, at the onset, acknowledge the tremendous pressure on the Home Team in recent years, as it tries to cope with the surge in population. With millions more residents and visitors to handle, there is an exponential increase in the number of encounters with Home Team officers, and with that, a higher risk of mistakes occurring, statistically. When mistakes happen, a measured reaction should be taken, to diagnose the cause and prevent its recurrence. Heads may need to roll, but scape-goating should be avoided.

The public, too, should play a constructive role and not add to the problem. Why do I say that? About six years ago, a man managed to clear immigration at Changi Airport using his son's passport. This incident was widely reported and was the subject of much public criticism. Later, an ICA officer shared with me that in the aftermath of that incident, some Singaporeans clearing Woodlands checkpoint found it amusing to ridicule the ICA officers by asking them to recheck their passports in case they were travelling on their father's or mother's passports. The officers had to take such jibes in their stride while focusing on the sheer volume of people and vehicles to process.

The security manpower at our checkpoints is a complex ecosystem of ICA, SPF, auxiliary police, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), customs and LTA, requiring attention to segmentation of tasks and supervision. Today, I understand that Singaporeans are facing slower clearances at Woodlands, as the security procedures for checking vehicles have been tightened since the various security breaches there this year. I note that a Ministerial-level Committee is reviewing and strengthening the security measures at the checkpoints. As we plug the gaps, it is also important not to add more red tape to slow down the clearance process.

I turn now to policing. Policing needs have evolved and undoubtedly increased; the MHA Addendum mentions a new Divisional HQ in Woodlands and two new Neighbourhood Police Centres in Geylang and Bartley. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riots, the Commissioner of Police expressed his view that he would need 1,000 more Police officers. Can we ever find enough manpower? Since our local birth rate is low, will we be forced to turn to foreign manpower for policing? For instance, we have historically accepted

Page: 22

Malaysians and Nepalese Gurkhas into the SPF. Will we be doing more of that?

The need to leverage on technology to reduce manpower is a must, and it is good to note that the SPF has clearly been doing this. For example, the nationwide PolCam project will install CCTV cameras at lift lobbies, staircases and multi-storey car parks of HDB blocks. PolCam is now substantially implemented and has been very welcomed by the public. However, there is no equivalent of PolCam in the private estates. Though I do not think the residents in private estates expect that, they do have their crime concerns.

When the new Community Oriented Policing System (COPS) was launched, one of the justifications was that it would enable the Police to cater to an ageing and diverse population. To this end, one of the innovations I am not sure of, is the revamp of the Neighbourhood Police Posts under COPS. The new NPPs, called e-NPPs or enhanced NPPs, offer electronic services, but are completely unmanned. I note that a pilot phase involving three NPPs began about six months ago. How did the elderly cope with the change to an unmanned NPP? I visited one of the revamped NPPs recently and noted online services at the e-kiosk are in English. Are the services available in other languages? With the e-NPPs, was there any change to the Police response times, compared to a physical presence at the NPP? I believe this needs to be assessed carefully to ensure there is no compromise in Police response.

Next, Madam, access to justice. Much as we would like to think that justice is blind, it is a fact across the world that the rich and the poor access the criminal justice system differently. While the rich have the resources to engage expensive lawyers and experts to support their cases, the poor have to make decisions based on their means. This sometimes includes pleading guilty, when they do not have the time or resources to contest their charges. This problem is not unique to Singapore.

Having legal representation when facing criminal charges is a necessity, as it is not easy for a layman to understand legal jargon and navigate his way through the various procedures. To this end, the Law Society had stepped up to fill a void left by the Government. The Society has been running its Criminal Legal Aid Scheme since the late 1980s to provide free legal representation to poorer accused facing non-capital charges. Despite the Law Society's most noble aims, the scheme had some limitations, as it covered only certain types of offences and only when the accused intended to claim trial. Thus, we have residents telling us they were turned away from the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) because their offence was not covered, for example, charges under the Immigration Act and Moneylenders Act, or because they wanted to plead guilty and only needed help in mitigation for a lighter sentence.

To this end, it is heartening that MinLaw has changed its stance. The MinLaw Addendum specifically emphasises its funding to the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) for direct assistance to poorer suspects. With greater and sustained Government support, the

Page: 23

aim should be to provide legal aid to all accused persons of limited means.

MinLaw's Addendum also talks of an impending Criminal Procedure Review to develop a plea bargaining framework for early resolution of criminal cases. I do not know what the Ministry has in mind at this stage. Early resolution of cases is good for the Court system and for public resources; it can also be good for the accused provided he is fully aware of the nature and consequences of his actions, for example, if he pleads guilty to reduced charges.

However, there is a risk of persons taking certain courses of action out of ignorance or convenience, not realising they have a valid defence, and not being aware of the effect of certain types of convictions on their future prospects. To this end, the plea bargaining framework should include ensuring that persons entering such bargains are legally represented even if they cannot afford their own lawyers.

Another important aspect of access to justice is bail. The ability to be released on bail before trial is important, especially when one intends to contest the charge. Being at liberty allows a person to keep his job; he can also prepare his defence more effectively. As bail tends to be set based on monetary amounts, this operates against the poor who may not have family or friends with such means. The consequences of not receiving bail would affect not only the suspect but also his or her dependents.

In countries such as the US, studies have shown that not being released on bail may lead to higher chances of conviction and heavier sentences. This has led to some reforms to facilitate more poor people being released on bail, for example, by putting more information before the judges about the defendant's roots in the community, family ties and employment. With more information, judges were then more likely to remove or reduce the monetary condition and enable more of the poor to be released pre-trial.

Turning to home, it was good that the Government set up a Bail Court in 2007 to focus on bail applications. Today, I still come across residents who say there is no way they can bail their son or daughter out due to the sums set. I hope the Courts will look more closely at the possibility of more non-monetary bail conditions being set, so that more of the poor can obtain pre-trial release. To this end, I have sent to the Government some research I did on this area, for further study.

Finally, let me argue for a stronger culture of scientific decision-making in crime and justice matters. There is still relatively little data available to the public and even to Members of Parliament to make informed decisions about crime and justice in Singapore. Let me give just two examples to illustrate my point.

Page: 24

First, do we really know the crime situation in Singapore? There is an over-reliance on Police statistics as giving the true picture. For instance, in a recent Police factsheet on the new COPS, it was stated that from 1997 to 2013, crime rates had gone down by 44%, concluding that the NPC system which started in 1997 had worked well to keep our neighbourhoods safe. But is there a clear cause and effect established? For one thing, not all crime is reported to the Police. In a rare population study in Singapore on offences of violence against women (Bouhours et al 2013, International Violence against Women Survey: Final Report on Singapore), it was estimated that less than one quarter of incidences of violence against women in Singapore was reported to the Police, meaning about 75% was unreported.

The under-reporting of crimes is a global phenomenon, with varying reporting rates for different crimes. Even if crimes are reported, how the Police classify or reclassify the reports will affect crime rates.

Another complication for Singapore is that there is a significant foreign population here. We know that foreign workers are subject to policing by auxiliary police, and how this affects the official recording of crimes is uncertain.

To take another example of unknowns, we can look at the composition of our prison population. The Prisons Service publishes data on the number of inmates, segmented by type of offence, gender, and even educational level. But the Government does not reveal the ethnic composition or nationalities, and whether certain groups are over-represented relative to the general population. I filed a Parliamentary Question on this but was told the data could not be revealed.

Madam, the reporting of ethnicity and nationality of prison population is a common practice elsewhere. The purpose of such reporting is not meant to embarrass certain communities, but to facilitate a holistic assessment as to why certain groups may be disproportionately incarcerated. With open data, public interest would be generated, and Parliament would more likely debate such issues. Publishing such data in other countries has led to law enforcement agencies and the courts reviewing their operational practices and decision-making, to ensure that they do not discriminate or stereotype people based on ethnicity or nationality. It has led to examination of social conditions and whether there has been fair economic opportunity. Well-meaning citizens would also take an interest to support families and children of at-risk groups. Government decision-making would be helped by those outside Government applying their minds to resolve the matter. I would argue that disclosure would promote social cohesion. In any case, I note that CNB has been publishing data on ethnicity of drug arrests for many years.

Page: 25

Madam, my point is that in order for decisions to be taken in a disciplined manner, the Government should be more open to gathering and sharing data on crime and justice issues. What I hope we can aim for is to have a culture of producing scientific papers on a regular basis for the public to better understand crime and justice issues. The British government has a strong research arm in Crime and Justice, which regularly publishes data and analyses on crime and law enforcement matters. Among the most important projects undertaken is the British Crime Survey, which is a population survey to ascertain the levels of unreported crime. Other topics include crimes of interest, the exercise of police powers and crime experiences of vulnerable groups. At home, I believe the MHA does have its research wings, but not many papers are published for public consumption. I hope this can change.

Besides the Government's own research being published, there is also a need to facilitate and encourage other independent researchers, such as universities, think tanks and concerned members of the public, to conduct criminological research. It is important that at least some of the findings are seen to be independent of the Government, so that more can participate in our sense making and we can have wider ownership of the directions we take. Further, we should encourage school leavers to take up such studies and become researchers to add to the rigour of public discourse on crime and justice issues. The new full-time undergraduate degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Criminology and Security offered by the Singapore Institute of Technology and the University of Liverpool gives hope in this direction.

Finally, Madam, let me make a few observations. The last few years have seen some significant policy changes in the field of law and home affairs. Five years ago, the Criminal Procedure Code underwent a major review, which among other things changed the pre-trial process to force more disclosure from both state and defence to enable better preparations for trial.

In 2012, after decades of consistently defending the need for the mandatory death penalty to apply to many offences, the Government suddenly and without warning, announced in this House a scaling-back of the mandatory death penalty for certain homicide and drug offences. For many years before, the Government had been reluctant to provide criminal legal aid to those facing non-capital charges; this has also moved forward. Personally, having studied these issues and spoken for change for several years, I was pleasantly surprised that the Government was able to slaughter these cows that appeared sacred for too long. This is good for Singapore. We should not be afraid to change our minds and make U-turns.

There are other areas for improvement. Protecting civil liberties, recognising crime victims' needs and rights, and better safeguards for suspects during Police investigations are but some. We should approach these and other issues with an open-mind. Ultimately, it is

Page: 26

in our common interest to have a safe, fair and just society.

Madam, the President's Address is notable for the Government's re-emphasis on the social dimensions of governance. I welcome the seldom asked "how" questions: how do we build a fair and just society? How do we live up to the founding ideals of this improbable nation? How do we act on our pledge for a better Singapore?

I hope these considerations will be the bedrock of governance and policy-making henceforth. Process matters as much, if not more, than the outcome. We will reach our destination in good shape and as one people, if we journey well and be true to our founding aspirations and ideals. We will be impoverished if wealth and asset enhancement are the be-all-and-end-all of the Singapore Dream. Indeed, post-material aspirations and concerns have grown in importance in Singaporeans' hierarchy of needs and increasingly define what it means to be Singaporean.

In my remarks today, I will focus primarily on education and meritocracy and its impact on income inequality, social mobility and inclusiveness. I will also briefly discuss the urgent need to maintain and enhance the legitimacy of key institutions of our society and on constructive politics.

On education, I welcome the call to keep pathways open to all. One vivid early childhood memory of mine was my family's move in 1974 from the Mount Vernon police quarters, where I spent the first four years of my life, to a new HDB apartment in Marine Parade. I recall the bare concrete floor of my new home, which remained bare for about a decade. With the third child due in end 1974 and a fourth in 1976, my parents felt that putting floor tiles was a luxury that should be deferred for more important needs. Besides, money had to be set aside for the imminent governmental fines for not stopping at two then! Today, my parents still live in the same flat, a home with rich memories for my family.

Despite their limited educational opportunities, my "Pioneer Generation" parents did what they could for their children's education. They wanted my siblings and me to have as rich and holistic an education as possible. We were encouraged to take an active part in extra-curricular activities. We led simple, dignified lives but we never felt deprived despite there being six of us on one modest Police officer's income.

My parents' focus on sound values, hard work and sacrifices has paid off. With scholarships, my siblings and I were able to earn degrees from the National University of

Page: 27

Singapore (NUS), the London School of Economics and Political Science, Oxford, Cambridge and Stanford universities. My older sister, perhaps hard done by the unforgiving education system in the 1980s, perseveres in ensuring that her two sons will have much better opportunities than her husband and her. My younger brother sailed for Singapore in the Southeast Asian and Asian Games. He became a full-time athlete after graduating from NUS Law School and went on to compete in two Olympic Games of 2000 and 2004. My other brother, the youngest, works in London's financial sector after having worked in Singapore and in Tokyo.

Many Members would have similar personal experiences of the rapid progress experienced by their own families. I narrated mine not because it is exceptional but because it should strike a chord in each and every one of us. It should resonate with us that ordinary families can and must thrive under the Singapore sun. These stories of progress very much reflected the tenor of our society then – of growth with equity and inclusiveness, and of people progressing in tandem as the nation did.

However, in recent times, I ask myself whether another Singaporean family today, in the same position that my parents were in, would be able to see their life chances and that of their children improve in one generation. This, at a time, when there is a growing income and wealth gap, seeming social stratification and divide. Would our children inherit a Singapore that will continue to be an inclusive society, a land of opportunities, hope and confidence for all?

Madam, we must do what we can now to ensure that Singapore does not become a society characterised by high inequality and low social mobility. This double whammy would mean social stasis and would fundamentally change the ethos of our society.

In Singapore, education has long been viewed as the primary vehicle by which one can ascend the ladder of opportunity. When I look at the diverse education landscape today, I see a much envied system, but I also ask myself whether our system, in the name of different peaks of excellence, instead, acts as a source of and unwittingly perpetuates the inequalities in our society.

Education, ironically, has become high stakes. Even the primary school admission exercise has become "high stakes" requiring many years of preparation and strategising like the national milestone examinations.

The different peaks of excellence education model, undergirded through differentiation by streaming and by different types of schools with different fees and curricula, may actually

Page: 28

have segregating effects that reinforce social immobility.

At one end, we have the Integrated Programme (IP) schools, many of which also offer the school-based gifted education programme. Many IP schools are also independent schools. At the other end, we have the Normal (Technical) stream students who are primarily channelled to vocational studies. True, students have different abilities and talents and to expect them to progress at a similar academic pace is unrealistic.

Yet, there is international research to suggest that certain characteristics in an educational system tend to decrease intergenerational mobility. These include ability-based and school-based streaming, privatisation of basic and tertiary education and the expansion of tertiary education with increasing fees. These are found in varying degrees in the Singapore system.

While there is greater effort towards interventions, such as more financial assistance and more affordable access to preschool education, we should recognise that these measures are essentially remedial. They kick in after a fact, and have limited efficacy and effectiveness in levelling up children from less well-to-do backgrounds if the overall system reinforces social immobility.

I appreciate that our education and meritocratic system is premised on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But the real question is whether every child, regardless of his or her socioeconomic background, is able to access the opportunities available. Does our system incentivise opportunity hoarding at the top? Improving social mobility requires upward mobility and, less appreciated, downward mobility from the top as well.

Let me reiterate that there is much to praise about our education system. A key platform for socialisation of young Singaporeans, our education system has been a lynchpin of our progress. But we should always question the fundamentals to avoid policy blind spots and be mindful of unintended consequences.

Even as the education system seeks to develop each child to his full potential, are we paying too high a price for that? Can the trade-off be less onerous and more equitable, such that we have greater social equity without compromising academic standards and ideals, something which I understand countries like Finland is able to do?

I may look back with sentimentality at my formative school days at Raffles Institution (RI) in the 1980s. But what left an indelible mark on me was how the majority of my peers came from humble backgrounds and how the system provided relatively abundant

Page: 29

opportunities to all of us and with high academic standards to boot. It was a school in which our home backgrounds did not matter. Instead, what mattered was how we disciplined our minds for academic excellence and how we filled our hearts with passion and purpose in the pursuit of our extra-curricular activities.

My sense is that today's RI is perhaps less representative than it was in my time. Is my alma mater one that I am immensely proud of, less of a beacon of hope of Singapore's meritocracy? It does not seem to attract as many students from neighbourhood schools and Malay students as it ought to. Has its ethos changed such that RI has become forbidding in this regard?

Prof Cham Tao Soon, the immediate past chairman of the RI Board of Governors, wrote in his book "The Making of NTU" that RI pupils "while brilliant in studies, from feedback, it appears that, generally, they lack a sense of humility and social consciousness. These are attributes we need to try to develop through a holistic education". I lament how this state of affairs has come to pass.

Has the quest for superlative academic performance in our top schools dulled the sense of purpose and values expected of them? Have we valued value and materialism over values? Is this state of affairs replicated in other top schools as well?

What is education for after all? It is certainly not to endow a sense of entitlement in the brightest. Have we become obsessed with degrees and achievements? What about the love of learning and the cultivation of a soul and of values that require us to remember that more is expected from the best and brightest?

Madam, when equality of opportunity co-exists with strong inequality, it raises legitimate questions of how fair and equitable a society is. It also engenders in the successful a sense of what they get from a meritocratic system is what they have earned through their individual effort. For the not so successful, they may attribute their lot in life to either it being their own fault and/or, of greater concern, that the system is weighted against them, particularly if immobility acquires an inheritable complexion.

I, therefore, urge the Government to consider whether our policies and programmes, in education and in other areas, undermine our quest for a society of "one united people" in a "democratic society based on justice and equality".

Yes, the concerted efforts at providing an enhanced suite of Government transfers in recent years have a marginal redistributive effect reducing the Gini coefficient, which, unfortunately, remains high. But it begs the question of whether this remedial measure of

Page: 30

Government transfers can be avoided in the first place through having a fairer system.

We should not always have to play "catch-up", always chasing our own tails. Social structure is not easy to change. It has been likened to a constant rather than a variable. This means that society and the Government need to work together at ensuring that Singapore is not flatlining on social mobility and inclusivity.

We should critically re-examine our system of meritocracy. Is our conception of merit too narrow, geared towards a privileged few? It has served us well but can we make it work better and infuse it with a sense of justice and fairness? Can we leaven our meritocracy so that it does not have a crushing effect on those who are not so meritorious under the current system? Can we ensure that our meritocracy ameliorates the harsh workings of the winner-takes-all mentality and the win-at-all-costs mindset?

We must do all we can to ensure that Singapore and our way of life here continue to be immensely relevant and purposeful to her people. If we are not able to do so, then nation-building is imperilled and we will see two Singapores, not just within the geographical confines of this city-state but also in the hearts and minds of our people. A nation divided cannot be relevant to the world.

As we are at the threshold of our 50 years of Independence, it is timely and necessary for the Government and Singaporeans to review the many policies, programmes and laws that have enabled us to transform into a thriving metropolis.

What may have worked well in the last five decades needs to continue to be fit for purpose in form and in substance. There should be no sacred cows. In today's complex world, we should operate from the premise that there are no self-evident truths in policymaking.

Hence, I welcome the deliberative process and the final report of the recently concluded Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS). Keeping National Service (NS) relevant and responsive to a new generation of Singaporeans is an existential challenge. We cannot take it for granted that NS will automatically secure the buy-in from all Singaporeans, including those of us who have served.

In similar fashion, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is in need of a fundamental rethink and rejuvenation if this institution is to continue earning the trust, confidence and support of Singaporeans. The Government should not take it for granted that the virtues of the CPF system are self-evident. CPF requirements, such as the Minimum Sum and interest rates payable, are being actively questioned and even resented by some CPF members.

Page: 31

If there is inadequate buy-in and engagement, we will see the whittling away of the legitimacy of these vital institutions.

Madam, I move on to constructive politics. The call for "constructive politics" has, expectedly, met with spirited response since Monday. The President's Address is inherently political in that the Government is laying out its plans for the rest of its term in office. They will constitute some of the key performance indicators by which many Singaporeans will assess and judge the Government on its performance.

"Constructive politics" defies definition. But what it speaks to us is the sort of politics that Singaporeans should demand from their politicians and the system of government. Every Singaporean has a stake and a say in the sort of politics in our political landscape.

As a Nominated Member, I am privileged to witness and to participate in the robust debates infused with passion, conviction and the occasional rhetoric in the past two-and-a-quarter years.

Despite this Parliament having the largest number of Opposition Members since the very first Parliament sat in December 1965, this House has set the appropriate tone in its debates and proceedings. Some Singaporeans may wish for more drama and excitement in this Chamber. But we must be clear that politics has real world consequences; it is not reality TV.

As I see it, the emphasis on constructive politics reflects a concern that the largely decorous nature in this House is vastly different from the tenor and tone of political engagement and contestation outside of the House. Does the incongruence in political engagement in and outside of Parliament reflect the perception that the debates in this House do not quite capture the sentiments in the public sphere? Not at all. I see the elected Members of Parliament, the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and the cross-bench Nominated Members of Parliament articulating a wide range of views on the various hot-button issues. A perusal of Hansard will confirm that this is so. Mainstream media reports of Parliamentary proceedings can certainly do better to capture not just the dominant view but also the range of opposing and alternative views canvassed and the atmospherics as well.

Where Parliament may not do so well is with regard to the strident views and these views tend to be in their element in the online sphere. Due to the digital world's "echo chamber" effect, these extreme views tend to dominate and acquire a following of their own.

An example of the stridency and the divisiveness can be seen in the online airing of views related to immigration. Because the online sphere is more accessible than

Page: 32

Parliamentary official reports, there could be the dominant view that divisive politics is the tenor of Singaporean politics today. This is far from accurate in my view.

Should Parliament then seek to articulate these strident unmeritorious views? Probably not. Instead, Members of Parliament and the Government should rebut these views with facts and reasoned arguments although this might give such views more publicity than they already deserve.

What is critical to constructive politics is the average Singaporean's perception of the political system, which includes the electoral system. Singaporeans must feel enfranchised and have a deep sense of ownership in the political system. Singaporeans must also have the cognitive and affective connection to the political system. For this to happen, the political system must be buttressed by integrity and the unquestioned dedication to the greater good. Not only must it be fair but it must also be seen to be fair in its workings.

In this regard, I hope the Government will take heed of the Singaporean desire for a fairer political system. Singaporeans care a lot for fair play. I sincerely hope that the Government will review the electoral rules and system with the aim of making it fairer. This will contribute immensely towards constructive politics.

Let me conclude, Madam. The imperatives facing Singapore today remain very much the same as they were in 1965. The harsh reality for Singapore is that we always have to be relevant to the world. The moment we cease to be of relevance is the start of our decline and of our nation-building. But we must be relevant to the world on our own terms.

While we must be alive to our constraints, we should not fear them. We have been able to turn our so-called limitations into strengths. These include developing our only resource, our people, for the global economy; transforming our severe lack of water self-sufficiency into growing self-sufficiency and, in the process, strengthening our sovereignty; creating an important global transport and supply chain node despite being located amid larger and better endowed and, from time to time, hostile neighbours. Today, we are in a much better position to take on the various evolving challenges facing Singapore.

A key challenge is how do we continue to ensure that our strengths, which are not pre-ordained, do not degenerate into immutable weaknesses? Our "3 to 1" Singapore Story of our country moving from Third World to First World in one generation has perhaps little resonance or significance for the millennial generation of Singaporeans who tend to treat the prosperity, the sheltered and good lives almost as a given, a birth-right.

Page: 33

The President's Address is titled "Pledging Ourselves to a Better Singapore". That is and has always been our shared purpose. Crucially, how we get there and whether a better age awaits future generations of Singaporeans will depend very much on whether we have a wholesome, life-giving set of shared values and a system of politics that does what is objectively right and principled.

Madam, on that note, I support the Motion of thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Second Session of this Twelfth Parliament.

Mr Zainal Sapari.

Mdm Speaker, I am not from RI but I would like to seek clarification from Assoc Prof Eugene Tan on how he thinks RI should decide on the admission of the students to ensure that it is fair to our society. That is the first clarification.

The second clarification: what would be the best way, in his opinion, to emplace students to the various schools after Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)?

My third clarification, again based on his speech on education: does Assoc Prof Eugene Tan think that diversity in terms of social economic status could be one of the key yardsticks in determining placement of pupils in secondary schools after their PSLE?

Thank you, Madam. I thank the hon Mr Zainal Sapari for this opportunity to clarify. On admission to RI – our top schools should make greater efforts to reach out to very different students, such as students who come from schools which are not their traditional feeder schools. My sense is, from speaking to teachers and old boys, that many of the top schools tend to target selected schools for admissions. It is important that our top schools, as part of our system of meritocracy, endeavour to reach out to ensure that they recruit students from a diversity of schools, including neighbourhood schools. At the same time, it is important to emphasise the various financial assistance schemes that are in place, to ensure that cost does not become an issue.

But I am more concerned whether the tenor and the ethos of the schools have changed such that these top schools may actually have an elitist complexion.

As for placement of students to schools after PSLE, merit will still have to be the main mode of selection. What I raised in my remarks is whether our education system may actually accentuate the inequalities because we stream students at a fairly young age, the

Page: 34

opportunities that are given to students from different types of schools vary significantly. I would say that the system is still premised on equality of opportunity but the key point I make is whether we can actually ensure that the ability to access these opportunities is real.

Let me give an analogy. Everyone in Singapore has a right to start in a 100-metre race. The key question though is whether everyone who appears at the starting line is equipped similarly to do well in the race. I am of the view that our system of education enables some students to be better equipped to take on the rigours of the 100-metre race.

I did not quite get Mr Zainal Sapari's third question.

Madam, my third question was, in his opinion, whether he thinks diversity in terms of socioeconomic status could be one of the key yardsticks in determining pupils placement in secondary schools to ensure that we have that diversity.

Thank you. The challenge here is how do we balance this diversity of socioeconomic status of our students with the need to ensure that the system is based on academic merit. In my remarks, I suggested that perhaps we should have a wider conception of merit; that it should not just be based on academic performance alone. More importantly, the thrust of my remarks is that we should try to make our system fairer, to make it more equitable. Yes, there is the need to ensure that our students are equipped for the realities of the modern economy. However, I wonder whether we are having too high a trade-off; that because we stream students into different channels at a very early stage in their education, we determine their life chances too prematurely.

Mr Seah Kian Peng.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. Today, we speak at the half term – with two and a half years or fewer before the next elections. But today, we also speak at 15 years past the millennium – with another 15 years before 2030.

By 2030, the ice caps would have melted considerably and the sea levels would have risen and new lanes would have opened. By 2030, Indonesia would be the world's 16th largest economy, overtaking the United Kingdom and Germany. By 2030, Singapore may have more than 6.5 million people and 8% more land. What is the collective destiny of these six-plus million Singaporeans?

Page: 35

In my travels, and from the policymakers who have come here to study Singapore from a diverse range of political systems, the success of Singapore is not so much a matter of "good governance" as one of great collective action. There is, of course, some sense in which the two are the same.

Let us take our public housing programme, which has been cited globally, and rightly so, as one of the most comprehensive and successful programmes. We have done a pretty good job here. But is it rocket science to build more homes? Is it high technology to lay bricks one on top of the other? It is, however, considerably more difficult to get people to agree – to give up their land for collective use – to agree to make a sacrifice so that the greater good can be accomplished.

So, in part, our public housing is not so much a matter of good engineering as good community relations. We had a common Singapore Dream and we agreed to all go for it. Some may lose, some will win, but, overall, Singapore will emerge the winner in the end.

And in many ways, we did – in housing, in transport, in economic growth. By quite a few measures, we have done well. But by some other measures we have not done as well. In distribution of wealth, in providing welfare, in making sure that we measure success not just by PSLE scores and prices and salaries, but by other means, we need to do much better.

The lack of success in these areas have now reached worrying levels; a fact which some of my colleagues have alluded to in the debate on the White Paper on Population. Some have called it a crisis of trust in the Government which is clearly exaggerated and, fortunately, not the case.

Madam, I agree that we need a better resonance of public policy with popular needs and wants. But in the speeches of fellow Members so far, from both sides of the bench, there has been much handwringing and criticism of what we have failed to do. Everyone has new and different ideas of what is best for Singapore.

Collective action 2030 – how do we move together?

In the past, many things were difficult – our population was poor, we had no reserves, many national projects were funded by loans from international agencies. But things had a clarity then – we needed growth, we needed jobs, to move forward quickly. Today, many things appear easy – we have large reserves, we have many educated people, strong foundation of public housing, transport and schools. And yet, things have become more difficult – the most difficult of which seems to garner agreement on collective action.

Page: 36

There is a sense of crisis about congested public transportation, high HDB/ Certificate of Entitlement prices, rising inflation and cost of living. The Government has gone some way to addressing these concerns – and it has done well on this front. Incidentally, to whom is credit due for this?

Over the course of the Eleventh and Twelfth Parliament, I have spoken about single mothers being mothers first and singles second – and the Government has given them the maternity leave that I lobbied for. Paternity leave was finally legislated after I had pushed for it for five consecutive years. I also spoke on the need for more welfare for the elderly – and the Government has given out $8 billion in the Pioneer Generation Package. I asked for more subsidies for healthcare and the Finance Minister has more than doubled the healthcare budget.

Ah, the power of speech-making and a Parliamentary seat! I feel as powerful as an Administrative Service officer on some days. Why let a few hon Members lay sole claim to the use of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" – a Latin phrase which means "after this, therefore, because of this"? I must say, that was quite good fun.

But, Madam, I make the political point to underscore the need for us to lay it aside – collective action can only be possible when we see one another as fellow Singaporeans working for the larger good, not vote-grabbing politicians seeking popular advantage. We need to resonate with what the people want, and not only expound populist measures, or shy away from taking a stand on difficult policies. This is what constructive politics is – a certain magnanimity and respect for good ideas.

Today, there is a sense in which people from different parties must, at all cost, run one another down before we make policy. This was not what politics had been in the past, and not what it should be now, nor in the future.

And now, I would like to make a suggestion about PSLE – not because the voters of Marine Parade GRC will be able to point to me and say, "This is the man who made the Government abolish PSLE!" But because, truly, it is an exam that has passed its time.

The mysterious PSLE. Madam, each year, about 3% of students fail PSLE and they get filtered out into other parts of the education system. So, 100% of children – and probably 200% of parents – go through the stress and frenzied preparation that is the PSLE.

Let me ask those of us who are employers – do you hire students based on their PSLE scores? No. Do we rank better internationally because our 12-year-olds can draw better models and memorise idioms for English compositions? No. Do parents need the PSLE scores

Page: 37

to be proud of their children? No.

What then is the role of a national examination at 12? Nothing – except the bureaucratic function of sorting students into schools.

But 97% of primary school students pass and move on to secondary school education. The remaining 3% are retained or go on to assigned secondary schools. But each year, in Primary 1 to 5, there are pupils who fail and are held back. Why can we not treat the Primary 6 exams the same way we treat other exams – to each school its own?

Why do we insist on a narrow and insular measure of educational abilities and potentials for 12-year-olds when the demands and entry requirements for tertiary education already make such tests obsolete? Our universities benchmark themselves against the world and recognise global examination results.

The larger exams. But whether the Government decides in the end to abolish PSLE or not, one fact remains – Singaporeans need to take larger exams than the PSLE. The reality remains that Singapore is a small nation-state in a sea of neighbours who owe us no favours and who are different from us in many fundamental ways. It is common now to greet such comments with a roll of the eyes and accuse the Government of scaremongering. But wait. Let us see how all this reality hangs together.

The rising tide. We have recently been told about global warming leading to rising sea levels. Arctic melting is not a mere matter for polar bears and marine life. It will result in opening up of the Northern Sea Route which will greatly reduce transshipments to Singapore.

This will mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs related to transportation, logistics and relevant supporting business chains. All these will have major and long-term impact on Singapore's survival in economic, environmental and other areas.

Many global events will shape and change our future whether we like it or not. For example, the Euro zone crisis, the US financial troubles, the Middle East revolts, Israel/Palestinian conflicts, the Korean peninsula's nuclear threats, escalated tensions in the East China Sea and South China Sea, the state of China's economy, the rising of regional powers, such as Indonesia.

Overcoming all these major challenges require long-term vision and planning by the Government. But ideas cannot be held as good or bad just by a small group of people because the land – this 700 sq km – is held jointly by all of us. Whether in District 9, 10, 11 or in Woodlands or Sembawang, Singapore, this land is a freehold property with many million

Page: 38

owners.

The decision about who we want to invite into our homes, the key renovations we want to make, what kinds of protection we need – all these are collective decisions which require the full support of Singaporeans.

Singapore has become First World in many ways because of our basis for collective action. But it is clear that such collective action will be very much more difficult in the future. At this point in our national life, we all want so many different things.

Mdm Speaker, the negative narrative that has been imputed to the Population White Paper – that it is about economic growth over values, wealth over welfare, prosperity over people – this cannot be further from the truth. All policies – be it on population, education, housing, security, economy – all serve to build for the present and also future generations of Singaporeans a fair and just society, regardless of race, language or religion; so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

The fox and the hedgehog. Mdm Speaker, the President spoke about and reiterated the pledge to happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. These remain the foundations of the Singapore Dream.

We all want what is good for Singapore but the trouble is, we do not all think "good" is just one thing. It is like the difference between the fox and the hedgehog in ancient Greek parables. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog only knows one big thing. I do not know much philosophy so, in my own way, I understand the first to be a post-modernist position and the second, a more anti-pluralist one.

The fox believes there are many truths, but the hedgehog believes that things are either true or false but not both.

In the early days, we can all believe in the same thing – pro-growth, pro-market, homes, jobs and development. Small government, large role for market forces, private enterprise, transparent competitive public sector salaries.

Is this one big thing with many small details? Or many small things?

I say the first. We have always believed in one big thing – one common vision. Now, however, we seem to be less of a hedgehog because the collective vision is increasingly contentious. We no longer know what the one big thing is. Instead, we each have our version

Page: 39

of the smaller things that we know.

How then can we move together? We move together by affirming the basics, interpreting our future based on our shared past, and undertaking this exercise in good faith that we work for the collective good, and not personal gain. These basics are reflected in the President's speech – they include the national pledge, the Constitution and our commitment to rule of law.

Within these basics, however, there is wide room for new and different interpretations of the good life. The Finance Minister has, in his Budgets so far, made radical changes to the Budgets in the first half of the term of this Government. We have moved more into explicit welfare provision, more into social spending, more into progressive taxes. We had used more non-price incentives, including regulatory mechanisms, in public policy.

More recently, he has made another radical move to improve real wages for poorer Singaporeans. Madam, in this, I want to point out that Singapore, like many other developed and developing nations, is increasingly a society where there is great wealth disparity.

I have, in the course of the past five years, pointed out that much of what we call meritocracy has been sullied by the unfairness of those who perform so much better because they are born into wealth. This is a fact of life, and not one that we can totally erase – nor should we wish to. The motivation to provide well for our family is the driving force for many of us to strive ceaselessly.

And yet, the massive accumulation of wealth by some runs against the tenets of an equal society. Our duty is to ensure that there is significant and regular redistribution of wealth, in a fair and transparent manner. This sharing of the country's success and the strengthening of our social safety nets must go hand in hand.

Within our basic tenets of Singapore life, we can and we must tolerate even more radical changes, including a reform of our civil and administrative service. We must continue to pursue prosperity and progress but there needs to be a new collective interpretation.

I believe there are rights and wrongs even in interpretations. In his book "Justice for Hedgehogs", Dworkin spoke about the difference between personal ethics and collective morality. He wrote, and I quote him: "Moral standards prescribe how we ought to treat others; ethical standards, how we ought to live ourselves. The happiness that Plato and Aristotle evoked was to be achieved by living ethically; and this meant living according to independent moral principles."

Page: 40

If we live our lives well, we give it meaning, the sort of meaning that "stands up to the fact and fear of death".

In this, our duty as a Government is to provide the environment to make this possible – the sort of opportunities that allow us to live a meaningful life – one that stands up to the fact and fear of death.

But there is a difference between life for a person and life as a nation.

Mark Lee, one of Singapore's most popular comedians, recently had a set in English at the Esplanade – in a show called Happy Ever Laughter. He spoke about his journey in being a comic actor, earning just $25 a week when he started. His success is a matter of chance and self-application. Or as Mark Lee himself put it – good luck and "gut lad" or Hokkien for hard work. It was a big risk, but he was determined to make it work. And he succeeded in great measure.

But let us think again. What if he did not? Even if we took the risk and the risk did not pay off, our lives remain good and meaningful because trying and striving are their own reward. Living well, on an individual level, sometimes can mean choosing what is likely to be a worse life. As Dworkin says, and I quote him again: "Living well is not the same as maximising the chance of producing the best possible life."

This individual can take chances, he can gamble on a dream, and, indeed, this is what makes life meaningful. But does logic hold true for the collective?

Mdm Speaker, physics ensures that we can only live one life. We cannot know in advance whether we succeed or not. But countries must live according to their collective morality. As leaders in this House, we bear an additional duty, not just to lead an ethical life, but shape a larger morality.

In this, we have a duty to steer a course that stays true to the values of Singaporeans. Not economics, not even policies, but to recognise and shape the collective morality for Singapore – and I think this is the real challenge of 2030.

In these years since 2011, we have charted many new courses, taken many new paths. But I also urge us all to see that all this is in line with the larger interpretation of the good life by Singaporeans, for continued prosperity, for education as a way of realising a secure future, for happiness and for domestic peace and strength.

Page: 41

This is the Singapore Story and while we may add new chapters, we need to bear in mind the larger picture, that there are right and wrong interpretations of our collective morality. There are interpretations that speak to clean and responsible public discourse, to open and transparent Civil Service and to progressive values. There are interpretations, too, that speak to the opposition – to irresponsible allegations, to falsehoods, to bravado over real political courage.

There are rights and wrongs in political life, Mdm Speaker. Our duty is to get it right. On that note, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Madam, Singapore has come a long way. Like many small nation states, we are plagued by so many issues and challenges. A recent case in point is that of Ukraine. We are not immune to these challenges. However, the efficiency, vision in planning and strategies of our Government have kept us developing, progressive, adaptable to global changes and resilient. It has not been a walk in the park. Tasks involved are not easy. Decisions to be made were not simple or straightforward. It requires vision and a deep understanding of the variety of challenges and issues.

Political stability has been a very critical factor in the growth and development of Singapore into the Nation of Opportunities we have today. On the global platform, our brand name is strong and respected. All these came from the very strong and correct foundations that were set so many years ago by our forefathers and our Pioneers – the men and women who started building Singapore. Here, I wish to pay tribute to our samsui women who mostly came here between 1934 and 1949. Some 200,000 of them came, just like some of our new immigrants now. They had the courage to travel far and negotiate change. They had a hard life, and they lived in crammed and rudimentary conditions. They worked hard, mostly in construction and rebuilding, putting in a lot of hard labour. Their efforts, sacrifices, hard work and commitment contributed to the development of Singapore. Today, there are a handful of them left and I am privileged to have known one of them.

Madam, on education, it has proven to be one of the great equalisers in our meritocratic society. Those from very humble and less privileged backgrounds, who strive and excel, can go the extra mile in achieving their dreams. With the strong foundation and basics we have here, I have to say, "If you can do well in Singapore, you can make it anywhere in the world." That is what I tell my students and the doctors that I teach. The various pathways to the many mountain peaks we have created is, indeed, the right way forward.

Page: 42

Finetuning the education system would require: (a) more values-based education: to help inculcate the kindness and graciousness we want to see; (b) more flexibility for those who want to pursue other talents and interest along the way; (c) more time for community involvement, whether local or global, to deepen understanding of human relationships; and (d) more personal time for reflection and thinking, so that we can create more thought leaders.

There is, however, one dilemma we are facing today. As our society progresses and we push the bell curve of achievement to the right, there will be a need for more places and placements in our institutions of higher learning. The Government has announced the creation and allocation of many more places, but we will still not be able to meet the demands completely. This group may then have to seek alternative sources more likely in private or overseas institutions. Herein lies the challenge: funding.

They will not be able to utilise their parents' CPF for education. They also do not usually fall in the group that is going to be able to attain scholarships easily. They may have to turn to bank loans or study loans if their families qualify. Frustrations may arise not only for them but their parents too and, of course, they may be at a loss as to how to proceed. Perhaps the Government can consider how we can assist this group.

Education is meant to bring out the best in every child and every adult. It is a continuum, a spectrum – from pre-school right up to lifelong learning in our Pioneers and building up life skills. The following are some suggestions I have: (a) can we have more learning communities, where there are lessons to be learnt everywhere and anywhere, including through play and activities? Then, we can be a society with a strong emphasis on learning at every critical point; (b) can we inculcate more creativity by being more flexible?; and (c) can we use more narratives for learners at all ages to share stories, experiences and be better integrated as they form networks of trust and greater friendships?

On community capacity building – we have built ourselves to become one of the most efficient societies on the globe, I think. But let us reflect: are we able to explicitly promote the ethics of caring as a fundamental societal value? After all, part of citizenship is about respect and obligation to care for one another. Are we ready to inculcate this at all levels of our communities and society – teaching, mentoring, coaching, sharing, being positive role models and utilising our shared common space together amicably?

Can we all put forth our capabilities and resources, which we have a lot of, and take ownership and become empowered? Are we ready to change our mindsets as to how things get done? Better still, are we ready to see through some of these things ourselves, with our neighbours and friends? Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Laurence Lien wanted citizens' involvement at more levels. Well, the platforms are there, but will our citizens come

Page: 43

forward to voluntarily serve and do what they have to do?

Community capacity building can win you friends and unite people: Singaporeans and new immigrants, young and seniors, different races, different backgrounds and inter-generations. It can help in the intensification of people-to-people interactions. Strong and caring communities start with citizens and residents at the very base. With this model , nation-building, cohesion and even national identity can be strengthened. Community problems may be resolved together. Conflicts can be managed in a more positive way. Our social capital and cultural capital can then flourish even better. Partnerships will be forged as a way forward. Kindness and graciousness will then, hopefully, become a way of life. It will be all about relationship building.

Everyone of us is born kind: it is an inherent human value. And here, I would like to quote a Chinese saying which says: "人之初，性本善", which means at the start of human life, we are all originally kind. However, external factors get subjected to a lot of determinants which make us manifest ungraciousness. What are these? Stress, jealousy, competition and so on.

Will our intrinsic, inherent value of kindness be strong enough to overcome these external stressors and allow us to be kind and gracious? After all, all of us have got 86,400 seconds every day. Do spend some of these doing acts of kindness. We can use kindness to help, show care, befriend and contribute to society. Let us learn to throw that kindness boomerang, as it will always be returned eventually back to us.

In the process of integration, we are doing a lot. Can our foreign friends and new immigrants also have an open mindset and a big heart to adapt their ways, respect ours, and come together? Can Singaporeans and new immigrant neighbours be buddies as we see in a buddy system, and develop close and nurturing relationships? This way, we can enlarge our social, cultural and even kindness capital.

The recent outburst and reaction towards the Philippines independence day was really uncalled for. Every day, Madam, I work with many Filipino doctors and nurses at the hospital – they care for Singaporeans, they care for any and every patient. And I have to say they do a very good job in our extremely hectic and overloaded healthcare system, and I respect them and the many foreigners who work in our system. Madam, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Throughout 50 years of Singapore's development, our Malay/Muslim community has become more progressive and excellent in many fields and areas. But in terms of taking care of our health, it is clear that there are

Page: 44

weaknesses to be addressed.

Singapore's health system and policy are comprehensive and cover many aspects for Singaporeans.

Recently, there have been many references and improvements made to help all levels of society pay for the costs of their treatment and medicine. The schemes that are available and have been refined includes the 3M, CHAS, Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), Medication Assistance Fund (MAF).

Although a lot of help is available, many still do not understand and are unaware of schemes that are beneficial to them. In fact, it not only benefits individuals and the elderly, but the whole family as well, because their children or grandchildren are usually the ones who help bear their treatment costs. If we take a closer look, if we use the schemes that are available, the subsidy is quite substantial. Therefore, I urge those who are unaware or do not understand, to come to the dialogue sessions or seminars that provide explanations like the one held recently for the Pioneer Generation Package.

Many people within our community, who upon becoming ill, will accept it as fate. In fact, some refuse to do anything and get treatment. This attitude is wrong. Please make the effort and get treatment because the treatment is already available.

Health literacy amongst our community is also low. This is also the reason for the high rate of chronic diseases in our community compared to other communities. Our lifestyle and diet are also generally unhealthy. If we wish for change and improvement, it should begin with us, by changing our mindset to correct the wrong and outdated perceptions.

For working adults, the exercise regime that can usually be done at the workplace, together with their colleagues, is good and useful. Employers can also give support. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) can help companies appoint health champions or health ambassadors who can influence their colleagues through good habits. Mental health programmes can also be enhanced because many of our adults at the workplace sometimes experience a lot of stress.

The number of those who have health insurance within our community should also be improved. Many do not care about this issue until, as the Malay saying goes "only after you knock against something, you try to avoid hitting it", because they did not plan early. I would like to urge our younger generation to take positive steps to help their families in these issues since they are more knowledgeable. Some of those affected come from the low-income and middle income families, who do not understand how to manage their finances and family

Page: 45

expenses and would simply want to take out all their CPF savings right now to settle their financial problems for the short term. That is unhealthy. Your CPF savings are kept safe for future withdrawal and for your retirement years. There are many schemes that are available now to assist you.

The elderly and our Pioneer Generation should also take proactive steps by taking care of their health. With an ageing population, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, stroke and other illnesses are still increasing. Do we know how to take care of family members who are affected? Have we ever undergone a course to become caregivers?

The social service sector and the Health Ministry should organise more courses and dialogues to provide guidance and encouragement to the caregivers. Their staff and workers should go to the ground more often and garner feedback directly.

In conclusion, although our community has progressed far and achieved further excellence, there are a few issues that are still hampering us. Issues like dysfunctional families, single mothers, divorces, drug problems and others.

I am sure that with a mindset change in our community, the combination of efforts and the spirit of gotong-royong and collaboration, together, we can help these people gradually move inch by inch out of poverty trap and vicious cycle.

(In English): In the area of healthcare, there are still a few issues to be sorted out although we have a very good healthcare system. I would just like to highlight a few.

We need more long-term and intermediate care facilities. We have heard the numbers that are going to be ramped up in the next few years. I have one suggestion to share. Would it be possible to use our HDB flat model as one to provide a facility, perhaps called the "Vertical Step-down Care Facility"? And why not? One block of HDB flats has between 100 and 150 units that could house at least a similar number of residents, seniors or patients. There are lifts that stop on every floor. It is elderly-friendly. It is disabled-friendly. There are toileting facilities in every unit which are excellent for hygiene and accessibility perspectives.

Perhaps, MND and MOH can consider piloting this model in land-scarce Singapore to nurse and manage the less critically ill patients needing chronic management. The cost will be very reasonable, I would say. Of course, the timing would also be very reasonable, compared to having to build a nursing home from scratch. As we talk about productivity and innovation, well, this, indeed, is about being productive and innovative.

Page: 46

Let us help and support those with mental illness as well, as they need a bit more care facilities and also rehabilitation facilities in the community.

On healthcare manpower, we are, indeed, in need of a major ramping up because at several polyclinics these days, they have to reject registrations from as early as one or two o'clock in the afternoon because allocated reasonable quota of daily attendances has been reached for each staff, who will need time to actually settle all the cases they need to see and provide consultations.

Let me also correct one misperception that may have been generated from hon Member Mr Inderjit Singh's comments in today's TODAY newspaper on restructured hospitals promoting medical tourism around the region.

As a practitioner in healthcare in the last 24 years, please understand that Singaporeans are at the heart of all we do. That is the reason why I strive and work 24 – well, some say 25 – hours a day. We have a strong and good, effective healthcare system. Our reputation is good, our brand name is strong and this has been built over the years with good vision. Is it wrong for international patients to want to seek care here?

Well, everything we plan is planned with Singaporeans in mind in our restructured hospitals. All in, we need efficient and timely ramping up. As we await the announced enhancements, changes are going on. Change is the only constant in our lives. Our seniors are continuing to grow old. Diseases, such as dementia, are being diagnosed and increasing daily. The situation is very dynamic. The question to ask is: will we have to play the "catch-up" game every time?

Finally, can we incorporate flexibilities into our policies and schemes because people, their lives, their experiences and their situations are unique and there will always be differences? Staff from the public service and Government agencies will need to spend more time on the ground in order to appreciate the root causes of situations and the interplay of various factors, especially in cases that do not satisfy the standard guidelines.

Let me, at this juncture, share with Members very quickly a story. I have the approval of this lady to share this anecdote with you. She is a 34-year-old lady, married to a 40-year-old Singaporean, has three children aged 13, 11 and 4, and the youngest has got special needs. They live in a 3-room flat and I have been helping her through various sources in a multifaceted way. Last night, she came to see me. Her husband had passed on within the last three weeks. He had Stage 4 advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, which is a cancer. Tears welled up in her eyes as she made an attempt to tell me what she wanted. It was not about help. It was not about finances. She was asking whether I could help her extend her

Page: 47

Long-Term Visit Pass or perhaps get her a Permanent Resident because now, as a housewife, she would have to work to support her three Singaporean children and she was not going to go back to her original country. All her stakes are now here in Singapore.

What would you do? Make representation for a foreigner? She has got no other contacts, relatives, no extended family. Can we let three young children lose their mum after losing their dad? With the notion of a caring society moving all through my neural networks in the gray matter, I decided to write that letter last night. If not for anything, it is at least for the youngest child with special needs.

How effective, responsible and responsive the Government and the agencies are, is something that must be acknowledged by the ground and the people. Flexibility can enhance our position as a caring society. From a nation of opportunities, can we become a city of the future that inspires? From just efficiency and effectiveness, can we add humanistic values like care and share, and increase our caring capital? A lot has been said about constructive politics. Well, I hope to promote the practice of what I would call "conscience politics". With that, Madam, I support the Motion.

Mr Pritam Singh.

Thank you, Madam. This Motion of thanks for the President's Address takes place amidst worrying developments in our neighbourhood. At the recent ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, ASEAN Foreign Ministers issued a statement on 10 May 2014 expressing their serious concerns over the ongoing developments in the South China Sea, which increased tensions in the area. There have been many references from the Government over the last few months about hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, and the implications for Singapore.

In the South China Sea, tensions are increasing between China and a whole host of countries. It is a sea line of communications central to our survival – US$5.3 trillion worth of trade passes through it every year. Needless to say, the South China Sea is right at our doorstep, too. The geopolitical jockeying taking place in the region takes place in a year when we celebrate 30 years of Total Defence, a national initiative that first began in 1984.

Madam, my colleagues have already spoken and will continue to speak during this debate on a wide range of important domestic matters, as covered in the President's Address. I will focus my speech on national security, specifically to issues pertaining to foreign affairs

Page: 48

and defence.

In spite of the American pivot towards Asia, the fact remains that the benign American security umbrella in Asia has to accommodate China's economic and growing military power. The real manifestations of a changing power equilibrium in East and Southeast Asia are taking place. Over the last year, developments in the East and South China Sea, in particular, are causing serious concerns amongst several Asian countries, including Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam – all in the eye of the storm.

A Code of Conduct on the South China Sea to address these territorial spats is unlikely to come to pass anytime soon. This is in spite of hopes for it to be hurried along, as most recently expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his visit to Washington two weeks ago. In contrast, the Prime Minister's more sober remarks in Tokyo on the back of the Nikkei International Conference last week that any nation would be cautious about signing on to a set of guidelines which may constrain its freedom of action are noteworthy.

Seen from this perspective, while the early agreement of a Code of Conduct would be warmly welcomed by Singapore, it is not terribly realistic to expect this of China or any other major power in its shoes. As China grows economically, it has taken a long view of history to ensure that it is in the foremost position to determine the power dynamics of its immediate neighbourhood, which it sees as a core interest.

Such big power behaviour is not unusual. Big powers march to their own drumbeat. Even the US, while accepting the widely ratified United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as customary international law, has not moved to ratify the treaty for reasons best known to American lawmakers.

In a sense, China's reactions can be read as a direct response to the perception of a gradually minifying ability and keenness of the United States to impose its will on the world. This is coupled with the slow and uneven post-Cold War shift to a more multi-polar world. As part of this process, it would have come as no surprise to hear of the 30-year $400 billion gas deal between China and Russia last week, even as barbed exchanges and spats were taking place over the South China Sea.

For Singapore, the jockeying in our neighbourhood suggests that the external environment in the years to come is likely to be more, and not less, unpredictable. In the event our external trade is affected by skirmishes and hostilities in the South China Sea or a chill permeates through the markets and business confidence sinks as a result of it, our resilience as a people is likely to be severely tested.

Page: 49

Beyond hosting a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) that is ready for battle, how prepared are we as a country if conflict in a foreign region has a debilitating effect on our economy and society? With our fast-changing population, have the pillars of Total Defence been unwittingly weakened? Is our economy strong, resilient and diversified enough to survive a crisis in the South China Sea?

With close to 40% of Singapore comprising of non-Singaporeans, will Singaporeans and foreigners look out for each other or turn to look after their respective communities? These numbers should inform the Government that the next 30 years that undergird Total Defence will be much more important than the last 30. While SAF and Home Team National Servicemen reinstate their commitment to Singapore, the Government should assess if we have over-extended ourselves in outsourcing many critical public functions.

In times of conflict, we can certainly expect job losses and some foreigners returning to safer pastures. How will our municipal, health, transport and telecommunication services hold up, given the large number of foreigners manning them? Will some of our foreign friends among us respond nationalistically, favouring the Philippines or Vietnam, depending on their ethnicity and original citizenship, even as Singapore would prefer to stand as a neutral party?

We would need to prepare for these unexpected outcomes and review our crisis strategies even as the Government presses ahead with economic growth and with the expansion of foreign manpower continuing. Insofar as national resilience is concerned, the announcement by the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) in recommending a Volunteer Corps is a laudable initiative. This is even if it is, for all intents and purposes, a pilot initiative and a small baby step targeted at new citizens, first-generation PRs and women.

I would urge all new citizens, in particular, to apply to join the SAF Volunteer Corps and join hands with Singaporeans who already dedicate a minimum of 12 years of their life to National Service.

As a young nation, but with close to 40% of our population comprising non-Singaporeans, questions of identity and commitment of the new arrivals are likely to remain in the minds of Singaporeans for the foreseeable future. This has a direct consequence on our resilience as a country and a people. The Government should continue to explore how new citizens and PRs can contribute to our national security and how the total defence concept can be reinforced in light of the new realities.

Mdm Speaker, it was instructive to note MFA's Addendum to the President's Address referring specifically to the fact that good relations with our immediate neighbours, namely,

Page: 50

Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, are essential for our security and prosperity.

I recently attended the 34th Singapore Lecture delivered by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei in April this year. The Sultan took the opportunity to applaud Singapore's offer of the Changi Command and Control Centre as a regional humanitarian disaster and relief co-host centre. Such Singaporean initiatives are hallmarks of effective defence diplomacy and we should build on this. Going forward, it may be appropriate for us to explore how our defence ties with our immediate neighbours, in particular, can be further improved. This would be solely to increase reservoirs of trust with our neighbours with the view to completely eradicate the prospects of hostilities as far as practically possible. This would have to be a long-term strategy but it is not impossible.

We can start with Malaysia. As our populations and economies become more interconnected with Iskandar Johor and the rapid transit system between Johor Baru and Woodlands in the works, the logic of conflict between us will make less and less sense as the years go by. To this end, a new multilateral architecture among Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei that eradicates the prospect of conflict and promotes military inter-operability and joint training may well operate to create a far more benign security environment in our immediate neighbourhood so as to allow for a more flexible and targeted use of our defence dollar in the long run.

Whilst Singapore must ultimately remain responsible for its own security, steady and determined confidence-building measures with our neighbours and the willingness to put the past behind can alter the security landscape. I would suggest that we are in a much better starting position. The Government already actively encourages Singapore businesses to operate in Iskandar Johor as evinced most recently in the Prime Minister's remarks during the Malay/Muslim business conference held earlier this month.

Singapore already conducts a wide range of military exercises with our immediate neighbours. It would also be helpful to add some cultural ballast to deepening defence ties by restating the importance of the Malay Language and encouraging its use, even informally, since Singapore will always be located in the Malay Archipelago.

We should also take the opportunity in so far as our local discourse is concerned, to remind policymakers that the fear of putting a Malay serviceman behind a machine gun is already over. We are all Singaporeans and, with 50 years of Independence behind us, now more than ever, when you are conscripted to defend your home Singapore, in whatever capacity, your race is not a factor.

Page: 51

Mdm Speaker, much has been said about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement to expand the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. The TPP seeks to enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development.

For Singaporeans, the implications of the TPP for Singapore have not been discussed beyond broad motherhood statements even as many groups and lobbies in potential TPP signatory countries are protesting against the treaty, especially those economies heavily weighted in favour of particular industries, such as automotive and agriculture, amongst others. Even environmentalists and Internet freedom advocates have raised a hue and cry about the implications of the TPP.

Whilst Singapore's considerations will be different in view of the externally oriented nature of our economy, it would be important for the Government to inform Singaporeans what is in it for us. These questions are especially important for Singapore businesses and for the world we want to bequeath to our children, questions that go beyond economics in view of the implications of the TPP for the Asia Pacific region. Will the TPP allow Singaporean companies to go overseas and do business the same way big companies are allowed to come to Singapore and compete for major contracts with local businesses? Which businesses and industries, if any, are likely to be killed off by the TPP?

Mdm Speaker, it would be helpful if the Government flesh out the opportunities and pitfalls awaiting our local SMEs should the TPP come to pass so that our businesses are not blind-sided by it. In fact, such a strategy going beyond communication with Chambers of Commerce and business federations may well encourage greater entrepreneurship amongst our people. Equally, greater sharing of information with budding businesses, startups and those that are still primarily locally oriented will vindicate and justify the policymaking hours spent by our civil servants and Government officials on TPP negotiations.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, with our total external trade hitting almost one trillion dollars according to 2013 statistics, Singapore will be acutely vulnerable should a conflict erupt in the South China Sea. Beyond our neutrality and our relentless diplomatic efforts, Singapore will have to adjust and deal with the reality that comes our way. A former Permanent Secretary of MFA once observed, not incorrectly, Singapore will always be a price taker, not a price setter in the international realm. Nonetheless, we may be in a better position to determine the price we take with regard to our immediate neighbours, given the greater inter-dependence between Singapore and Malaysia in particular.

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to determine or prevent a conflict in the South China Sea, beyond offering ourselves as a neutral arbiter and an advocate for a code of conduct in the South China Sea. We can, however, start working on scenarios to determine

Page: 52

how we can better be prepared for a regional conflict, especially given the deep changes that have taken place in our society over the last 10-15 years with regard to our population policies and economic strategies in particular. The standoff between Ukraine and Russia is not wholly relevant to Singapore but there are more immediate worries closer to home.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion of thanks on the President's Address.

Mr Zainal Sapari, do you have a clarification?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether, in his speech, he was alluding to the fact that Malays in the Armed Forces are not deployed to handle machine guns? That is my first clarification.

My second clarification is to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether he is aware of the fact that today, many Malays are actually deployed in different parts of the Armed Forces – artillery, signal – and whether he would agree with me that that signals that the Armed Forces have actually opened up these places to the Malays as well.

I thank the hon Member for the question. It is a very important one. Indeed, he is right. I remember my own experience as a National Serviceman in the Combat Engineer Unit, as a platoon commander, where we had no Malay servicemen in the rank-and-file, at least when I was there. And a few years ago, one of my best friends took over command of a similar unit and I was pleasantly surprised actually to see Malay Servicemen in the rank-and-file. So, in that sense, it is very good to know that we have moved.

Unfortunately, on the ground, you have certain noises, sometimes coming up from the Malay community, that somehow these messages of earlier political leaders in Singapore suggest that we have not moved. But as the hon Member rightly pointed out, we have moved forward. As I mentioned in my speech, I think we have to move forward with this idea that right now, we are moving forward as one united people, no matter what your race and religion is, you will defend Singapore with no one doubting your intentions because of your race.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

Page: 53

at 3.40 pm until 4.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

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

Mdm Speaker, change. They say the only constant in life is change. There are many kinds of change. There is evolutionary change. There is incremental and superficial change as opposed to disruptive and profound change. As Winston Churchill put it, "To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often."

Madam, we are now halfway through this Parliamentary term. For decades, the Government has listened to the people, has laboured for the people and has led the people. We have seen changes. Where the system is working well, the Government has tweaked and refined the system. Where the system needs a comprehensive relook, we have made profound and fundamental changes.

This can be seen in how the Government has launched the Pioneer Generation Package and revamped the HDB property sector. The Pioneer Generation Package is not means-tested and this represents a major departure from our prevailing norm underpinning our social policies. New HDB flat pricing has also been de-linked from prevailing land prices; a practice that has been in place for decades. In education as well, we are seeing change not just at the policy level but at the philosophical level as well. We are also seeing fundamental changes to our public bus system – right down to the model of financing and ownership and not just bus operations.

Madam, even in defence, we are making major changes to our NS system. Defence is traditionally not an area that we see great changes in, given the inherent limitations of geography and demographics in Singapore. But as you can see, the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS), which is chaired by the Minister for Defence, is making some very far-reaching proposals that will strengthen Singaporean's support for NS. NS is already a time-honoured, if not, sacred institution in Singapore. I am glad that the Government is not content with what it has achieved and continues to make NS even more relevant and to secure more support and buy-in from not just Singaporeans, but from employers and companies that hire Singaporeans.

Page: 54

If there is one thing we can learn from all this, it is that the Government and People's Action Party Members of Parliament are not only ready for change, we have embraced change. Change that is contextually appropriate. Change that has not just been for change's sake. We can refine the way we do things when only evolutionary and incremental change is needed. We can completely redefine and reframe issues when profound and disruptive change is necessary. We need to if we are to progress as a nation. And more changes are to come, as evidenced by the President's Address last week.

In our Pledge, we say we want to "achieve progress for our nation". But as Robert Kennedy so famously said, "Progress is a nice word. But change is its motivator. And change has its enemies".

So, change will not be easy. It will be painful, and more often than not, layered with ample doses of anxiety and fear. But change has to take place. Not just for the Government and Ministries that run this country, but for every Singaporean.

Paradoxically, change is more painful when things are going well. Change may meet less resistance when things are not going well and as management consultants put it – there is a "burning platform" where everyone sees the need and therefore are committed to effecting change.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present". The present around us is indeed stormy. We live in one of the fastest growing regions in the world, and we also live in one that is highly interesting. The Pacific and Indian Oceans and the surrounding seaboards will be the grounds where continental powers and big countries meet to contest in the 21st Century. The emphasis has shifted from where the focus has been since the Middle Ages, which is the Atlantic Ocean. Hopefully, such contests will not result in military conflict.

In North Asia, an assertive China, an emergent South Korea and a resurgent Japan, together with an American leadership that is trying to run a great balancing act between all parties will hopefully find a new peaceful equilibrium for co-existence.

In Southeast Asia, we will have to contend with simmering territorial disputes in the South China Sea that has the potential to boil over at short notice, as we have seen recently between Vietnam, Philippines and China.

Against this volatile and complicated backdrop of changes, what is Singapore's response? Recently, I read a book called "Hard Choices: Challenging the Singapore Consensus" by Mr Donald Low and Mr Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh. It is an interesting book, although I do not

Page: 55

exactly agree with a few points made by the authors. One of the points made is that Singapore should move from a sense of vulnerability to that of building resilience.

Madam, I think this dichotomy of choice between resilience and vulnerability is unnecessary. We need both a sense of vulnerability and resilience. The choice is not between vulnerability and resilience but between vulnerability and complacency. Resilience is definitely necessary. This is no more obvious in the case of Singapore, a small state tucked away between large countries and continental powers. The Way of the Small State has never been easy in human history. Many city states and small states have come and gone with the sands of time. The city states of ancient Greece and the states in ancient China, such as those during the Warring States and Spring Autumn periods are examples. The present and future are actually even more challenging for the following two reasons.

Firstly, in the past, might is right. The big can and do eat up the small through military conflicts. For the last 60 years, America, as the pre-eminent power of the world, has introduced a rules-based system that has benefited small states, such as Singapore. We hope that as we move from a unipolar to a multi-polar world, other great powers will also subscribe to a rules-based world rather than a "might is right" world. Secondly, with the Internet and mass media, the dissemination of information and the velocity of change has quickened exponentially. We can no longer shelter our people from external changes and pressures. Indeed, the velocity of change with the Internet has shrunk the world and, perhaps, with this shrinking, the small state seems even smaller now and there is no respite.

Madam, as a small state, we do not make the rules on how the world is run. So, let us focus on the second point, which is how the world is now a smaller place and a faster changing one.

There are two dimensions that we Singaporeans live in. On one hand, it is a dimension of immediate familiarity and calm. You wake up, send your kids off to school, go to work and after a day's work, return to your family and your home. You like to spend a Saturday morning at your neighbourhood coffee shop and maybe in the afternoon, go to the nearby supermarket. You know things will always be there as you expect it to be. This is a life that is serene, certain and warm. This is the reality we are comfortable with.

On the hand, there is another dimension that exists. A world where more ideas and disruptive technologies are spawned faster than ever before, and idea and technology diffusion take place in a matter of days around the world. A world where faraway incidents can occur which can directly impact Singaporeans and Singapore almost immediately. An environment of rapid, vertiginous and gut-wrenching change. This is also reality.

Page: 56

To survive as a city-state, Singaporeans have to accept both dimensions of existence. But that is easier said than done. Not many people can seamlessly move from one dimension of reality to the other.

How do we conflate the two realities into a coherent experience that makes sense to Singaporeans? National Service and Total Defence are two of the most important ways to achieve this, obviously. Our NSmen are taught to be resilient even as they see how vulnerable Singapore is as a small nation. In fact, one can say that our ideology is one of resilience arising from vulnerability and the co-existence of both concepts.

In the same vein, I therefore strongly support the recent suggestion by CSNS to start a Volunteer Corps for females, new citizens and PRs. NS has been a privilege and sacrifice exclusively to Singaporean males. Often, I hear of girlfriends and wives complaining that they feel completely left out at gatherings when their boyfriends and husbands "zone out" and start talking about their NS experiences. Well, here is your chance not to be left out anymore. Join the Volunteer Corps!

By widening our NS commitment through the Volunteer Corps, more people who have a stake in Singapore can now also understand the vulnerabilities of the country and the need for NS. There is thus more common ground and better understanding among more people, which can only be good for resilience. The reality of a small city-state in a tumultuous world necessitates NS. With NS, we have a strong SAF and a strong Home Team. Singaporeans can then enjoy the other dimension of a stable and safe environment. This is what I mean by conflating the two realities into a coherent experience that makes sense.

Madam, the other way is the old way. As the saying goes, "Honesty is the best policy." The Government has to be honest in presenting the fact that there is no escaping both realities. Singaporeans have to be ready for change, even as Singaporeans want their leaders and Government to respond and change.

Our education system also has a very important role to play. Even as we equip Singaporeans with skills for the globalised marketplace, MOE, in its Addendum to the President's Address, has said it will place great emphasis on transmission of values, so that our children will have the strong character and moral compass to anchor themselves in a fast changing world. Yes, even as we respond and adapt and change, we need to hold on to our values steadfastly. Our sense of what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, should not change. The mass media has a role to play too. And, here, it must be said that their role is a difficult one. There are so many forms of mass media nowadays that it is hard to be heard.

Page: 57

Finally, I think the Opposition in this House also has an important role to play. While we may argue and disagree over policies and ideologies, we should not give Singaporeans an unduly rosy picture of the world. A populist view of the world is that we can keep our serene and certain dimension indefinitely while ignoring the other reality of rapid change. That somehow, we can resist the forces of globalisation and global competition. Or at the other extreme, along with the tides of change, we change so much that we lose our values and moral compass in the process.

Yes, we can still have our little and familiar comforts like eating our nasi lemak, our mee pok and roti prata at our hawker centres and coffee shops each morning, wearing our most comfortable shorts and slippers, but at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that Singapore has to stay relevant as a city-state and each Singaporean must have the relevant skillsets, the right attitude and, most importantly, the moral compass and values to survive in this world.

In conclusion, the future belongs to the people that embrace change. This holds true for all of us politicians in this House. This also holds true for the man in the street. Madam, I support the Motion.

Leader of the House.

Page: 58

Madam, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister's speech?

I give my consent. Does the Leader of the House have the general assent of hon. Members present to so move?

[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]

[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker, and the general assent of Members present, (proc text)]

[(proc text) Question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Resolved, (proc text)]

[(proc text) That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No 48(8) in respect of the Prime Minister's speech. – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]

Page: 59

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

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

We all want the same thing – to "Secure Our Future Together". That was the title of our PAP manifesto in 2011 and it stated my Government's goal. To develop a "fair and inclusive society, where every citizen has a rightful place and the opportunity to fulfil his or her aspirations".

We set out our plans clearly in the manifesto, for example, to develop a vibrant city and an endearing home; by providing high-quality and affordable HDB homes, and enhancing our public transport system; by improving the lives of lower-income Singaporeans, for example, by helping them own their own homes.

We have made steady progress on these programmes over the last three years. We stabilised the housing market. We have cleared the first-timer queues. We have introduced the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) for commuters while we expand the rail network. We took prudent steps to manage our population, particularly the inflow and the profile of foreign workers. And we have strengthened social safety nets and balanced economic growth with social priorities.

So, today, I intend to recap our progress in each of these areas, before talking about our agenda for the rest of this term as it has been set out in the President's Address.

Let me start with housing. When Parliament first opened in 2011, this was a big concern for Singaporeans. So, the Government mobilised all our resources to tackle this problem. In the last three years, we have built two Clementi new towns worth of HDB flats – 52,000 flats. And we have almost doubled the subsidies for the flats which have been disbursed, so as to make the flats more affordable. And the situation is now under control, as many Members have acknowledged. Mr Zainudin Nordin spoke about this, so did Mr Edwin Tong and Mr Gan Thiam Poh. I think Minister Khaw Boon Wan, MND and HDB have done a good job, both the political leaders and also the civil servants.

I know that Singaporeans are still focused on housing. On May Day after the Rally, I met a group of Pioneer Generation unionists. We had a very good chat. They were very happy to be honoured by NTUC and they greatly appreciated the Pioneer Generation Package. So, we

Page: 60

reminisced about life in their generation. They are only a few years older than me. And we got talking about the cost of property. I said, "Well, in those days, a 3-room flat cost $8,000". Two of them said, "No, I only paid $6,800 for my 3-room flat." Today, that 3-room flat is worth probably more than $300,000. But, of course, in those days salaries were much lower. So, I said, "What was your salary then?" He laughed, and said, "I knew you would ask me that question." He was paid – as a teacher – $300. And for that princely sum, he started paying for an HDB flat. But as Singapore prospered and the value of their flats rose, they shared in this benefit and today they have sizeable nest-eggs in their retirement.

But they said their children were concerned about housing still being expensive. So, I explained, what I have explained so many times before, how we are keeping flats affordable for their children's generation as well. Because HDB home ownership is not just about providing Singaporeans a roof over our heads, it is also to give everyone a stake in the country.

It is a very important way by which we boost the assets of the lower-income Singaporeans, level them up, and narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in Singapore. That is why we have very generous grants to help the low-income, and even middle-income households, to buy HDB flats. For example, if a $1,000 monthly income household is buying a 2-room flat, the grants can come up to two-thirds the value of the 2-room flat, $60,000-$70,000. These are very significant subsidies, several years of wages, to help the lower-income own their flats, build their nest-eggs, especially be ready for retirement. That is the fundamental reason why we will always be keeping housing affordable for Singaporeans.

So, I explained all these. I asked them, "How are your children managing? How many children have you got?", "Seven – six married, one staying with me." I said, "Have they got houses?" He said, "Yes, they all have houses." I asked, "Affordable? " The reply, "Well, they all afforded it but, still, you know, lah."

So, we have to continue to explain to get the message across, and to make people understand how unique and special this position is, where for $1,000 income, you can start to buy an HDB flat and have a substantial nest-egg for your retirement with the help of this Government. So, we have made progress on housing.

We are also making progress on public transport. The BSEP has been rolled out aggressively, even faster than what we originally aimed to do. I know my residents are very happy with the extra bus services we have, and other Members of Parliament have received similar feedback from their residents. And I am not surprised that many Members of Parliament are now asking for more BSEP bus routes. And more buses and more routes will

Page: 61

come.

For trains, it is still work-in-progress. SMRT and Land Transport Authority (LTA) have been working hard to improve services and reduce disruptions. We have also introduced free early morning rides which have helped to spread out the peak hour traffic noticeably. But I know the trains are still crowded at peak hours.

We have major plans unfolding over the next two years. New trains are starting to come in, starting late this year; and more next year. We are upgrading the signalling equipment. It will be started by 2016. So, we can expect significant improvements in the train service by next year, and this is a problem which we can and we will solve.

Our aim is not just to have more buses and trains running, but to build a first-class public transport system in Singapore, so that people can get around comfortably, efficiently and affordably without needing to own a car. This is essential to us being a world-class city and an endearing home. You will see it in global cities like New York, Hong Kong and Sydney, where many people do not own cars, do not even have driving licences, because it is too expensive. The car itself may not be expensive but buying a parking lot can cost you a fortune, more than a COE cost in Singapore, and parking in town also is expensive and more than the ERP cost in Singapore. So, most people take public transport because it is affordable and efficient. Some also cycle, which is not only affordable, efficient, but also green, and it is something which, I think, we should also encourage in Singapore.

So, we should learn from the cities which have good public transport systems, for example, London. I was there recently for the Singapore Day, and so I decided to have a look at their bus transport system because LTA had been telling me about it. We have a Singapore company, ComfortDelGro, which is running a significant part of the bus service in London.

London runs a hybrid system. The government, that means Transport for London (TfL), owns, plans and regulates the whole bus system, the network. So, they own the buses, they plan the routes, they set the rules, they tender out routes to operators. The operators take over the equipment, take over the staff, they run the routes for a period. The operators are private sector and they operate on a fixed-price contract, full profit. The fares are not cheap: per trip is more than S$3, which is 1.5 to four times Singapore prices. And every year, the fares go up, more or less automatically, RPI + x; RPI, the price index plus x, which is 1%-2%, because wages go up more than general cost of food and consumables, so every year the prices go up.

But even then, it does not cover all the cost, and TfL has to subsidise the service heavily with taxpayers' money. Every year, almost S$1 billion. It works well, it is expensive but it

Page: 62

works well. It is the result of many years of experimentation, trial and error, change and refinement, and adaptation both by the regulators as well as by the operators, as well as by the commuters. So, we will learn from London and other similar cities to build a first-class public transport system in Singapore.

Running a world-class system means investing more resources. Mr Gerald Ee, in The Sunday Times last week, put it very sharply – you pay for what you get. If you want a better quality service, you have to pay more. And one way or the other, the cost comes from the people either in fares or in subsidies, which means taxes.

We have spent, as a Government, large sums on public transport in Singapore – expanding the BSEP, building and upgrading the train network. We will continue to subsidise public transport so that it is viable even as we improve the frequency and expand the network. But commuters also have to pay their share because as Mr Gerard Ee said, "We want better service but no fare increase – which is not realistic." So, we have got to find the right balance in cost-sharing between the Government, the private sector and commuters.

A third major issue which has preoccupied us for these last few years has been population. We had a debate on the Population White Paper last year. It was vigorous and emotional. But it helped people to better understand the issues and the Government to work out our plans.

We are significantly reducing the inflow of new arrivals, both immigrants as well as foreign workers, making a clear transition in our economy and we will review our population planning parameters again in a few years' time nearer to 2020.

One major issue when we work out our population policy is how many foreign workers to allow in. We have slowed the inflow of foreign workers considerably from what it was in 2010/2011, but we did not freeze the numbers. The numbers are still growing but they are growing much more slowly.

The inflow of foreign workers per year has almost halved since 2011. And many of these are construction workers because we have the construction jobs. But if you exclude construction workers, for services, for manufacturing, the foreign workers are only growing one quarter as fast as they used to in 2011. So, it is a very significant tightening. And it is a tightening which has been very painful for our companies, especially the SMEs.

Many SMEs are struggling. Members of Parliament have spoken up for them in this House – Mr Teo Siong Seng and Mr Gan Thiam Poh – they spoke eloquently. Some of the SMEs have shifted their operations out of Singapore, perhaps to Malaysia. If we squeeze

Page: 63

them too hard, they may not survive, and that will mean that many Singapore jobs will be at risk.

I attended the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SMCCI)'s Malay Muslim Business Conference several weeks ago and met quite a number of Malay SME operators and owners there – young people, ambitious people, people venturing into the region, wanting to do business, seeing the opportunities, unable to get the workers. They asked me to help. I said we will help all our companies, especially SMEs, adapt to an environment where there are fewer foreign workers.

We have many schemes to do that. We have the PIC and PIC+. These are productivity grants and many other schemes which Mr Teo Ser Luck told you about yesterday. But while we can help you to adapt to this environment, we are not able to ease up on the foreign worker limits, not just because people may or may not be unhappy about the numbers but because we have to maintain the numbers at a level which is sustainable and which we can physically accommodate in Singapore over the long term. So, I hope that they will understand this.

But I should say that when we had the debate, the Opposition proposed that we go for zero percent growth of foreign workers and maintain that this was a good thing and popular. It is a good thing we did not do that because if we had done that, many more SMEs would have been hurt and many more Singaporeans would have lost their jobs.

One group of foreign workers we are paying close attention to is the Foreign PMEs – the Professionals, Managers, Executives. The issue here is less about the numbers because the numbers are not huge but about the quality of foreign PMEs and also about fair treatment for Singaporean PMEs.

We have been managing their number and their profile, and tightening up on the standards expected of Employment Pass and S Pass holders, their salaries, their qualifications, their experience. We have been developing Singaporean PMEs, professionals. We have offered many Singapore industry scholarships so that we can develop them with a view to specific jobs and industries.

We are ensuring a level playing field through the Fair Consideration Framework, which Dr Amy Khor and Ms Foo Mee Har raised and which Mr Patrick Tay campaigned for, for a long time. So, we will continue to do more to give Singaporean PMEs every opportunity to succeed.

Page: 64

There is another much bigger group of foreign workers which we are managing very carefully too and that is the construction workers. The numbers are much bigger; there are about 300,000 of them. The social impact is much bigger; we have a problem of congestion in Little India on weekends and you saw that we had one riot in December last year.

We have tightened up on construction workers too – raising the levies, reducing the quotas, insisting on higher productivity targets and more productive ways of building and constructing new houses and structures. But that is just managing the numbers of workers needed for doing their jobs. The jobs are there. So, we have asked ourselves: should we not go further and ask which are those jobs that need to be built urgently? The private sector – they make their decisions. The Government – we are a significant part of the construction business – we ask ourselves: which Government projects need to be built, which Government projects can be deferred? When it comes to HDB houses, when it comes to trains, projects which are urgent, we are going full steam ahead.

But there are other projects which can wait one or two years. We can defer them, we can study them a bit more, we can phase them out so that we can spread out the demand for construction workers and then you will be able to manage the total number of construction workers in Singapore.

No Ministry volunteers to put off any of their building projects but MOF is very persuasive. We have had very close discussions with the Ministries, with the Statutory Boards, some of which had new offices planned. We were going to build extensions to Gardens by the Bay on the other side – Marina East. We are planning to build a new Science Centre. We want to extend the Esplanade. These are all good projects but they will all now take a little bit longer to come. And altogether, you are talking about not a small sum – $2 billion worth of projects and we may save 20,000 to 30,000 foreign workers that way, which I think will be helpful. These are necessary trade-offs and I hope Singaporeans will understand.

I have been reviewing our progress in the first half of this term. But even as we tackle the immediate issues, we have to look to the future. There are exciting opportunities ahead: Asia is continuing to grow; ASEAN is establishing an ASEAN Community by the end of next year which should give us more opportunities in our neighbouring countries; we are venturing into new industries, new technologies; the globalisation is progressing, people talk about Big Data, we are part of that, we want to be a Smart City, a Smart Nation.

But as Mr Sitoh has just pointed out, at the same time, we are undergoing very rapid changes and there are widening inequalities. This is causing angst and restlessness. And not

Page: 65

just in Singapore, but in many countries around the world.

Take, for example, China: developing, prospering, becoming middle income faster than any other country of that size and scale ever in the world. Yet, middle-income families in China feel the same angst as our middle income families do. They doubt that they can have better lives than their parents, even though their standard of living is already much higher. They worry what the future holds for them and they are unhappy that some others are doing much better than they themselves are. You would have heard the phrases, "官二代" or "富二代". That means second generation child of a high official or second generation child of a wealthy person. They are envied; everybody else says, "Where do I go?" Although, in fact, the tide is rising for everybody, but the anxiety, the angst is there, within China.

But China causes anxiety elsewhere. One country is Hong Kong. And the Chinese visit as tourists by the millions. Hong Kongers, the residents, protest bitterly against the influx of Mainlanders raising their costs of living, buying their milk powder. They had imposed quotas: per tourist, two cans of milk are all they are allowed to carry out at the border. So, the Hong Kongers are anxious – a different environment but some sort of anxiety.

We look for models around the world and we think of Bhutan. When we had the debate at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament in 2011, Ms Sylvia Lim made a major point about Bhutan.

Bhutan was talking about Gross National Happiness (GNH) – not GNP, Gross National Product. And they had a fully worked out formula, structure, what do you study, what does happiness consist of. They have Jeffrey Sachs advising them and it was a whole system. But it was not so simple. Mr Khaw Boon Wan and some others on our side explained why it was not so simple.

At that time, the Bhutan government made Gross National Happiness a big part of their agenda. It is a pity that Ms Sylvia Lim did not mention Gross National Happiness when she spoke in the debate today. Because I am not sure whether she noticed – last year, there was a general election in Bhutan and the government which proposed Gross National Happiness was voted out!

The new government has come in and the new Prime Minister has been interviewed and had said that Gross National Happiness was "overused" and it "distracted (the government) from the real business at hand". And what is the real business at hand? He named four: tackling major problems with chronic unemployment, poverty, corruption and a sense that politicians were too remote.

Page: 66

There is no magic formula which can cause us to solve these problems in a sense of suddenly waking up with no worries. We each confront our own different situations; we each have to manage in our own way and see our situation in perspective.

I am not disparaging the efforts of others at all. I am just pointing out that every country has its own challenges. We should not always believe that the grass is greener on the other side. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Happiness is a state of mind. We can be better off, and yet, if we succumb to the urgings of those who promote envy, excite disaffection then we will always be unhappy. No amount of good things can make us happy. Happiness has to come from within ourselves.

Because Singaporeans experience the same global trends, so it is completely understandable that we too feel anxious and concerned. But there is much that we can and must do, to secure our future and give ourselves greater peace of mind. We will work hard to fulfil our vision of a "fair and inclusive society, where every citizen has a rightful place and the opportunity to fulfil his or her aspirations".

How will we do this? We should share the fruits of progress and strengthen our social safety nets. We should keep pathways upwards open to all. We should fire up the human spirit and, of course, we must get our politics right.

First of all, we should share the fruits of progress more widely and strengthen our social safety nets. That is how we build a fair and inclusive society that is the yin to complement the yang of self-reliance and competition which are also necessary. Indeed, this is something which we have been doing for many years, long before I became Prime Minister.

When Mr Goh Chok Tong was Prime Minister, he introduced Edusave, Medifund, the HDB Special Housing Assistance Programme and many other schemes targeted to address specific social needs. When I became Prime Minister, I built on this and took it further. We introduced ComCare in 2004, we introduced Workfare in 2006, we introduced Medifund-Silver in 2008, and in this Twelfth Parliament, we have gone further, and we have broken new ground with our social policies.

The Government and the community doing much more to support individuals and we are helping not only the lower income Singaporeans, but also middle income families through the Special Housing Grant, Wage Credit Scheme, CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme) and in the process MediShield Life. We will continue to do more wherever necessary, especially for healthcare and retirement adequacy.

Page: 67

That is why in this latest shuffle of my Ministers, I have strengthened the political leadership of the social Ministries. I put Sam Tan as the Minister of State in PMO in order to coordinate the social policies and, particularly, the implementation on the ground. I put Low Yen Ling as Parliamentary Secretary both in MSF and also in MCCY.

One major safety net which we are working on now is MediShield Life. It is a major improvement over the current MediShield. Universal coverage for everybody, it is coverage for life and it offers better payouts, better protection against very large bills. Of course, because the coverage is better, the premiums have to go up. And I think Singaporeans recognise this so they want to know what the premiums will be. As Mr Gan Kim Yong has explained in Budget and also yesterday when he spoke, we will make sure that premiums are affordable for all.

The MediShield Life Committee has been working on this – consulting, taking views, working out possibilities and they should submit their report soon. I expect by the time Parliament next meets in July, we will be ready to debate that report.

MediShield Life is a very complex undertaking. We must get many important details right and we must ensure that people understand how it works, and how it affects them individually. And that is the reason why I have also reinforced MOH in the reshuffle to have Dr Lam Pin Min come in as Minister of State, and to have Dr Amy Khor already in MOH focusing on MediShield Life outreach. We have to get it right.

Participation in MediShield Life is compulsory. You cannot opt out. Different groups have different concerns. And we have to make sure that all groups are properly taken care of. For example, for workers, we have timed the 1% increase in Medisave contributions in January 2015, paid for by the employers, to help workers pay for their MediShield Life premiums and their other healthcare costs. There is something coming. And for the lower income workers particularly, the Government will help them and their families with subsidies on their premiums, as Minister Gan Kim Yong has explained.

Retirees are another group. The Pioneers are okay because they are covered by the Pioneer Generation Package. Those not quite old enough to be in the Pioneer Package, below 65, they also are covered because they will also have subsidies for their premiums. So, you do not have to worry – it will be okay.

There is one special group of retirees which we watch closely and these are the Government pensioners because we have a responsibility to them. And the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) General-Secretary, Mr Ma Wei Cheng, raised them with

Page: 68

me recently.

Some Government pensioners already enjoy comprehensive medical benefits for themselves and their families, particularly those who retired earlier. They really did not feel that they needed a lot of extra insurance coverage and they wanted to make sure that they did not lose out when MediShield Life was introduced.

Now, we cannot let Government pensioners opt out from MediShield Life because this is universal – it is compulsory. But we can make sure that Government pensioners are not that adversely affected. And PSD is studying this very carefully together with the unions. After the MediShield Life report is out, it will announce the details and how it proposes to solve this problem for the pensioners.

The Government will do our part to help Singaporeans with MediShield Life. I am confident that employers will help their employees too. The NWC has discussed this and I think they will make some reference to this in the Wage Guidelines this year. Let us work together to get MediShield Life well launched and well implemented.

Besides healthcare, we are also looking at other aspects of retirement adequacy and that means, in simple terms, a stream of income for people to live on in retirement.

There are different approaches to this. The first approach, of course, is to work longer so that you continue to have a salary and you are active and you retire later. Meanwhile, while you are working, you will continue to build up for retirement. We should make it easier for workers who want to work longer to do so.

The unions are very keen on this and the workers too. I have talked to the unionists. They are very happy that with the RRA (Retirement and Re-employment Act), workers can now work until 65 generally, and many are already doing so. Now that they are approaching 65, they want to continue working beyond 65. I understand, I sympathise and we are working towards raising the re-employment age within a few years. Mr Heng Chee How spoke about this yesterday. That is one important way of helping.

A second approach is to help older Singaporeans to unlock the value which is in their HDB flats. We have helped them to build it up, we have helped them to own it and now that they are old and there is value there, I think we should have ways to help them to draw on this value in a controlled way to meet their retirement needs.

Quite a few people rent out rooms in their HDB flats. Some rent out their whole flats and move in with their children. We already have some schemes to unlock the value of the

Page: 69

HDB property. For example, we have the Silver Housing Bonus – if they decide to move out of their flat and into a Studio Apartment, you can get a bonus from the Government. We have a Lease Buyback Scheme which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh talked about – if you are willing to shorten the lease on your flat, while you get a string of money, it goes into your CPF LIFE.

There are ways to do this. And yet, some people still feel asset rich, cash poor – as they put it. MND is studying how we can improve these schemes or come up with different valuations which are emotionally more congenial and easier for people to understand and to accept and use, without feeling that they are giving up their home or not going to have anything to hand over to their children.

The third approach to retirement adequacy is to improve the CPF scheme and the CPF LIFE scheme. Many Members have talked about this – Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Zaqy Mohamed, Mrs Lina Chiam.

We want to enhance CPF LIFE so that the payouts can keep pace with the cost of living. We also want to provide stronger assurance in retirement for the lower income groups because the lower income groups may not have much put away in their CPF, either the in the Retirement Account (RA) or in their Special Account (SA) or in their house. So, these are things we are studying carefully. I will say something more about it, I hope, come National Day Rally.

Strengthening safety nets is the right thing for us to do but we have to proceed very, very carefully because it is human nature to want more without wanting to pay more for it. And also, we are going against the tide. We are increasing our social spending precisely at a time when many other developed countries in the world are trying to cut theirs. They are looking at Singapore and they see Singapore as we are today, as a very interesting model to learn from. They think we have got it right – small Government, targeted subsidies, good outcomes in healthcare, minimum poverty, low taxes and a vibrant economy. What is the magic? They want our magic.

We believe we need to improve our system but I think we should not forget that, in fact, a lot of things are working in our system. And as we try to improve it, let us not break the things which are important and which work well for us.

My fear is not that we will lack good intentions. Good intentions are aplenty and many countries have embarked on this path with every good intention and gone awry. You take – not Greece, Italy or Spain which we know about – Australia. The lucky country. The richest natural resources per capita in the world probably. In the 1990s and early 2000s, 15 to 20

Page: 70

years ago, they ran budget surpluses. Under the Conservatives, the Liberals, under John Howard, they even set up a Future Fund in 2006 to pay for future liabilities out of accumulated surpluses such as pensions for civil servants. They thought they had money. Let us put it away. Do not spend it now. This is for the future, for the rainy day. But it never got to their future because soon after they set up the Fund, the surpluses disappeared.

In Australia, General Elections are held every three years. And very often, elections become auctions. Politicians compete to offer more generous benefits and goodies to the voters so as to win the vote and outbid their competitors. There was one politician in one year, who said, "I am going to raise the GST" – he lost.

So, now, from setting up the Future Fund in 2006, less than a decade later, Australia is facing chronic deficits. Tony Abbott, having come in, elected last year, promising not to make budget cuts, they have had to confront the reality and have just announced massive and painful budget cuts. Australia got itself into these difficulties despite their best intentions and their enormous natural wealth. Imagine how easy it is for Singapore, a small country with no resources, to fall into the same problems.

When people say we should stop being paranoid, let us be confident and go forth, just spend, I think only the paranoids survive. Let us be very careful.

The best way to improve lives is not just to provide safety nets to catch Singaporeans when they fail, but to create ladders of opportunity so that everyone has a chance to succeed, to scale new peaks, regardless of background, regardless of family circumstances.

What do we mean when we say we are keeping pathways open to all? I would like to talk about it in three aspects. One, our schools and education; two, post-schools; and three, the tenor and the tone of our overall society, the ethos of openness and informality which we are trying to maintain in Singapore.

Schools. It starts with schools because education has been and remains an important way to level up. Every Singaporean parent believes that, which is why they pay attention to their kids, they invest in tuition and they angst enormously over which school their children are going to get into or be posted to. We are going to continue to improve our education system to give every child the opportunity to fulfil his potential, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

So, we are improving the quality of education at all levels – affordable pre-schools, heavily subsidised by the Government, more publicity-funded university places, helping ITE/polytechnic students to upgrade and go on and take further courses in life. We are

Page: 71

seeking out talented students from humble backgrounds to encourage them to make the best choice for their education, as Assoc Prof Eugene Tan suggested.

The schools have schemes to do this. For example, Raffles Girls School (RGS) invites Primary schools whose students typically do not apply to RGS to identify promising students, who they think could benefit, have a chance. RGS will then meet these students, meet their parents and encourage them to put down RGS as the school of their choice and re-assure them that if they need to, there will be scholarships, there will be financial assistance; they say, "Don't be put off because of money worries."

You can make the best judgement based on your abilities, based on which school fits you best. In every Primary school, we have teachers who advise promising students on suitable Secondary schools to bring out the best in their talents and interests. In fact, we have teachers who will advise all the students, whatever their talents, which schools will best suit them, where they can get the most and the best education to develop them.

So, the schools are making the effort, not just in terms of the content and guidance to the students, but also in terms of the tone, the ethos in the schools and the culture. We need to shape the culture in the schools so that students can interact with one another comfortably and without feeling self-conscious about one being poorer than the other, one being richer than the other. For example, starting with this year's Primary 1 Registration Exercise, we are reserving in every Primary school at least 40 spaces for students with no prior connection to the school, so that we will prevent our schools from becoming closed institutions.

We are also exercising restraint in school spending and activities. Sometimes, having to restrain the schools and ask them not to go overboard in their enthusiasm. For example, raising funds to build infrastructure which must not be lavish, or planning study trips to exotic and expensive destinations. It is not necessary to go to the other side of the world to learn about the world. There are many things you can learn in our own neighbourhoods. The key point is that we must not put off students from poorer homes from studying in top schools because they feel out of place or socially uncomfortable.

In fact, our education system continues to serve children from humble backgrounds well. We still see students winning Government scholarships to study overseas from poor homes. There are kids who win scholarships and study overseas from well-off homes, too. Yes. The difference is the kids from well-off homes without the scholarships, they might still go. If we had no scholarship scheme, the kids from poor homes would not have a chance to go. The scholarship scheme serves them.

Page: 72

We had one polytechnic student. She and her school mates were preparing a decoration for the Singapore Aerospace. She wrote down on a card her dream – "I dream of becoming the CEO of Pratt & Whitney". She posted it. The CEO of Pratt & Whitney came to the Singapore Aerospace, saw the card, asked who wrote it, and said "I will offer her an internship." First step.

There was another student who dropped out of school to take care of his mother. His mother was ill, he went to take care of her, and later on, he came back to school, went to Northlight, did well, went on to ITE and earned the Outstanding Graduate Award for NITEC in Facility Technology. These are people with grit and determination and talent, and we will look for them and build them up.

Members of Parliament mentioned several other examples too. Mr Hawazi Daipi, Ms Jessica Tan, so did Ms Tin Pei Ling. We know they are there. We will make a special effort to seek them out and we must continue to give these and many more Singaporeans every chance to succeed.

Beyond the schools, keeping paths upwards open also means giving Singaporeans possibilities to improve themselves throughout their lives. We need to strengthen Continuing Education and Training (CET), as Dr Amy Khor and others described. We just opened the Devan Nair Institute for Employment and Employability on May Day. It is in Jurong East, a beautiful institute. It is a one-stop shop for CET, with training providers, classrooms and career counsellors all under one roof. The unions are also working with employers to conduct courses there.

For example, they have got the Tripartite Nautical Training Award for students who want to get nautical qualifications and become sea officers. It is at e2i's Wavelink Maritime Institute. It is a most impressive facility and the most impressive thing about it is that they give the students with a passion, who have decided that they want to learn to become nautical officers and who are making the effort to make the grade, with help from the unions and from the Government.

I met many other trainees there too who are learning new skills. Some had already graduated and have found better paying jobs. I was very happy that they could seize new opportunities even in mid-career.

That is the first CET institute. We are building a second one, which is the Lifelong Learning Institute in Paya Lebar later this year. There will be many more opportunities for everyone to pick up and to sharpen their skills, and that is important not just for rank and

Page: 73

file workers, but also for PMEs.

Mr Patrick Tay spoke passionately about helping PMEs to cultivate a "second skill" or to deepen their expertise. The Government will support them, together with the employers. But it is not just about the training opportunities. It is really about the whole culture, the whole framework of how people work, study, upgrade, attend courses, are able to change careers and go into second, or maybe even third careers in their working lives.

You need many more pathways to lead fulfilling lives so that one's whole future career is not fixed forever by the time you have left school, depending on how you did in school. What you did in school matters. Every teacher will tell you that. But it should not be the last word on your life.

That is why we set up the ASPIRE Committee under Ms Indranee Rajah. Ms Indranee spoke on this on Monday. Come the National Day Rally, I hope we will have something more to say about this.

Besides our school life and after school, the third aspect of keeping paths up open is to uphold an ethos of openness and informality in our society. What do I mean? We have to be an open and egalitarian society. We must not have rigid hierarchies or class distinctions. People must be able to interact up and down the social ladder, comfortably, self-confidently, without obsequious scraping and bowing. You may be the Prime Minister; you may be a cleaner; you may be a teacher; you may be the student's parent. We are all Singaporeans together, we treat one another with respect. There is informality and easy camaraderie. You do not bow deeply, you do not touch your forehead, you do not "Yes, Sir", "Yes, Sir". In Chinese, they say, "平起平坐".

The wealthy should not flaunt your wealth. Yes, you have been successful. Just keep a modest, low key, unassuming approach. Nobody would think the less of you. Your status is not marked by the car you drive, or the brand of clothes you wear, nor should it be marked by the way you talk. I say that because, in Britain, there is an issue. In the old days, the upper classes spoke one kind of English and the working classes spoke a different English – very different pronunciations, different terminology. An Englishman is classified by the way he speaks, as Bernard Shaw said. Singaporeans must not be like that. You must feel a certain comfort with one another. Neither should you be ostentatious if you are successful, neither should you look down on others because of your physical appearance.

Recently, I read about somebody who made a post on her blog, poking fun at an older man who had a hole in his shirt. I think that is wrong because an old or torn shirt does not mean he deserves less respect. I wear shirt with holes all the time, not in Parliament, but my

Page: 74

wife says, "It has got a hole in it." I tell her, "Only one. When it has three, I will consider the matter."

These are not essential to who you are, what you stand for, what people should think of you. It has to manifest in the way we interact with one another. One day, I went for a walk at the Botanic Gardens at night. I was not watching when I was walking. I bumped into somebody and I apologised. So, he looked at me, he recognised me. He said, "对不起，总理。刚刚下班。"There was no embarrassment, no obsequiousness, no awkwardness. I said, “对不起. It is my fault." He walked off, I walked off. I think that is something valuable.

But it is not possible for us to be a completely classless society. There is no such thing in the world. Every society has a natural sorting and natural pyramid. Those who are in positions of responsibility have to have due regard. At the same time, if you are in the position of responsibility, you have a duty to the rest of society. Your respect has to be earned, but a society without leaders who are respected is doomed to fail. We have to have that respect. A teacher is in a position of respect and of responsibility over his students. So is the principal. When a parent interacts with the teacher, you have to understand them. A counter staff is in a position serving the public. When you interact with the counter staff, remember, she is serving you. But you owe a responsibility to be respectful of her, to be courteous, to be reasonable. We have to have that kind of a society in order to be able to talk about openness in order to be able to keep that channel and that flow of people moving up and not being closed off by glass ceilings or magic circles or the sense that you were born wrong or you speak wrong or you dress wrong, "Ah, that one just does not fit". That is how we keep ourselves open.

All this strengthening of safety nets and keeping paths upwards open – these are critical policy shifts. As Ms Tan Su Shan said, there are important domestic issues to address when we look through the microscope. But we should also look through the telescope and see where we want Singapore to be.

We are in a much stronger position today than we have been at any time in our history. Our international standing is high; businesses want to come here; "Singapore" the brand name stands for something good in the world. We ourselves may not always appreciate this, but many people who visit us are very impressed by what they see.

I cast around on how I can convey this sense to you, which I feel, my colleagues feel and which Singaporeans who travel and work abroad feel acutely because they see it. They see the respect that they attract once they say, "I am from Singapore."

Page: 75

So, I decided to share with you some of the letters which we get – unsolicited. I receive them from time to time. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in his old age, also still receives letters from time to time. So, I will share one which I got and one which Mr Lee got recently.

I will start with the one which Mr Lee got. It was written by an Italian, a lady. Her fiancé asked her to come and to work for our Youth Olympic Games (YOG), when we had the YOG in 2010. She came, she lived here for a while and she has gone back and she is married. She wrote this letter recently to Mr Lee, quite unsolicited. She says:

"Honestly, I cried in seeing those places. I have missed them so much after leaving Singapore. But I could meet all my friends and ex-colleagues. They organised my birthday party and I eat with them all my favourite food. I am crazy of the Chinese carrot cake, bak kut teh, dry noodles, rice porridge – the one in the hawker centre in Redhill is amazing – crab, dim sum and many other dishes. Singapore food is simply delicious. I have met great friends and we always keep in touch."

Then, she talks about others and how she has seen the world and she knows what Singapore is. And she says:

"I write for a geo-political analysis website for free and for pleasure. And I wrote an article about the Singapore model in 2012, and one about you that will be published in the next days. In Italy, no one apparently studied or was interested in Singapore so the website director is happy I can write about Singapore. I would like to keep this passion and write more in the future. I hope to have the chance to meet you one day – just to shake your hand and tell you personally how great you are. When I look at my beautiful country, ruined by bad politicians, I can assure you both right and left parties abused of their privileges and ruined their country. And bad political choices. I think we would need someone like you to adjust everything. My father is struggling nowadays because of the heavy taxation. He has a land to cultivate and an agency of import, export of agricultural products. He visited me together with my mother in Singapore, and was charmed like me. If I can get enough money one day, I would buy a small property so I can spend more days in Singapore, maybe with my father if he can still afford the long hours' flight and show it to my baby how beautiful it is."

So, I think we made a friend. Here is another letter. This is from a Danish man. He came to Singapore as a student to study in INSEAD for the French MBA programme in Buona Vista. He wrote to me and he says:

"Thank you, Singapore. Sometimes, you meet people who talk about life-changing experiences. And our stay in Singapore was as such. Of course, studying at INSEAD is that in

Page: 76

itself, but attending the school in Singapore somehow just changed me as a person. It is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what did it. The proudness of the Singaporeans, the climate, the perfectly working infrastructure, the hospitality you meet as a student at INSEAD, the police officers who several times took their time to say "Hi" to my boys at the streets, the kindliness from the everyday people all around. Of course, it is the sum of all these, that make Singapore what it is to me."

Then, he left, and went back to Fontainebleau in France. And in the next five years, a lot happened. He says:

"I finished my MBA in Fontainebleau. I have had a really exciting and giving career since, thanks to what I learnt at INSEAD. However, we often talked about our time in Singapore. And when we reached the five-year mark from our departure, I took my boys back to visit the country for three weeks in 2010. We met no disappointing issues, events or experiences. Feels just like coming home. And now it is three years ago we visited Singapore. We still talk about the trip and about how often we can go back. Our hearts stayed in Singapore. So, we will come back for most of September this year."

He was writing last year. He goes on:

"And hopefully, also be able to see the F1 Grand Prix so we can have the chance to experience that as well. I just want to say, 'Thank you, Singapore for what you have given me and my family'. And if I can do anything to give something back, I would be happy to do so. And it could be anything."

I think our reputation is well justifiably good and we must build on this reputation, this foundation. Aim high, so that Singapore will remain a special place and we can create an even better future for our children.

This debate has not touched very much on economic policies. It is partly because we had a thorough discussion during the Budget in February and March, but I think also because Members feel that the policies are on track, as many of you have noted. But there is much work ahead in transforming our economy. We must not assume that success is guaranteed or that we can sit back and relax, or that economic success is unimportant. Sometimes, when people talk, it sounds like that is passé for you to emphasise economic success. Why you are obsessed with it? Because, it is important, and if you do not have that, we are in for a zero-sum game and a nasty time.

We have to work hard to succeed. Singaporeans do work hard but others in Asia are working just as hard, some harder, and many, many are hungrier than we are. We must have

Page: 77

that ambition and the drive to secure our place in the world's leading cities and make this a city where every citizen can live a fulfilling life. And then, we can grow the pie; and then, we can give everyone a share of our success. Because otherwise, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and some Singaporeans can gain only if other Singaporeans lose.

That is what we should be doing – working together to grow. Fulfilment comes, not from what others will give to us or do for us, but whether individually or as a nation, from what we do for ourselves. Even more importantly, what we do for others. We have got to keep Singapore this sort of a place – where the economy thrives and the human spirit thrives.

We have policies to create a better Singapore for the future. But the key to realising these policies is to get our politics right. As the President said, we must maintain constructive politics that put our nation and our people first.

Politics cannot just be about politics alone, because Singaporeans' lives and our future are at stake. If you are entering politics, the first question you must ask is, "What do you stand for, what do you believe in, what do you want to achieve in politics for Singaporeans?"

I found it striking that when Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke on Monday on behalf of the Opposition, responding to the President's Address setting out the Government's agenda and programme for the second half of the term, he had nothing to say about the substance of the Government's programme. No critique, no suggestions, no alternatives. Nothing.

There are many sorts of politics, and we have got to get our politics right. We do not want money politics. We do not want power politics. We do not want racial politics. We do not want the politics of envy. Constructive politics can help us to scale new heights. Wrong politics will doom us.

When Mr Low Thia Khiang said, and I quote, "To me, in whatever way politics is described and coloured, it is still politics." That was a breathtakingly cynical view of politics. What is constructive politics? First, it means developing effective policies for Singaporeans; solving problems; creating opportunities; improving the lives of people. It means having good policies, making difficult trade-offs, but persuading people, leading people to get things done.