\r\n
| \r\n
Page: 55
\r\nPage: 58
\r\nPage: 59
\r\n\r\n Under the provisions of clause\r\n2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore,\r\nthe following Members have been granted permission by the Speaker\r\nto be absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament\r\nto which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:
\r\n\r\n| Name | \r\nFrom | \r\nTo | \r\n
|---|---|---|
| \r\n | (2011) | \r\n(2011) | \r\n
| Mr Gan Thiam\r\nPoh | \r\n13\r\nOct | \r\n13\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr K Shanmugam | \r\n14\r\nOct | \r\n15\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam | \r\n14\r\nOct | \r\n16\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Arthur Fong | \r\n15\r\nOct | \r\n24\r\nOct | \r\n
| Dr Lily Neo | \r\n16\r\nOct | \r\n27\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Teo Ser Luck | \r\n19\r\nOct | \r\n22\r\nOct | \r\n
| Assoc Prof Fatimah\r\nLateef | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n03\r\nNov | \r\n
| Mr Cedric Foo\r\nChee Keng | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n
| 10\r\nDec | \r\n16\r\nDec | \r\n|
| Mr Lim Hng Kiang | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n22\r\nOct | \r\n
| 23\r\nOct | \r\n26\r\nOct | \r\n|
| Mr Sam Tan Chin\r\nSiong | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n23\r\nOct | \r\n
| 15\r\nNov | \r\n16\r\nNov | \r\n|
| Dr Teo Ho Pin | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n25\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Zainal Sapari | \r\n20\r\nOct | \r\n22\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Seah Kian\r\nPeng | \r\n21\r\nOct | \r\n24\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Lawrence Wong | \r\n24\r\nOct | \r\n29\r\nOct | \r\n
| Dr Ng Eng Hen | \r\n23\r\nOct | \r\n27\r\nOct | \r\n
| Mr Seng Han Thong | \r\n30\r\nOct | \r\n02\r\nNov | \r\n
| Mr Sitoh Yih\r\nPin | \r\n31\r\nOct | \r\n03\r\nNov | \r\n
| 12\r\nNov | \r\n17\r\nNov | \r\n
Page: 59
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Charles Chong and Mr Seah Kian\r\nPeng be elected as Deputy Speakers of this Parliament.
\r\n\r\n Mr Charles Chong has been\r\na Member of Parliament since 1988. He has sat on Select Committees,\r\nsuch as the House Committee and the Public Petitions Committee,\r\nand has led various Government Parliamentary Committees. He also\r\nparticipated actively in the work of the various parliamentary conferences.
\r\n\r\n Mr Seah Kian Peng was elected\r\nto Parliament in 2006. He, too, has contributed to parliamentary\r\nwork. Last year, he moved a Private Member's Bill, resulting in\r\nsignificant amendments to the Maintenance of Parents Act. He also\r\nsat on the Estimates Committee and has participated in the work\r\nof the various parliamentary committees and parliamentary friendship\r\nand regional groups.
\r\nPage: 60
\r\n\r\n With their experience, I believe\r\nthat they would make good deputies in discharging their duties.
\r\nPage: 60
\r\n\r\n \"to amend the Income Tax Act\r\n(Chapter 134 of the 2008 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential\r\namendment to the Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income\r\nTax) Act (Chapter 86 of the 2005 Revised Edition)\",
\r\n\r\n recommendation of President\r\nsignified; presented by the Deputy\r\nPrime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam);\r\nread the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available\r\nSitting of Parliament, and to be printed.
\r\nPage: 60
\r\n\r\n \"to amend the Stamp Duties\r\nAct (Chapter 312 of the 2006 Revised Edition)\",
\r\n\r\n recommendation of President\r\nsignified; presented by Mr\r\nTharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read\r\na Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to\r\nbe printed.
\r\nPage: 60
\r\n\r\n \"to amend the Goods and Services\r\nTax Act (Chapter 117A of the 2005 Revised Edition)\",
\r\n\r\n recommendation of President\r\nsignified; presented by Mr\r\nTharman Shanmugaratnam; read the First time; to be read\r\na Second time on the next available Sitting of Parliament, and to\r\nbe printed.
\r\nPage: 60
\r\n\r\n \"to amend the Central Provident\r\nFund Act (Chapter 36 of the 2001 Revised Edition)\",
\r\n\r\n presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and\r\nMinister for Manpower (Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam); read\r\nthe First time; to be read a Second time on the next available Sitting\r\nof Parliament, and to be printed.
\r\nPage: 61
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I am deeply honoured to move this Motion. I beg\r\nto move,
\r\n\r\n ‘That the following Address\r\nin reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-
\r\n\r\n \"We, the Parliament of the\r\nRepublic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech\r\nwhich he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of\r\nthe First Session of this Parliament.\".'
\r\n\r\n Sir,\r\nSingapore embarked on our journey to nationhood after our separation\r\nfrom Malaysia on 9 August 1965. Our progress over the last 46 years\r\nhas been nothing less than impressive. As the President has noted\r\nin his Opening Address, we have created the basic building blocks\r\nfor the nation and are now progressing to a new phase of development.\r\nI wholeheartedly agree that our new phase of nation building takes\r\nplace in a new environment – a different economic, political and\r\nsocial landscape, very different from what our forefathers faced\r\nwhen we first became independent.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the 2011 Singapore General\r\nElection was a watershed event in Singapore's political history,\r\nnot because for the first time ever, an Opposition party managed\r\nto secure a Group Representation Constituency (GRC), nor was it\r\nbecause the PAP's popular vote had fallen by about 6% points from\r\nthe previous election in 2006. Rather, it was a result of Singapore's\r\npolitical landscape being dramatically altered with the advent of\r\nthe Internet and social media.
\r\n\r\n Although a recent study by\r\nthe Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) concluded that the Internet\r\ndid not have a decisive effect on the 2011 General Election, there\r\nwas no doubt a surge in the utilisation of new media platforms by\r\npolitical parties to reach out and connect with the electorate before\r\nand during the campaign period.
\r\n\r\n The take-away message from\r\nthe last General Election is that these online spaces, whether they\r\nare social-media tools, online news sources or blogs, are now inevitably part\r\nof the standard tool kit for people engaged with politics. As more\r\nSingaporeans gravitate towards the social web in their daily lives,\r\nthe social media will become an important space for them to share\r\ntheir views and interpret what is going on in the world around them.
\r\n\r\n As the President has said,\r\nthe Internet and social media will be a tremendous tool for us to\r\nreach out to all Singaporeans. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has\r\nalso said that the Government \"can do better\" in harnessing cyberspace\r\nto \"explain issues, shape opinions and rally support\". At the last\r\nNational Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee had mentioned that the Government\r\nas a whole needs to be more active and spry in engaging Singaporeans\r\nonline. With this in mind, Singapore's Government agencies are also\r\nset to get more structured training in the use of social media.\r\nThe use of social media will enable the Government to reach out\r\nand to engage Singaporeans. The ultimate aim of this is to foster\r\na greater sense of shared ownership.
\r\nPage: 62
\r\n\r\n Sir, Singapore is one of the\r\nmost wired nations in the world. The combination of high broadband\r\npenetration, heavy online engagement and the overall high digital\r\nliteracy of Internet users have made Singapore one of the most advanced\r\ndigital markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Technology website ZDNet\r\nreported that online research outfit Firefly Millward Brown ranked\r\nSingapore as the most evolved social media market in the world.\r\nThere are currently more than two million active Facebook users\r\namong the country's five million population.
\r\n\r\n Even as the traditional media\r\nstill has an important role to play, the proliferation of social\r\nmedia is certainly challenging many norms, and its current and future\r\nimpact is and will be profound on all aspects of life. In particular,\r\nsocial media is slowly supplanting traditional media as news and\r\nentertainment outlets. Yet, the President's warning that while social\r\nmedia has its uses, it is also hard to distinguish truth from falsehood\r\non the Internet. According to a news article in the BBC, independent\r\nthink tank Demos observed that many young people did not know how\r\nto navigate the vast information available on the Internet. The\r\nsocial media is likened to the \"Wild Wild West\" on the Internet\r\nwith very limited regulation and control over its content. On one hand,\r\nthere may be a huge amount of very trustworthy, academic, good bits\r\nof journalism on the Internet. On the other hand, equal proportions\r\nof distortions, propaganda, lies, mistruths, half-truths and all\r\nsorts of rubbish can be found too.
\r\n\r\n As such, it can be very difficult,\r\nespecially for netizens, to sort the wheat from the chaff. While\r\nwe have focused thus far on increasing the IQ and EQ of Singaporeans,\r\nlet us remember that there is an urgent need to enhance the DQ or\r\nDigital Quotient of Singaporeans by educating Singaporeans, especially\r\nthe young, proper digital judgement in discerning what is right\r\nand what is wrong. I would urge the MOE to work with MICA on taking\r\nconcrete steps to teach and inculcate our young children with sound\r\ndigital literacy and judgement as part of their curriculum in schools.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the political landscape\r\nin Singapore will undergo constant evolution. The results of the\r\nlast two elections held this year have shown that Singaporeans have\r\ndiverse political views and wish to have a greater say in the political\r\naffairs of the country. I agree with the President that diversity\r\nin society is a good thing. Since the early 1990s, we have encouraged\r\ndiversity. Mr George Yeo, then Acting Minister for Information and\r\nthe Arts, had spoken about the need for the state and Government\r\nto recede its reach, to trim the branches of the banyan tree and\r\nallow society to flourish. That, I think, has seen significant transformation\r\nover the past 20 years, for our society has become more diverse\r\nand active citizenry can be said to be more vibrant, both in the\r\nreal and the virtual world. This diversity should be perceived and\r\nreceived positively, as Singaporeans have begun to take charge of\r\nwhat they are passionate about and many have naturally begun to\r\nsee Singapore more as a home for themselves and their families.
\r\n\r\n For those who believe in their\r\nown political views, to the cats, dogs and dolphin lovers, the nature\r\nand heritage supporters, we see in Singapore, people who root themselves\r\nto causes they believe is right and passionate about. This, I believe\r\nis good for Singapore, for the people have developed what we can\r\ncall a Singapore soul. As politicians, let us continue to engage\r\nSingaporeans in the issues they believe in, with the tacit agreement\r\nthat we are all moving towards a better Singapore. And with our\r\nnew parliamentary colleagues from the Ruling Party, Opposition and\r\nNCMPs, I look forward to a more robust and constructive debate in\r\nthis House.
\r\nPage: 63
\r\n\r\n While we can take pride that\r\nSingaporeans have begun to find a Singapore soul, as a small nation,\r\nthere are still many external challenges Singapore has to overcome\r\nin order to maintain our lead and ensure long-term survivability.\r\nOn the economic front, we have just overcome the 2008 global economic\r\nrecession, sparked by the failure of many major banks in the United\r\nStates, with fortunately minimal injuries. This episode has demonstrated\r\nthe resilience of Singaporeans and the resolve of the Government\r\nin solving tenacious issues faced by Singapore. Our economy, guided\r\nby the sound policies of the Government, has rebounded and is growing\r\nstrong. Our GDP grew by a sterling 14.5% last year, and by 5.9%\r\non a year-on-year basis in the third quarter of 2011. Total employment\r\ngrew by 24,800 in the second quarter of 2011 and unemployment rate is\r\nat 2.1%. By all measurements, our economy is healthy and our people\r\nemployed.
\r\n\r\n Yet as the President warns,\r\ndark clouds are gathering in the horizon. The world is threatened\r\nwith a repeat of the 2008 financial meltdown, but on an even more cataclysmic\r\nscale. Just as we thought that the United States' economy is showing\r\ninitial signs of a recovery, their debt situation appears to be\r\nspiraling out of control. In August 2011, major credit rating agencies\r\ndowngraded the US' rating to AA+. Europe is still deep in recession\r\nand the financial storm engulfing Europe is far from over.
\r\n\r\n The worrying signs of \"Japanisation\"\r\nof the American and European economies have sent ripples across\r\nthe globe and many Euro zone governments are still struggling to\r\nfind solutions to their economic and social problems. The profligacy\r\nof PIIGS (namely Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) is\r\none of the root causes of the financial woes faced by the Euro zone.\r\nAs one sagacious Eurocrat told T\r\n he Economist: \"We\r\nare speleologists (scientific explorers of caves) trapped in a tunnel.\r\nWe cannot go backwards; we can only go forward.\" What lies ahead\r\nthough is far from certain.
\r\n\r\n While Singapore has been relatively\r\ninsulated from these problems, we must remember that we are an open\r\neconomy. When the world economy falters, our economy will falter\r\ntoo. It is important that we, in Singapore, must always be alert\r\nand ready for a global economic recession in the near future. We\r\nmust be ready to put through the necessary policies for Singapore\r\nto pull through tumultuous times. We must continue to look to equip\r\nSingaporeans with the right skills to enable them to survive in the\r\ncompetitive globalised world. As we seek to educate Singaporeans\r\nwith the right skills to survive in the global economy, I would\r\nlike to state that this must not only focus on knowledge but also\r\non soft skills. I believe that many Members have heard the passing\r\nof Steve Jobs on 5 October 2011. Many of us here have used one of\r\nhis creations, in one form or another. The inspiring truth about\r\nSteve Jobs is that, although he was a high school dropout, Apple\r\nInc, which he founded in 1976 with Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne,\r\nis today one of the largest and most successful companies around the\r\nworld.
\r\n\r\n Let us ensure that our people\r\nare given the right support and the right conditions to succeed\r\nin life. We have today, an education system that offers opportunities\r\nfor academics, sports, arts, music, technical and vocational education.\r\nBut let us also ensure that this environment is conducive even for\r\nthose who are academically less competitive. Let our youths be instilled\r\nwith creativity, determination and strength, and with the right\r\nenvironment, many will still have that opportunity to build their\r\nown Singapore dreams.
\r\n\r\n Singapore is one of the most\r\nopen and freest economies in the world. As a small economy, Singapore\r\nhas no other choice but to embrace globalisation, open up its markets,\r\nand foster competition. It is in Singapore's vital interest to advance\r\nthe global trade and investment liberalisation agenda and to ensure\r\na strong rules-based multilateral trading system. Singapore has\r\nbeen a consistent champion of liberalisation on the multilateral,\r\nregional and bilateral fronts. To date, we have signed 18 FTAs with major\r\neconomies and regions around the globe. These FTAs have positively\r\ncontributed to Singapore's growth in recent years.
\r\nPage: 64
\r\n\r\n Moving forward, let us focus\r\nour attention on these FTAs and ensure that they are optimally utilised\r\nto the benefit of our economy. Let us ensure that all Singapore companies,\r\nbe it SMEs or larger companies, know and can leverage on these agreements.\r\nThis will allow our companies to stay competitive globally and help strengthen\r\nour economy.
\r\n\r\n With the ongoing financial\r\nwoes in the United States and Europe, the Asia-Pacific region seems\r\nto have emerged as the epicentre of world economic growth in the\r\nnear and medium term. We need to be cognisant that our fortunes\r\nare tied to external developments. As a small economy, Singapore\r\ncan never seek to determine these developments nor can we insulate\r\nourselves completely from these developments. Rather, we need to\r\nsharpen our responses to adapt, adjust, restructure, and transform ourselves\r\nto make the best of these developments. The pressure has been heightened due\r\nto globalisation and competition from the lower-cost manufacturing\r\nlocations.
\r\n\r\n These are exciting yet treacherous\r\ntimes ahead in Asia. Just as the President had alluded to, we need\r\na steady pair of hands and clear vision to steer our course cautiously and\r\nwisely. We must stay strong, cohesive and alert. To maintain our\r\ncompetitive position despite rising wages and overall costs of business,\r\nthe Government must continue to promote higher value-added activities\r\nin the manufacturing and services sectors, and to raise productivity.\r\nWe need to stay ahead of the power curve and remain competitive\r\nagainst our regional and worldwide competitors.
\r\n\r\n We must not cease to think\r\nout of the box and explore new ideas and innovations to strengthen\r\nour competitiveness. We have injected new life to the tourism sector,\r\nby bringing in the most coveted SingTel Formula 1 Singapore Grand\r\nPrix Night race which has earned the accolade of being F1's black\r\ngemstone. In addition, the Government had also taken the bold decision\r\nin 2005 to develop the two integrated resorts which opened their\r\ndoors last year with much fanfare and success. Moving forward, we\r\nmust explore creative ways to ensure that our economy remains ahead\r\nof our competitors.
\r\n\r\n Sir, what struck me the most\r\nabout the President's Address was his call to make Singapore the\r\nbest home for all Singaporeans. Thus, we must meet the challenges\r\nof the global economy head on and ensure that this growth benefits\r\nall segments of society. Yet as we pursue our goal of quality and\r\ninclusive growth, at the same time, there is a need for the Government\r\nto focus, too, on overcoming internal challenges facing Singapore.\r\nFor one, the changing demographics of Singapore will pose a significant\r\nhurdle for the nation. In 2010, the fertility rate was an all time\r\nlow of 1.16, way below the replacement level of 2.1. A recent IPS\r\nstudy also warns that if fertility rates were to remain the same,\r\nthere would be severe implications on Singapore's ability to compete\r\nin the global world. More needs to be done to address the declining\r\nTFR. Besides taking a microscopic analysis of the current procreation\r\npackage, the Government will also need to have a macroscopic review\r\nof the social support required to encourage Singaporeans to have\r\nmore children, which includes childcare and pre-school facilities\r\nas well as more family-friendly workplace arrangements.
\r\nPage: 65
\r\n\r\n Taiwan, which has the lowest\r\nTFR in the world, has seen a surge of 16% of babies being born in\r\nthe first nine months of this year, after the government offered\r\nincentives to couples in a bid to boost the dismal birth rate. Maybe,\r\nwe can learn from the Taiwanese, measures to reverse this worrying\r\ntrend in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n This problem will be exacerbated\r\nby a rapidly ageing population or what is called the silver tsunami.\r\nWith 20% of the population above the age of 65 come 2030, we need\r\nto prepare ourselves right now to ensure that those who need help\r\nare taken care of, medically and socially. With more elderly Singaporeans,\r\nthe demand for healthcare services will inevitably increase and\r\nmany will suffer from age-related chronic diseases. This dual-pronged\r\ndanger, if not met and addressed, will leave us with an elderly population\r\nsupported by fewer and fewer working adults – a high dependency\r\nratio.
\r\n\r\n It is in this respect that\r\nI wish to turn the attention of the House to several other issues which\r\nwill affect our ability to pursue quality and inclusive growth for\r\nall Singaporeans. For one, there are currently many challenges facing\r\nSingapore's healthcare system. Besides the rapidly ageing population,\r\nthe affordability of healthcare, manpower and infrastructural developments\r\nare issues that will inevitably affect the lives of many Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Our world-class healthcare\r\nsystem, with our top doctors, nurses, cutting-edge techniques and\r\nequipment, and infrastructure, are well placed to keep Singaporeans healthy.\r\nHowever, let us remember that we need to ensure that there is sufficient capacity\r\nin our healthcare sector to deal with the impending silver tsunami.\r\nAlready, our system is facing a crunch due to the increase in Singapore\r\npopulation over the last four to five years. We need to urgently\r\nstreamline work processes, enhance productivity and also better\r\nmanage existing space and facilities to alleviate this crunch. For\r\ninstance, the public health sector can consider re-locating non-clinical\r\nservices such as administrative offices in the hospitals elsewhere\r\nand converting the spaces to wards and clinics. There may also be\r\na need to look at buying services from the private sector as an\r\ninterim solution to help ease the crunch in the public sector. Besides\r\nthe physical infrastructure, let us also look into ensuring that\r\nwe have adequate trained manpower including doctors, nurses and\r\nallied health professionals, in anticipation of this trend.
\r\n\r\n The expansion of our Primary\r\nCare Partnership Scheme (PCPS) is a step taken towards addressing\r\nsome of these projections and scenarios that we see. We need to ensure\r\nthat the health of our citizens is well taken care of, and what\r\nbetter way than to ensure that optimal chronic disease management\r\nstarts from the \"relatively young age of 40\". At the same time,\r\nwe also need to ensure that healthcare remains affordable and anyone\r\nwho needs medical help gets help. Let me share a story here.
\r\n\r\n This story is about a girl,\r\nfeatured in T\r\n he New Paper in 2009. Majorie Soh was diagnosed\r\nwith bone cancer in 2003, and over the next six years, her parents\r\nraked up an estimated $400,000 in medical bills. Majorie eventually\r\nlost her fight with cancer in 2009. Her medical bills were financed\r\nthrough their own savings; through additional bank loans and the\r\ngoodwill of friends. The family even sold their flat to help finance\r\nthe medical costs.
\r\nPage: 66
\r\n\r\n The point I want to make is\r\nthat there are those in society who find it hard to finance the\r\nmedical costs in Singapore. Yes, there are already many financial\r\nschemes available to help Singaporeans such as the Medisave, MediShield\r\nand Medifund. The question I want to ask is this, should Singaporeans\r\nbe subject to financial distress in seeking medical treatment for\r\nthemselves or their loved ones? Should they have to borrow from banks\r\nand friends to pay their bills? Should they sell all their assets\r\nbefore they can qualify for medical assistance under the stringent\r\neligibility criteria?
\r\n\r\n Sir, it is imperative to note\r\nthat, globally, medical costs are growing, even in developing economies,\r\nand double-digit increases may be the norm for 2011 and beyond.\r\nMedical trend rates are not predicted to drop significantly anytime\r\nsoon. In fact, in most countries, they are expected to continue\r\nto rise over the next five years.
\r\n\r\n As Singaporeans grow older,\r\nas people start living longer, as medical costs increase, we need\r\nto relook at our medical funding framework to address some of these\r\nproblems in the near future. How can we ensure that Singaporeans\r\nare able to pay their medical bills or not worried about seeking\r\nthe necessary medical treatment because of financial constraints?\r\nWith increased longevity and rising healthcare cost, are our various schemes,\r\nlike Medisave, adequate to meet the healthcare needs of Singaporeans\r\nin the future? Now, before we increase the Medisave contribution,\r\nlet us remember that the medical inflation rates ranged from 6%-8%\r\nover the last three years while the wage increase ranged from 2%-4%.\r\nClearly, the increase in the cost of healthcare is outstripping\r\nthat of the rate of increase in our salaries. And this is even more\r\nstark in the case of the lower income group, whose disposable incomes\r\nare stretched more tightly today. I was speaking to a resident the\r\nother day, and he told me this in Mandarin – \"the poor is better\r\noff dead than sick\". With rising healthcare costs, this old adage\r\nappears to be truer than ever.
\r\n\r\n Sir, Singapore is not a welfare\r\nstate. Our citizens must understand that there will not be free\r\nmedical care and all Singaporeans must help to bear some costs.\r\nThat I think everyone seated here would concur with. But nevertheless,\r\nas I have mentioned, Singapore has evolved its own model where subsidies\r\nare given to those who need it most. The tiered means testing system\r\nis a useful method to determine how much a person should pay for\r\nmedical treatment. But with rising medical costs, it is worthwhile to\r\nthink about how we can help the lower and middle income groups by\r\nincreasing the quantum of subsidy for them. There is also a need\r\nto re-examine the rules governing the use of Medisave. Many Singaporeans\r\nfeel that it is too restrictive and very often, there may be sufficient\r\namount of Medisave savings but the rules do not allow its use in\r\nmany instances. Many of such incidents are genuine medical expenditure,\r\nsuch as outpatient consultation, treatment and investigations.
\r\n\r\n The changes to our healthcare\r\nsystem, as announced by the Prime Minister during the National Day\r\nRally speech, are steps towards meeting the current and future needs of\r\nSingaporeans. The expansion of the Primary Care Partnership Scheme\r\n(PCPS), Medical Assistance Fund and the increase in withdrawal limit\r\nof the Medisave for outpatient treatment will surely be welcomed\r\nby all Singaporeans. But we can do more, for instance, listing essential\r\ndrugs in the standard drug list so that patients too can enjoy the\r\nsubsidy. Let us remember that making healthcare more accessible\r\nto all would mean that more Singaporeans stay healthy in their older\r\nage and live an active elderly lifestyle.
\r\nPage: 67
\r\n\r\n Sir, all of us will grow old\r\none day. Allow me to ask, \"What will your one wish be when you grow\r\nold?\" Will it be wealth, health, happiness or family support? To\r\nme, it is the right to grow old with grace and dignity.
\r\n\r\n The high cost of healthcare,\r\nespecially in Singapore, has pushed many Singaporeans to move their\r\nloved ones to nursing homes in Johor Bahru. In Singapore, we have always\r\nasked our citizens to take care of their loved ones, often in homes.\r\nBut for many, especially those with low incomes, this is often impossible\r\nto do so. How is one going to juggle work, earning about $2,000\r\nto $3,000, take care of the family and look after the elderly who\r\nis frail, non-ambulant and is totally dependent on others for activities\r\nof daily living, all at the same time? It is a tough balancing act,\r\nto say the least.
\r\n\r\n In a series of articles in\r\nlate July 2011, T\r\n he \r\n New Paper highlighted how\r\nsome Singaporeans have sent their loved ones to Johor Bahru. In\r\none of the stories, Mdm Kong, 90 years of age, is seemingly abandoned\r\nby her family who have stopped visiting her and paying the nursing\r\nhome. These stories of our elderly admitted to nursing homes in\r\nJohor Bahru and deserted by their families are heart wrenching.\r\nAnd while we can say that the family is to be blamed for this, does\r\nour high healthcare cost, high cost of nursing homes, lack of nursing\r\nbeds, not contribute to this phenomenon, too? Should our elderly\r\nbe treated this way after all their sacrifices to build the nation,\r\nfor Singapore to be what it is today?
\r\n\r\n MOH's plan to increase Kwong\r\nWai Shiu Hospital's nursing beds capacity from 400 to 600 by 2011\r\nis, indeed, welcomed. However, I urge MOH to keep the fees affordable, especially\r\nfor the low and middle-income families.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the President has said\r\nthat to make Singapore a more inclusive place, we need to make Singapore\r\na home for all Singaporeans. Reviewing our healthcare policies and making\r\nit better for all Singaporeans, in terms of affordability, availability\r\nand accessibility, would be a good step in the right direction.\r\nIn my opinion, there are many more areas where we can look towards\r\nmaking Singapore a better and more inclusive place for everyone.\r\nTake for instance, the Enabling Masterplan. First implemented in 2007,\r\nit has now gone on to its second five-year plan, and has achieved\r\nmuch in terms of early intervention, especially for children with\r\nintellectual and developmental disabilities. The expansion of the\r\nEarly Intervention Programme for Infants and Children to include\r\nprivate sector operators has also added more vacancies to the special\r\nneeds system.
\r\n\r\n But while the Enabling Masterplan\r\nhas taken the right steps towards a more inclusive society, I believe\r\nthat there is more in which we can do. The disabled in society,\r\ntogether with their families, still face various difficulties in\r\nintegrating to society.
\r\n\r\n Five years ago, I had spoken\r\nabout the need to look into the needs of caregivers. Today, this\r\nneed still remains. Allow me to share another story here.
\r\n\r\n Mrs Koh is today 71 years\r\nold. Her husband is 82. They have three children, like most Singaporean\r\nfamilies. Their youngest child was born in 1963. At the age of two,\r\nhe had a high fever and was diagnosed with inflammation of the brain\r\nor meningitis. Hence on, Peter became totally dependent on his parents\r\nfor his needs. He became intellectually and physically disabled,\r\nunable to move, unable to articulate his needs and feelings. While\r\nher husband worked, Mrs Koh took care of Peter full time, together\r\nwith her other two children. As her husband did not earn huge wages,\r\nMrs Koh had to scrimp and save to bring up her three children, Peter\r\nincluded. Her situation was made worse as in the 1970s and 1980s,\r\nshe did not know whom to turn to for help. She had no caregiver support\r\nnor training in caregiving. She had no respite and, many a time,\r\nshe would just cry to let her pent-up emotions out. Finally, in\r\n2007, at the age of 67, she and her husband decided that they were\r\nno longer physically able to take care of Peter, and sent him to\r\nbe institutionalised.
\r\nPage: 68
\r\n\r\n Sir, there is a need to ensure\r\nthat there is an all encompassing framework for caregiver training\r\nand support as we move to face our silver tsunami. But let us not forget\r\nthat the caregivers themselves, those in the present and the future,\r\nneed to be taken care of, too. Today, Mrs Koh and her husband survive\r\non a paltry $900 monthly for their daily living. Of this sum, more\r\nthan $550 goes towards the upkeep of Peter. We need to think about\r\ncaring for these caregivers and to make respite care more readily available\r\nor affordable. There might be people callous enough to suggest that\r\nMrs Koh was dealt an unfortunate hand in life, but unfortunate hand\r\nor not, as a nation, as fellow citizens, as fellow Singaporeans,\r\nthere is more we can do to provide a helping hand.
\r\n\r\n As the Acting Minister for\r\nCommunity Development, Youth and Sports remarked recently at the\r\npublic forum on the Mental Capacity Act, \"A successful country is\r\nmore than the economic success it has achieved. The hallmark of\r\na truly developed country is the compassion that its citizens have\r\nfor the needy, disadvantaged and vulnerable amongst us.\" I agree\r\nwith this and urge the Government to look seriously into the needs of\r\ncaregivers and their disabled loved ones.
\r\n\r\n Sir, besides the elderly,\r\ndisabled and their caregivers, I would also like to speak briefly\r\nabout another group of people in society who are often left in the\r\nlurch. This group is the single parent, either male or female. The\r\nsingle parent faces many difficulties in life as he or she takes\r\ncare of their children. For one, the myriad of schemes and subsidies\r\navailable to married Singaporeans with children are not available\r\nto them. Often than not, the single parent is faced with a double\r\nwhammy of sorts. Apart from the lack of Government support, some\r\nare also cut off and \"abandoned\" by their families. Take for instance,\r\nthe Baby Bonus is only eligible, according to the MCYS guidelines,\r\nif the mother is lawfully wedded to the father.
\r\n\r\n The case is the same for maternity\r\nleave, where marriage is one of the eligibility criteria. HDB's\r\nBTO policies are also skewed against those who are single parents.\r\nI think we should relook the way we see parents who one way or another\r\nhave to raise children on their own. Let us consider them as parents\r\nand make avail to them all such schemes and subsidies that are available\r\nto married couples. We must remember that some of them are single\r\nnot by choice and we should not further add to the problems they\r\nface in raising a child single-handedly.
\r\n\r\n Sir, during my maiden speech\r\nin 2006, I spoke of the need for the people, the private sector\r\nand the Government to work in unison to build an inclusive and a\r\ngracious society. That has not changed, and we must continue to\r\nwork together as one, putting aside our political differences, in\r\nmaking a better Singapore for all. Over the next few days, Members\r\nof the House will be speaking on many issues, ranging from hot-button ones\r\nlike housing, transport, healthcare, education and the economy to\r\ndelicate concerns of security, terrorism and even Government reserves.\r\nI call on my honourable colleagues to speak candidly so that we\r\ncan discuss how best we can make Singapore better for all Singaporeans.\r\nI certainly look forward to an interesting debate in the House over\r\nthe next few days.
\r\nPage: 69
\r\n \r\n \r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, allow me to congratulate you on your election as\r\nthe eighth Speaker of the House. I look forward to your guidance\r\nand support as we air the views and concerns of our residents. I\r\nalso hope not to enter history as being the first to face your guillotine.
\r\n\r\n Sir, when I sat here listening\r\nto our President on 10 October delivering his Address, I cannot\r\nhelp but wonder what does it really mean to my fellow Singaporeans\r\nwhen he said, \"Our shared goal is to create a better life for all.\"\r\nTo tell you the truth, I do not know yet. But one thing I do know,\r\nSir, is that more and more Singaporeans are watching and they want\r\nthis Parliament to continue to make Singapore better and, most importantly, to\r\nimprove their lives.
\r\n\r\n Sir, there are many noble\r\ngoals and objectives that our President had articulated in his opening\r\nspeech. But, Sir, it is how we work towards achieving those goals\r\nfor the next five years that really matters because it is how we\r\nwill and can affect the lives of Singaporeans for the better. By\r\nall counts and benchmarks, either in education, housing, economy,\r\nhealthcare and many more, as a young country, we can be proud to\r\nsay that we have done reasonably well. Singaporeans know that they\r\nare living in much better conditions than in many other countries.\r\nThe challenge then was for us to continue to do well and improve\r\non our shortcomings. Since the early days of Singapore's independence,\r\nwe have worked hard to provide for our people and we have focused\r\non the fundamental and basics very well. The three areas of thrusts\r\nthat we had single-mindedly worked on, namely, public housing, education\r\nand employment, have brought us far and forward in development.\r\nLiving conditions improved, lives got better, there were good-paying\r\njobs, and our citizens became more educated.
\r\n\r\n Our country progressed, all\r\ncommunities in Singapore flourished and progressed including the\r\nMalay community. Over the years, coming from the Malay community,\r\nI would say that we have made lots of leaps and bounds in progress,\r\nand this has happened unabated for many years. The Malay community\r\nmade significant progress in many areas, like housing, educational\r\nachievements, employment and also businesses. The rapid development\r\nof our economy had provided an impetus for the community, which\r\nis a minority in Singapore, to advance and stand tall side by side among\r\nother fellow Singaporeans. Nevertheless, even if we have progressed,\r\nwe still face many challenges that we need to overcome together.\r\nJust like many others in this country, this is a new Singapore,\r\na new landscape where we face many common challenges. This cuts\r\nacross racial and cultural boundaries.
\r\n\r\n Currently, Sir, when I talk\r\nto relatives and friends, I get the sense that people are uneasy\r\nand worried. Why is that so? They worry, they are stressed and they\r\nare concerned about many things. It ranges from job stability, job\r\nopportunity and their children's education to the future of healthcare\r\ncosts. Today, I would like to just touch on two topics: first, on\r\nemployment and opportunities.
\r\nPage: 70
\r\n\r\n Recently, I had a conversation\r\nwith a former student who is working in an electronic test company.\r\nShe was very concerned – she is working in the engineering department of\r\nthe company – and said that she is the rare Singaporean working\r\nin that department. And she said that whenever there is a new recruitment,\r\nmore often than not the new recruits are foreigners. She had many\r\nquestions to ask: Is this normal? What is happening? Where are our\r\ntechnicians and our engineers? Are we training enough to produce\r\nthem for our industry and our economy?
\r\n\r\n Similarly, Sir, I do get anecdotal\r\nstories from financial firms and friends who work in banks that\r\nemploy entirely foreign workers in a department, and they ask me\r\nthe same question. They are concerned because they wonder whether\r\nthe jobs that have been created, and the opportunities that came\r\nabout through our development in growth, are not going to Singaporeans.\r\nWhere are our locally trained bankers from our universities which\r\nare renowned and reputable? Are we training them enough? Are they\r\nsuitable for our own economy? So, these are some of the questions\r\nthat people ask when it comes to opportunities and jobs.
\r\n\r\n Beyond just employment, my\r\nresidents gave me a lot of feedback and some concerns homes. Let\r\nme just move on to an issue that is close to our hearts. Having\r\na roof over our head is, in fact, a basic human desire. It is no\r\nsurprise, therefore, that many Singaporeans are concerned about\r\nhousing and whether they can afford a comfortable home for themselves\r\nand their family. To be fair, Sir, this PAP Government has done\r\nan outstanding job in housing its population. Within just 50 years,\r\nour population has moved from living in kampongs and overcrowded\r\nshop houses to modern, well appointed public housing flats. I believe\r\nmany in this House went through this experience and so did I. I\r\nremember my father proudly receiving the keys to his 2-room flat\r\nin 1970 when he bought it at a price of $13,500 from Jurong Town\r\nCorporation (JTC), using his salary of about $150 per month. By\r\nno means luxurious, our HDB flat was still a great step forward,\r\nwith running water, electricity, sanitary and plumbing.
\r\n\r\n For us, it was a roof over\r\nour heads, a place to go as a family and make friends with our neighbours.\r\nIt seems to me that in those days, that was the basic purpose of\r\nour public housing programme − to house a growing population − and\r\nhow well we have done it.
\r\n\r\n I can confidently say that\r\nSingapore's public housing programme is probably the most successful\r\nof its kind anywhere in the world. Where other public housing programmes\r\nhouse low-income population and often quickly reduce to slums, Singapore's\r\npublic housing programme houses about 80% of our population, with options\r\nfor low-income as well as high-income earners. Today, we proudly\r\nsay that Singapore boasts among the highest home owners figure in\r\nthe world. And this did not happen by chance. It happens because\r\nof a very conscious decision by the Government that people should\r\nown their homes and have a stake in this country.
\r\n\r\n Home ownership also promotes\r\na certain sense of belonging in the estate and encourages residents\r\nto look after their flats and their neighbourhood. An HDB flat has also\r\nbecome a growing asset and, in some instances, offering a windfall\r\nof a few hundred thousand dollars to owners if they choose to sell.\r\nSo it seems to me that now, from a basic purpose of housing a population,\r\nour public housing programme has taken on many more roles − that\r\nof giving Singaporeans a stake in our country, of building a community\r\nand of being a financial investment as well. Little wonder that\r\nhousing issues are so complex and so emotive.
\r\nPage: 71
\r\n\r\n From my purely layman point\r\nof view, let me try to unravel some of the issues facing housing.\r\nFirst, there is the issue of demand. If demand was constant and\r\npredictable, I do not think there will be an issue. HDB will be\r\nable to plan the number and the types of flats to build enough to\r\nsatisfy all the flat buyers. But demand has not been predictable for\r\nmany, many reasons − a poor and volatile economy, fewer marriages\r\nand new family units, and sometimes even the fear of a \"Tiger\" year\r\nbaby. So it seems to me that rather than trying to predict demand,\r\nHDB sought to deal with this by building to order. A very great\r\nidea because flats would be built when there were buyers for them\r\nand buyers would know when their flats would be delivered to them.\r\nThis would allow them to plan, save money for payments, renovations,\r\nfurniture and get on with the business of raising a family. And\r\nyet, Sir, there are people who are very dissatisfied with this solution.\r\nSome say that they cannot get a flat that they like. Others say\r\nthat they wait too long. Yet, others say that the location is no\r\ngood – too far from the amenities, too far from their parents. I\r\nam sure these are all valid complaints. But I cannot see how HDB\r\ncan address all of them, except perhaps by building flats faster\r\nwithout putting too much pressure on construction resources and\r\nputting all the necessary amenities in place at the same time. If\r\nnewer flats have all the necessary amenities and good public transport,\r\nI believe flat buyers in newer flats will have less cause for concern.
\r\n\r\n I recognise that some of the\r\nbusinesses that offered amenities may not be economically viable\r\nin the first instance because new flats only slowly build up their population\r\nand their clientele for the businesses. But this is something that\r\ncreative support from Government can overcome, whether through reduced\r\nrental, small business financing schemes or manpower cost subsidies.\r\nI believe that if we want to tackle these issues, we should take\r\nthe concerns of home buyers as legitimate throughout our preconceived\r\nnotions and start with a fresh look for solutions.
\r\n\r\n The next thing, Sir, is the\r\nissue of cost. There is no lack of feedback that cost of housing,\r\nincluding public housing, is too high. One resident quipped to me\r\nthat most Singaporeans are working for the HDB. He explained that\r\nmany of us take a whole working lifetime to pay off our mortgage\r\nfor our flat. After we have done so, we are left with little savings\r\nfor our retirement and, heaven forbid, if our family members are\r\nfaced with major illnesses and the expenses related to that. Looking\r\nback, as a Government that encourages home ownership, we cannot\r\nabsolve ourselves of the responsibility of acceding to the deep\r\ndesire among Singaporeans to own property. As I understand, from\r\nthe feedback from the residents, there are at least two sides to\r\nthe concern about the high cost of public housing. Clearly, those\r\nwho aspire to buy their flats, even new flats, and after the subsidies\r\nthat HDB offers, are concerned that they will be saddled with a\r\nlarge mortgage. A large chunk of their income will go towards paying\r\nfor their flats and this is not an unreasonable concern.
\r\n\r\n I look at the HDB Annual Report\r\nof 2009/2010 and the prices of flats that were offered ranged from\r\n$72,000 for a 2-room flat in Bukit Panjang to $409,000 for a 5-room\r\nflat in Punggol. Former Minister for National Development, Mr Mah\r\nBow Tan, in his article in TODAY newspaper in November 2010\r\ndealt with this issue of whether HDB flats were affordable. Using\r\nthe concept of debt service ratio, Mr Mah said that for a new HDB\r\nflat in non-mature estates and for a 30-year loan, the debt service\r\nratio was an average of 20%. This means that, for me, when I buy\r\nan HDB flat, 20 cents of every dollar I earn goes towards paying\r\nfor my flat. Sir, no wonder my resident told me that we all worked\r\nfor HDB. Granted that this ratio is lower, according to Mr Mah,\r\nthan the international benchmark of 30% to 35% for affordable expenditure\r\non housing, but let us also consider that unlike other countries,\r\na large chunk of Singapore's income is also spent on transport and\r\neducation. After all the other expenses, it is no surprise that\r\nmany Singaporeans live from pay cheque to pay cheque.
\r\nPage: 72
\r\n\r\n The other side of the issue\r\nis that no one seems to be able to tell me how much actually does\r\nan HDB flat cost. Since our private sector construction companies\r\nbuild our flats, I suppose we could look at their tender price for\r\na clue to what the construction cost is. I am sure there must be\r\nother costs, including cost of land. Now, if we think about it, should\r\nland cost be included in the price of HDB flat, some may ask. I\r\nagree that we have to impute the cost for the use of land to build\r\nflats, but what would be the basis? I do not think this question\r\nhas been adequately debated. Having promised home ownership for all,\r\nthe Government must do its utmost to fulfil it. If a quarter of\r\nour income is used to finance our home, where would our savings\r\nfor retirement come from? Is this the reason that many people hope\r\nto boost their savings by trading their biggest asset, that is,\r\ntheir home? Is that why many people buy their flats, take the so-called\r\nfirst bite of the cherry and then tempted at selling the flats five\r\nyears later for profit to invest in a retirement fund, and to attempt\r\na second bite of the cherry after that? Some may point to the Minimum\r\nSum Scheme and the CPF LIFE Scheme for retirement. But all of us\r\nknow that these will hardly be adequate and other sources of income\r\nare also needed. Of course, Sir, we could all keep working until\r\na ripe old age, but we all know the challenges older workers face\r\ntoo. Again, that is another issue that would be covered.
\r\n\r\n I would like to argue that\r\nthe Government should find ways to make HDB flats even more affordable.\r\nCPF grants are helpful but it seems that we are just taking money\r\nfrom one pocket to return it to the other. We must seriously consider\r\nthe pricing formula for HDB flats and seek to make it a transparent\r\none as much as possible. In this way, we can assure residents that\r\nthe Government is not out to make profits from the sale of housing. By\r\npricing our flats more reasonably, we can also relieve the debt\r\nservice burden of our residents.
\r\n\r\n Speaking of bites of the cherry,\r\nI would also like to bring up the plight of a very particular group\r\nof residents of mine. As you may know, there are some residents\r\nwho have run afoul of HDB because they are unable to pay for their\r\nflats. No doubt, HDB works hard with them to reschedule their instalment\r\narrears but, in some cases, regardless of what is done, some residents\r\nsimply are not able to pay. The reasons are many – unemployment,\r\nprolonged sickness, unstable families, prison, and the like. I am sure\r\nwe all have residents who come to see us often at the Meet-the-People\r\nSessions.
\r\n\r\n Now, the current situation\r\nis that HDB houses these residents in what is called the interim\r\nhousing. In my constituency in Toa Payoh East, they are housed in\r\nflats which are earmarked to be demolished as part of the selective en-bloc redevelopment\r\nexercise. This was put off because of the demand for rental housing\r\nand also to house people who could not pay for their flats. If you\r\nwere to visit these flats, you could not imagine that you are still\r\nin Singapore. The whole family is squeezed into one room, sometimes\r\ntwo different families share a 2-room flat, with one family in one\r\nroom. I accept that this is a temporary situation until more permanent\r\nhousing can be found. But some families I know have been living\r\nin these flats since 2009, hardly temporary. I cannot imagine how school-going\r\nchildren can study and how parents can keep their young safe when\r\nthey are living with strangers.
\r\nPage: 73
\r\n\r\n I am disappointed that we\r\nare slow at resolving this issue. We should try to provide a stable\r\nhome for them. I am sure many will say that this group of residents\r\nput themselves into the situation and have themselves to be blamed.\r\nI would say that we all share the blame. Let me explain. In the\r\nfirst place, why should we encourage people who simply cannot afford\r\nto buy a flat to aspire towards home ownership? I personally have seen\r\na scenario where a resident defaults on his housing instalments,\r\nhas his flat sold or repossessed. He is put in an interim housing\r\nfor a period and then he is encouraged to again buy another flat.\r\nI think we cannot see residents as simply statistics or numbers, to\r\nbe channelled from one place to another. I think the Government\r\nmust think of a longer term sustainable solution for this group.\r\nPerhaps, HDB can think of expanding this rental scheme and work\r\nout meaningful subsidy scheme so that families can live together\r\nsafely, children can have a conducive environment to study and play\r\nand, over time, hold up hope that they can improve their lives and\r\nbreak out from the poverty cycle.
\r\n\r\n In addition to setting maximum\r\nincome ceilings on purchase of new 3-room flats, as it does now,\r\nHDB might consider restricting the resale of 3-room flats to only\r\nlow-income Singaporeans. HDB could consider being the sole agency\r\nthat sells and buys back 3-room flats at a price that is predetermined,\r\nfor example, at the original sale price plus the annual inflation\r\nrate, because these small flats are meant for low income as its original\r\nintent. In this way, the price of 3-room flats can be managed and\r\nlow-income families can aspire to own flats without undue burden\r\non their incomes. Once the price is controlled, we can also exclude\r\npeople who want to buy 3-room flats as an investment or for even\r\nspeculation. We have a duty to our residents, to understand their\r\nneeds, recognise their circumstances and offer solutions to improve\r\ntheir lives, as we have said in the speech, and not to put them\r\nin situations where they end up worse than they were before.
\r\n\r\n Still on the subject of housing,\r\nwe should also recognise that the home is more than just some bricks\r\nand tiles. It is a place where families grow, memories are made, neighbourly\r\nties are forged. And home is also where the seeds of rootedness\r\nto the community and country are sown. Yet, sometimes, these seedlings\r\nwere uprooted in the name of national progress. I have a group of\r\nresidents whose freehold homes will be taken away from them by the\r\nGovernment for redevelopment works. We all agree, and we all agree\r\nin many ways, that the greater national interests must come first\r\nand that, from time to time, even those residents who own freehold\r\nflats or properties will have their homes acquired by the Government.\r\nIn such instances, I am told that the Government would offer compensation\r\nto owners based on the valuation on the day that their property\r\nis gazetted –
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : Mr Zainudin, your\r\ntime approaches. May I ask you to please wrap up?
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Zainudin Nordin\r\n : This could\r\nbe many months prior to the actual acquisition of the property.\r\nSo my residents who live in a row of 29 houses near Marymount will\r\nbe required to vacate their houses and hope to find something similar.\r\nThese residents bought their houses and grew their families. Many\r\nhave two and three generations living together, some even four generations\r\nwith children living together with them. Given how the property\r\nmarket has moved, they are now hopeful to find properties which\r\nthey can keep their families. While the Government has gone by the\r\nbook, I think we cannot just follow by the book.
\r\nPage: 74
\r\n\r\n Sir, these are real concerns\r\nof Singaporeans. I am sure that the Government will make every effort\r\nto come up with programmes and policies to look after the needs\r\nof all Singaporeans. All I ask is that, as Members of Parliament,\r\nwe recognise our residents for who they are, what they aspire to\r\nand help shape Government policies to help them achieve their dreams\r\nas we have hoped for. Then, we would have forged a new social compact\r\nwhere we all can work hand-in-hand for a better tomorrow for our Singaporeans.\r\nSir, I support the Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : May I remind Members\r\nthat we have many speakers to get through. Please watch the time\r\nof your speeches.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to be speaking here today. As a new\r\nMP, I must say that speaking in this Chamber is truly a humbling experience.\r\nSeeing the pictures of past parliamentarians along the hallway is\r\na reminder of all the people who played a part in legislating for\r\nthis country over the last 46 years during our remarkable growth\r\nthrough Third World to First. It also reminds me of the burden of\r\nresponsibility we bear as new MPs. We stand on the shoulders of\r\ngiants, but there is an expectation that we will be able to bring\r\nthis country to greater heights, just as our predecessors had done.
\r\n\r\n Over the past six months,\r\nlike many of my parliamentary colleagues, I have been busy meeting\r\npeople and understanding what is on their mind. While I received\r\nwarm reception from many, there were also those who told me quite\r\nopenly they did not support \"my party\". When I asked them for more\r\ndetails, some of them expressed the angst that Mr Zainudin Nordin\r\nexpressed earlier; others also explained to me that it was because\r\nthey felt that our Party no longer cares for ordinary Singaporeans.\r\nThis was a little hurtful for me and also for many of the volunteers\r\nwho were assisting me at that time. For the volunteers, they get\r\nnothing in this except the gratitude of serving people. So, in that\r\nsense, I think the President's first message, to make life better\r\nfor all Singaporeans, is an important one, and one that I am sure\r\nwill be supported by all.
\r\n\r\n I would like to make two points\r\non this goal. The first is in trying to make life better for all\r\nSingaporeans, I think it is important to build a consensus first.\r\nThere is an old Tamil proverb by a wise old lady named Avvaiyar\r\nthat goes like this கற்றது கையளவு கல்லாதது உலகளவு. Now, that translates into saying that the sum\r\nof your knowledge can be captured in the palm of a hand, whereas\r\nthe things you do not know is the size of the world. Essentially,\r\nwhat that means is that when we approach people to build this consensus,\r\nwe have to approach it with an open mind. We have to be prepared\r\nto learn as well. So, if our opinions are different, we have to\r\nchange those opinions.
\r\n\r\n One example of a policy that\r\nI think was seriously misunderstood was the decision to open the\r\ndoor to foreigners quite widely in the last few years. I think the\r\nreasoning for that was sound. It was to capture the economic growth\r\nin the wake of the global recession. But, unfortunately, I think\r\nthe way it played out was most Singaporeans did not really understand\r\nwhat all these foreigners were suddenly doing in our country. We just\r\nhad a recession the year before and at the same time we now see\r\na lot more foreigners in our trains, in our housing estates, perhaps\r\neven working with us. I think this added to some of the angst that\r\npeople were feeling.
\r\nPage: 75
\r\n\r\n For myself, I work in an international\r\nlaw firm, so I experience first-hand the jobs created by foreigners.\r\nI think people working in multi-national companies would probably\r\nshare the same experience too. But not everyone works with foreigners.\r\nOthers benefit indirectly from it, say, for example, the construction\r\nindustry which builds houses for every one of us. That industry\r\nis sustained largely also by foreigners. So, broadly speaking, foreigners\r\ndo play an important role in our economy but I think it is necessary\r\nfor us to build a consensus on how many we need before opening the\r\ndoor.
\r\n\r\n Going forward, I think the\r\ndeclining birth rate, as was already mentioned, is a problem that\r\nwe all accept. One solution obviously is to keep foreigners coming\r\nin. But I think in doing that we have to manage the process very\r\ncarefully and make sure that Singaporeans are behind us as we do\r\nit.
\r\n\r\n The second issue that I would\r\nlike to deal with is the external environment. Because Singapore\r\nis a small country, we do not exist in isolation and there are at\r\nleast four points in the external environment that I think we have\r\nto bear in mind when making any policy going forward.
\r\n\r\n The first is the trend of\r\ncapitalism and globalisation in general. When the Berlin Wall came\r\ndown in the 1990s, there was a view that liberal democracy was the\r\nright way forward, and capitalism was the best way to govern. This\r\nwas also coupled with the fall of communism which was at that time\r\nthe only alternative. The last 20 years has seen the unleashing\r\nof global capitalism, but this also has some downsides. The first\r\nis the movement of capital to the lowest cost locations. Now, what\r\nthis means is that capital will always go to where the cost production\r\nis lowest. So, the First World, for example, that had the highest\r\nwages was also amongst the first to suffer as manufacturing and\r\nso on, moved to developing parts of the world. The First World,\r\nat the moment, has unemployment rates close to 10%, along with the\r\nlow cost jobs that have moved abroad, and there are no clear alternatives\r\nfor the people who are at the very bottom. The other effect of globalisation\r\nis at the very top. The companies in these countries have also become\r\nglobal corporations. And this has actually permitted the CEOs of\r\nthese companies to earn phenomenal salaries because they commanded\r\nmuch a larger corporation. But the impact this has created within\r\nthe countries is a tremendous divide in income. The lowest income\r\nworkers face unemployment at the worst or stagnating on low wages\r\nbecause they compete with low-wage workers in other countries. On\r\nthe other hand, the people at the top enjoy a tremendous amount\r\nof wealth because they are leveraging on everyone else.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has not quite reached\r\nthat stage yet. But as we strive to get higher wages for all our\r\nworkers, we have to make sure that we do not fall into that trap\r\nbecause that is the direction that we are going into. Is there another\r\nway out? I do not have the answer at the moment but I think that\r\nis a problem that we have to be aware of as we move forward.
\r\n\r\n The second issue that we face\r\nin the external environment is what I call a sea of money. Now,\r\na sea of money is a good thing except that it does not really wind\r\nup in the pockets of the people who need it most. In fact, what\r\nhas happened in a lot of the developed world is that in order to\r\nstimulate the economy, the Central Banks have kept interest rates\r\nat very low rates. This money has flowed not necessarily into their\r\nown economies but to other parts of the world. And while this has\r\nnot stimulated the economies, it has created rising prices all around.\r\nIn Singapore, we feel this too. Our young people are afraid of the\r\nrising price of buying a house; our old people are afraid that they\r\ndo not have enough for retirement and medical expenses. All around,\r\nI think we feel the prices of rising food and oil. But this is created\r\nby the fact that Central Banks around the world are printing money.\r\nOur own Singapore dollar is strong and that limits the effects somewhat,\r\nbut there is a limit to how much we can let the Singapore dollar rise\r\nas well because that would kill our manufacturing sector. So, again,\r\nthis is another complex problem we face.
\r\nPage: 76
\r\n\r\n The third issue − and this\r\nis something that came up in the last few months − is somewhat the\r\nreverse of the sea of money but it may co-exist, and that is, a\r\nrisk that capital may actually fly from Singapore. Over the past\r\nyear or so, the flight to quality had been to places like Asia but\r\nthe last one or two months when the financial markets crashed, what\r\nwe noticed was that some of the money was going back to US treasuries. Even\r\nthough the US government is in trouble, for some reason money always\r\ngoes back to its home base. Although the money that was coming out\r\nin the first place was from the developed world, it tends to run\r\nback there. Now, the issue we face when capital flight takes place\r\nis a little bit different. Capital flight would be similar to what\r\nhappened during the Asian economic crisis. In 1997, when economies\r\nin Asia started collapsing one after the other, capital ran away\r\nfrom Asia. And when capital ran away from Asia, Singapore faced\r\nits worst recession in history up to that point in time. I do not\r\nthink we are getting close to that scenario at the moment but that\r\nis a risk we have to bear in mind, at least on account of events\r\nthe last one or two months.
\r\n\r\n The fourth issue is what would\r\nhappen if there is a protracted crisis in the West and the developed\r\nworld. As we know it, during the last crisis in 2008, much of the\r\ndeveloped world managed to get its way out of the crisis because\r\ngovernments helped to bail out banks that were in trouble. They\r\ntook on the distressed debts. The trouble we face right now is that\r\nthe governments themselves are the ones in crisis. Fiscal policy,\r\nwhich was a tool that permitted governments to spend more than their\r\nbudget in times of crisis, is no longer available to any of these\r\ngovernments because they do not have the ability to run budget deficits\r\nany longer. The weakest economies, like Greece, are in danger of default,\r\nbut even the strongest economies like the US have faced credit downgrades\r\nand parts of their governments have shut down every now and then.\r\nSo, the reality is that the West seems to have protracted crisis\r\nand one of the tools that they used to get out of crisis in the\r\npast was fiscal policy, which is not available to them.
\r\n\r\n The other tool that these\r\ncountries used to use in the past was what we call monetary policy,\r\nand that was to keep interest rates low to stimulate the economy.\r\nUnfortunately, this policy also seems to have reached its limits\r\nbecause interest rates have already been floored and yet the economy\r\ndoes not seem to be reviving. So, in a sense, the economic stimulus\r\nalmost seems to be at full force but the economies are still flagging.\r\nNow, a crisis in the West is not something that we should be celebrating\r\nor in any way be happy about because it would have profound impact\r\non the world. A lot of global demand comes from the West, a lot\r\nof our exports are going there. So, if the West is hit hard, then Singapore\r\ncannot expect to prosper and it would be very difficult to do that.
\r\nPage: 77
\r\n\r\n The other big challenge we\r\nface, of course, is the risk of contagion, as happened with the\r\nLehman crisis. When Lehman Brothers collapsed, it was not just Lehman\r\nthat was in trouble but every bank that lent to them was also in\r\ntrouble. Right now, Greece may be the weakest link, but if Greece\r\ncollapses, it is not just Greece that is in trouble, the banks that\r\nlent to them are in trouble. If those banks get into trouble, the\r\nbanks that are counter-parties or involved in other bank transactions\r\ncould also be in trouble. The risk of contagion is another one that\r\ncould spread here. So, this is the fourth risk that I think we face\r\nin the external environment.
\r\n\r\n In a sense, my objective in\r\nthis speech was not so much to paint a picture of doom and gloom\r\nbut rather to highlight the fact that we face some real challenges\r\nup ahead going forward. In moving from Third World to First, we\r\nfollowed a path that I think no other colony has done. In moving\r\nforward, in trying to build a better life for Singaporeans, we have\r\nto find a path that even most developed countries have not done.\r\nI do not think that is an easy task. It is a daunting one and we\r\nhave to stay together as a nation.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker\r\n : May I just remind\r\nMembers in the second and third rows that you can speak from the\r\nrostrum closest to you and you need not approach the front table.\r\nOnly Members in the front row need to speak from the rostrum at\r\nthe table.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio) \r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [For\r\nMandarin speech, please refer to Pg 134-139 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .]\r\nSir, since independence, Singapore has maintained constant economic\r\ngrowth, social harmony and political stability. In spite of its\r\nlimited land area and resources, and dependence on the world economy,\r\nSingapore attained remarkable achievements. Many describe this as\r\n€˜The Singapore Economic Miracle'. Since the 1997 Asian financial\r\ncrisis, global economic cycles have become shorter and shorter,\r\nto the extent that it experiences one cycle every three years. From September\r\n11 in 2008, to SARS, to economic recession, to the global food crisis,\r\nto the global financial crisis in 2009, in a span of 15 years, our\r\ncountry experienced the impact of an economic crisis every three\r\nyears. However, we were able to tide over these crises. This little\r\nred dot was able to race against the tide, not only was it able\r\nto stay afloat, it even emerged stronger. During this period, when\r\nthe unemployment rate of many countries had been on the rise, we\r\nwere able to sustain full employment with low jobless rate. In many\r\ncountries, real wages have stopped increasing. But with the tripartite partnership\r\nbetween the government, unions and employers, we were able to achieve wage\r\ngrowth. Although the increment is not great, we were still able\r\nto achieve real wage growth. We cannot take these achievements for\r\ngranted. Our €˜miracle' is, in fact, the result of our nation's stability,\r\nevery Singaporean's hard work and the spirit of working together\r\nto overcome difficulties.
\r\n\r\n Looking ahead, the challenges\r\nthat lie ahead are relentless. We have to face not only fierce competition\r\nfrom neighbouring countries of various regions, but also turmoil brought\r\nabout by rapid economic growth. This includes socio-humanities changes,\r\nas well as the impact of economic uncertainties in Europe and the\r\nrest of the world. All these will have a continuous impact on us.
\r\nPage: 78
\r\n\r\n The reality that we face is,\r\nwith the climate of complex changes in the world economy, we will\r\ninevitably be affected. The Europe debt crisis, recession in the\r\nUnited States, global inflation and the potential of China's bubble\r\nbursting, will have lasting impact on us. Every Singaporean will\r\nfeel the pressure, as everyone has to deal with the stress of high\r\ncost brought about by economic uncertainties. In Singapore, we also\r\nface challenges brought about by the problem of an ageing population,\r\nlow fertility rate, limited manpower resources and inflation, as\r\nSingapore imports almost all essential supplies. The stress we experience\r\ndue to global and local challenges is evident. Many people wonder,\r\nwill Singapore be able to continue to create miracles as in the\r\npast, and overcome crisis?
\r\n\r\n I always communicate with\r\ngrassroots and youth to listen to their views. I notice, recently,\r\nthat many young people are uncertain and worried about their future.\r\nThis anxiety is not only experienced by recent graduates but also\r\nworking professionals and their family members, as well as the elderly.\r\nThey are worried that their children will not be able to enjoy the\r\nstability and prosperity that they have experienced. Two weeks ago, the\r\ncharacters portrayed by actor Huang Wenyong and his son in the 9.00\r\npm Channel 8 drama serial expressed such sentiments.
\r\n\r\n The younger generation are\r\nworried about their future, and they are anxious about what kind\r\nof role they can play in the development of our nation. Even more Singaporeans\r\nstrive for not only economic success but a role for themselves in\r\nthe society, and they want to be a contributor and creator. This\r\ndesire can be seen from their participation in non-governmental\r\norganisations, social enterprises and welfare organisations. In\r\nterms of the economy, with the increased turbulence in the world economy,\r\nthey face increasing uncertainties and competitive pressure. In\r\nmy opinion, the Government needs to create more avenues for young\r\nSingaporeans to better understand and take part in our policies,\r\nto strengthen their self-confidence in dealing with future challenges.
\r\n\r\n I believe that for our country\r\nto maintain stability and prosperity, the Government needs to continue\r\nto get its fundamentals right, to ensure our country's stable development,\r\nthat Singapore continues to be a land of opportunities for all,\r\nand that every Singaporean enjoys equal opportunity in education,\r\nemployment, housing and healthcare. For years, our tripartite partnership\r\nachieved many benefits and came up with many good policies for our\r\nworkers, for example, the Re-employment Act for older workers, recommendations\r\nby the National Wages Council, etc. The Government should further\r\nstrengthen this tripartite arrangement, which is a platform that\r\nis admired by many countries. Singaporeans should give this tripartite\r\npartnership strong support, so that this effective platform can\r\ncontinue to create benefits for working Singaporeans under the cooperation\r\nof the unions, employers and the Government.
\r\n\r\n To achieve inclusive growth,\r\nI believe education is an important cornerstone. Singapore has one\r\nof the world's most highly educated population. I am happy to note that\r\nour Government-funded universities will be admitting 12,000 students\r\nthis year, a record high. From next year, our Government-funded\r\nuniversities will admit 2,000 more Singaporeans every year, and\r\ntotal admission for universities will reach 14,000 annually by 2015.\r\nTo ensure that all Singaporeans can afford to attend Government-funded universities,\r\nthe Government has continued to subsidise 70% of university tuition\r\nfees. I remember during the first year of my university education,\r\nI had to collect a cheque from the Government at the university\r\noffice, to pay for my tuition fees, together with my own portion\r\nof the fees. This helped us to understand how much the Government's subsidy\r\nwas. Nowadays, very few people know about the amount of subsidy.
\r\nPage: 79
\r\n\r\n Since education is an important\r\ninvestment, I hope that the Ministry of Education will consider\r\nraising the subsidy level to 80%, similar to the subsidy level for\r\nC Class wards in hospitals.
\r\n\r\n Our nation does not have natural\r\nresources and we are reliant on our manpower resources for development.\r\nI hope the Government will make greater investments in tertiary\r\neducation, to allow Singaporeans to further realise their potential.\r\nAs the little red dot in the region, our young generation faces\r\neven greater challenges. The Ministry of Education should consider\r\ncreating a better learning environment for our local undergraduates\r\nand give them more opportunities to realise their potential. The Ministry\r\nof Manpower should also ensure fairness in the employment conditions\r\nof our tertiary graduates, and that they are given a fair starting\r\npoint in their careers.
\r\n\r\n In effect, Singapore enjoys\r\nfull employment, our jobless rate is only 2%-3%. Currently, Singapore's\r\nunemployment rate is one of the lowest in the world. Last year, 77%\r\nof Singaporeans between the age of 25 to 64 were employed, this\r\nis way above the numbers in other similar Asian economies like Hong\r\nKong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan.
\r\n\r\n Looking ahead, we need to\r\ntake note of the unemployment rate among young people. In the second\r\nquarter this year, 6.8% of Singaporeans under the age of 30 are jobless.\r\nOf course, this is not the actual jobless rate, as many are still\r\nwaiting to further their studies. Although this figure is lower\r\nthan other developed nations, we must ensure that it does not continue\r\nto rise. In Spain, the jobless rate of young people between the\r\nage of 16-29 is 45%, this has led to discontentment and anger within\r\nthe country. In the United Kingdom, 20% of young Britons between\r\nthe age of 16-24 are jobless. We must ensure that our education\r\nsystem, employment policies and labour market have the mechanisms\r\nthat nurtures competitiveness for the future, so that Singaporeans\r\ndo not have to worry about employment in the future.
\r\n\r\n In terms of promoting employment,\r\nI hope that the Government can consider expanding the Enterprise\r\nInternship Programme and Management Associate Programme by SPRING\r\nSingapore – to introduce university and polytechnic graduates to\r\ncompanies – so as to provide more internship and apprenticeship\r\nopportunities for them. This will help local graduates face unfair\r\ncompetition from more experienced foreign competitors. We must ensure\r\nthat our young graduates possess the competitive advantage, so that\r\nthey will have a fair chance for employment in our labour market which\r\nis open to competition.
\r\n\r\n Most Singaporeans will agree\r\nthat our bilingual policy contributed to the success of Singapore,\r\nand laid the foundation for the future development of Singapore.\r\nOur education system should further emphasise the importance of\r\nlearning English and Mother Tongue, and to inculcate traditional\r\nvalues more effectively. Singaporeans' bilingual ability is one\r\nof our advantages. In China and many other Asian countries, as more\r\nand more people now realise the importance of a bilingual education,\r\nwe should not allow Singaporeans to become monolingual. We have\r\nto further strengthen our bilingual education system, so that our\r\nnext generation will continue to have this competitive advantage,\r\nto face greater challenges in the future. Not only must we give our\r\nfuture generation a good education, we must also give them the correct\r\neducation. And the correct education is to prepare them for our\r\nnation's development, for living in the future and to tackle the\r\nchallenges of the future.
\r\nPage: 80
\r\n\r\n I think the views expressed\r\nby journalist Hong Yiting in the opinion section of Sunday's Zaobao is\r\nworthy of our serious consideration. She wrote:
\r\n\r\n \"Currently, in Singapore's\r\neducation arena, we are reaching greater heights in the academic domain,\r\nand have produced many young people with outstanding academic achievements. However,\r\nwe must be clearly aware that values education deserves more emphasis\r\nand attention. I personally feel that values education in school\r\nmust focus on three areas – one, to be responsible for oneself.\r\nIt is not uncommon to find that youngsters, who are constantly influenced\r\nby Western culture, view traditional values as feudalistic and not\r\nin tune with the changing times. However, these are often assumptions.\r\nWe should shape an individual's moral values from the roots, to allow\r\nyoungsters to think about and explore the nature of moral values\r\nunder the guidance of teachers, so that young people understand\r\nthe true significance of these moral values from their schooling\r\ndays, to create their own values structure according to their self-identity\r\nand put these into practice.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, to be responsible\r\nfor others. Besides learning to be responsible for oneself, values education\r\nshould also teaches young people to consider how their actions affect\r\nothers. Through discussions of case studies and sharing of personal\r\nexperiences, students can better understand the damage caused by\r\ninappropriate behaviour, understand what it means to be responsible\r\nfor others and the trade-offs. Teaching them to face the consequences\r\nwill have a deterrent effect to some extent.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly is to be responsible\r\nto the society. As a member of society, values education should also\r\nnurture young people to become good citizens who are socially responsible.\r\nThis include, taking care of social hardware like the environment\r\nand public amenities, and also respect for social \"software\" like\r\nour nation's multi-culturalism.\"
\r\n\r\n I hope that the Ministry\r\nof Education will further enhance bilingual and values education\r\nof our next generation.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, in the country's\r\neconomy and the development of the society, the employer plays a\r\ncrucial role. Their employment practices must not only be fair,\r\nthey must also be responsible for the social cost and impact arising\r\nfrom their employment practices.
\r\n\r\n More and more companies are\r\nnow aware and have adopted the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility.\r\nThis is good. More importantly, Corporate Social Responsibility\r\nshould be viewed holistically. I believe that to be socially responsible, businessmen\r\nshould employ according to the principles of meritocracy in a fair\r\nand just manner. In other words, they should give all job seekers\r\nequal opportunity, regardless of their age, gender and physical\r\nhandicap. That is the social responsibility of employers.
\r\n\r\n In this aspect, the Ministry\r\nof Manpower has implemented anti-discrimination regulations. The\r\nnew Re-employment Act even ensures that elderly Singaporeans who wish\r\nto continue working, will have the opportunity to do so. Companies\r\nwho employ them would also benefit from their experience. I urge\r\nemployers to abide by fair employment practices when they employ\r\nforeign workers. I also hope that employers will treat local job\r\nseekers more fairly when they make employment decisions. The Ministry\r\nof Manpower should strengthen legal measures to ensure employers\r\nare fair in their recruitment and employment process, to make sure\r\nthat employers share their profits with employees.
\r\nPage: 81
\r\n\r\n The National Trade Union Congress\r\npassed the \"Singaporeans First\" resolution recently. I am disappointed\r\nto read from media reports that employers are resistant to this.\r\nFor our labour policy to be sustainable, there must be a balance\r\nof interests. Currently, the ratio of foreign labour and local labour\r\nis close to 1:2. Our future policies must be more cautiously deliberated,\r\nwe must be more selective in bringing in foreign labour. I suggest\r\nthe Ministry of Manpower consider the WSQ skills accreditation scheme\r\nas a pre-condition for the renewal and application of work permit,\r\nemployment pass. The Ministry of Manpower can also consider tying\r\nthe application for work permit to the employment of older workers,\r\nto reduce employers' over-reliance on foreign labour. The Ministry\r\nof Manpower should also strengthen legal measures and impose harsher\r\npenalties for employment agencies and employers who are involved\r\nin exploitative practices when employing foreign workers, for example,\r\nreceiving kick-backs, giving loans to foreign workers, charging\r\nexorbitant agency fees and other unreasonable exploits. We cannot\r\nallow employers to transfer the social cost to us in their bid to\r\ncut down business costs.
\r\n\r\n While we strive to achieve\r\neconomic growth and remain strong, we must strengthen our social\r\nsecurity system, to ensure that no one is left behind. I urge the\r\ntripartite partners consisting of employers, unions and the Government\r\nto support President Tony Tan's emphasis on inclusive growth. This\r\nwill allow all Singaporeans, including the low-income, the elderly\r\nand the needy a chance to experience a vibrant life. Being inclusive\r\ndoes not apply just to the economic aspects, but also in terms of\r\nfamily, income, education, social and individual development.
\r\n\r\n Looking ahead, what worries\r\nme more is how our social security system can ensure that every\r\nSingaporean will be able to receive medical care. As our population\r\nages, families become smaller, this problem will become more acute.\r\nI believe that strengthening and improving the 3M (MediShield, Medisave\r\nand Medifund), as well as Portable Medical Benefits for workers,\r\nis of immediate urgency. At the same time, the Government should\r\nfurther educate the public about medical insurance, so that they know\r\nand understand that they need to have enough medical insurance coverage,\r\nto cover the cost of their individual medical needs. On the basis\r\nof the 3M framework, the Ministry of Health should ensure that all\r\nSingaporeans have enough medical insurance coverage to deal with\r\ntheir healthcare needs.
\r\n\r\n In the area of social development,\r\nwe should be better prepared to deal with the changes in demographics.\r\nThe ageing population means that we need to have relevant facilities\r\nand policies in place to ensure that the elderly is able to receive\r\nadequate medical care, social assistance and other relevant amenities.\r\nThe Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS), should assist\r\nfamilies in supporting their elderly, and give more support to the\r\nfamily caregiver. The emergence of immigrants in our country, as\r\na new component of our demographics, means that Singapore is becoming a\r\nglobal, more diverse country. We must strengthen social ties, and\r\ncontinue to promote the harmonious society and multi-cultural characteristics\r\nof our country that we are proud of.
\r\n\r\n Sir, economic and population\r\ngrowth, and social development are inevitable. Singaporeans are\r\nworried about the future, I can feel their sentiments. However,\r\nwe cannot just dwell on arguments, but must do what we say. We must\r\nstrive for the welfare of Singaporeans, be pragmatic, and look for\r\nlong-lasting solutions. Many of the measures have been put into\r\npractice and have stood the test of time.
\r\nPage: 82
\r\n\r\n In his memoir, Professor Chew\r\nCheng Hai wrote that former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, in an\r\nemail written to him in 2009, told him that his memoir should educate the\r\nyounger generation that Singapore needs to have a disciplined, peaceful\r\nand harmonious society, incorruptible, capable and dedicated leaders,\r\nin order to continue to succeed.
\r\n\r\n And with this Government which\r\nis formed by people who \"strive to take action for the people\",\r\nI believe that the Government must uphold the spirit of being clean, efficient\r\nand dedicated, and implement pragmatic policies that will bring\r\nbenefits to our people, create a harmonious society with full employment.\r\nWe must not be like some politicians, who claim to be patriotic,\r\nwho speak well, but are mainly concerned with their personal political\r\ngain. We do not sweet talk, instead, we serve the people with genuine\r\nand effective actions, turn our vision of creating wealth and sharing\r\nthe fruits of labour together into reality, and create a society\r\nthat sticks together.
\r\n\r\n At the same time, as what Lianhe\r\nZaobao commentator Chen Hua Biao wrote, \"From this year's General\r\nElections and Presidential Elections, we can see that our country's political\r\nscene has undergone changes. The new generation voters' desire to\r\nbe involved in politics is stronger than before, and after the elections,\r\nthe ruling party has responded to demands made by the electorate\r\nduring the campaign period, reiterating that it is willing to listen\r\nto the voices of the electorate more effectively and respond to them.\"\r\nThe willingness of any government to listen to the people is a good\r\nthing. However, the Government must also ensure that they do not\r\nover do it, they should not suggest policies that will reap short-\r\nterm political gains for themselves, in order to gain the support\r\nof voters. I believe that if voters were to ask to give examples,\r\nthey can list the policies that they dislike. With the new political\r\nsituation, the Government, with an eye on the next general elections,\r\nmay consider doing away with some unpopular policies. However, if\r\nthe policies to be scrapped are \"good medicine\", this would not\r\nbe considered as effective, instead, it just shows that they are\r\nonly concerned with pleasing the voters.
\r\n\r\n The President's Address emphasised\r\nthat the Government must allow for more avenues for Singaporeans\r\nto voice their opinion. Of course, we hope that everyone will use\r\ntheir real identity when they express their views. After all, if\r\none has many views but no solutions, it is of no use. Whatever our\r\nviews, ultimately, we still need to come up with pragmatic and efficient\r\nsolutions and policies that is in line with reality. When we have\r\nthe solutions, we must strive to agree while recognising our differences,\r\nwork together with one heart to serve the masses.
\r\n\r\n Lastly, I would like to share\r\nwith you the current reality. Just as what former Minister Mentor\r\nLee Kuan Yew said when he attended the Australia-New Zealand Policy\r\nInstitute World Leaders Forum in 2008 – \"Singapore's success as\r\na nation, lies in being clean, highly efficient and having a nation\r\nof people who are able to respond swiftly to changes in the world.\r\nIf we can continue to strive to do better, continue to catch up\r\nwith or surpass others, we will succeed.\"
\r\nPage: 83
\r\n\r\n \"Without country, there will\r\nnot be home. Without soil, there will not be flowers.\" What we have\r\nnow was not achieved easily, we have to treasure it. Let us continue\r\nto strive to do better, move forward together, ensure that all Singaporeans\r\nnot only achieve success, but also share the fruits of their success.\r\nThis is home, truly! Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I first thank the President for his Address\r\nand the Government for making the promises contained in the Address?\r\nThe Workers' Party welcomes and supports the statement that Singapore's\r\nsuccess is defined not just by material progress but by our values\r\nand ideals. The Workers' Party is ready to work with the Government\r\ntowards a better life for all. However, it is important to point\r\nout that over the last few years many Singaporeans have faced harsh realities\r\nthat do not match the sentiments contained in the Address. A country's\r\nheadline figures such as GDP growth mask the realities of life for\r\ncertain groups. Thus, to have segmented updates such as the recent\r\njoint report by the Ministry of Manpower and Department of Statistics\r\nreleased on 11 October is helpful.
\r\n\r\n One disturbing fact from that\r\nreport is that after accounting for inflation, wages of Singaporeans\r\nat the 20th percentile of income have stagnated over the last decade.\r\nIn other words the real incomes of the bottom 20% of working Singaporeans\r\nhave not increased in 10 years.
\r\n\r\n On the ground, we see that\r\nthere are Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated vis-Ã-vis the\r\nforeign workforce. Divorces leave many families homeless. The demand\r\nfor rental flats has risen. Seniors worry about healthcare costs.\r\nThere are chronically ill patients who have even sold their homes\r\nto pay medical bills. As Dr Lam Pin Min said earlier, there are\r\nSingaporeans who believe that one is better off dead than sick.\r\nThese issues and the fact that they have been around for years may\r\nlead some Singaporeans to question whether the vision in the President's\r\nAddress will be translated to reality.
\r\n\r\n The Address is titled \"A home\r\nwe share, a future we build together\". With such a vast divide between\r\nthe haves and have-nots, how do we nurture such a shared home and future\r\ntogether? At the opening of the Twelfth Parliament, I believe that\r\nthe Government is seriously pondering over how to alleviate the\r\nill effects of certain policies, but moving forward, how should\r\nthe Government assess whether it is going in the correct direction and\r\nmaking a positive impact on people's lives?
\r\n\r\n Sir, the Bhutan royal wedding\r\nhogged headlines over the weekend. As many of us know, the Kingdom\r\nof Bhutan has an unusual way of measuring the country's development.\r\nIt is called GNH or Gross National Happiness. This indicator is\r\ngarnering international attention even among developed countries.\r\nIn July this year, Bhutan initiated a resolution at the UN General\r\nAssembly titled \"Happiness towards a holistic approach to development\".\r\nThere were a total of 66 co-sponsors of the resolution and the General\r\nAssembly adopted it without a vote. The resolution's preamble states\r\nthat and I quote, \"The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human\r\ngoal\", and that \"the gross domestic product indicator, by nature,\r\nwas not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness\r\nand well-being of people in a country.\" Member states have been\r\ninvited to \"pursue the elaborations of additional measures that\r\nbetter capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being\r\nin development with a view to guiding their public policies\".
\r\nPage: 84
\r\n\r\n With such international interest,\r\nis it now time for Singapore's Government to conspicuously focus\r\non happiness as a national goal? Should policies be articulated\r\nto show how they will ultimately achieve happiness for Singaporeans\r\nas a whole? This may sound too warm and fuzzy for some but, in fact,\r\nour Government supported the resolution at the UN. Indeed, Singapore\r\nwas one of the 66 countries that co-sponsored the draft resolution.\r\nSince Singapore was a co-sponsor, may I ask the Government to specify\r\nwhat the practical effect of the resolution is for Singapore? What\r\nindicators does it intend to put in place to measure whether Singaporeans,\r\nas a whole, are achieving happiness and well-being? Might the Government\r\nalso tell us how its policies, over the next five years, will be\r\nguided by such indicators?
\r\n\r\n In fact, the concept of happiness\r\nat the national level is not new. The American Declaration of Independence\r\nstates that among the unalienable rights of men are \"life, liberty\r\nand the pursuit of happiness\". Back home, our children pledge everyday\r\nto \"achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation\".\r\nSince Independence, Singapore has focused on achieving prosperity\r\nand progress. Has happiness been forgotten despite the words in\r\nour pledge? Or maybe it has been assumed that once there is prosperity\r\nand progress, happiness will ultimately follow. But has it?
\r\n\r\n Does prosperity and progress\r\ncome sometimes at the expense of happiness? Prosperity and progress\r\nare certainly important but they cannot be ends in themselves. Surely,\r\nthey should be the means to an end, the happiness of Singaporeans\r\nas a whole. What difference can this make to our policy approach?\r\nLet me give an example of an issue that might need to be dealt with\r\nvery differently by the Government if it pursues happiness rather\r\nthan high GDP growth as the overarching goal – Singapore's low fertility\r\nrate. Dr Lam Pin Min spoke about this earlier as well. Singapore's\r\ntotal fertility rate or TFR should concern us greatly if we are\r\nworried about preserving our culture and identity for future generations.\r\nI note that surprisingly low emphasis was placed on this in the\r\nPMO's Addenda. In recent years, home prices have risen sharply.\r\nFor couples who want children, one of the factors they consider\r\nin deciding when to have children and how many to have is the affordability\r\nof housing. A young couple who wants children but who is stretched\r\nby high housing payments over a long repayment period may delay having\r\nthem and may even have fewer children than they will ideally like\r\nto have.
\r\n\r\n In Hong Kong, a study by\r\nthe Chinese University of Hong Kong suggests that housing price\r\ninflation could account for up to 65% of their decrease in fertility\r\nover the past 40 years. In Singapore, analyses by local economists\r\nshow a similar link. Assoc Prof Tilak Abeysinghea, Deputy Director\r\nof the Singapore Centre for Applied and Policy Economics at NUS,\r\nhas been studying the issue of housing affordability for some time.
\r\n\r\n He notes in an article in The\r\nStraits Times on 1 September this year, that in Singapore, the\r\ndata showed that between 1977 and 2010, there were generally \"fewer children\r\nwhen house prices headed north\". He notes that the total fertility\r\nrate of Singapore has a close link with how affordable housing had\r\nbeen two years earlier. When housing was more affordable, the fertility\r\nrate in Singapore actually rose two years later. He concludes the\r\narticle by saying \"although the fertility rate is stubbornly less\r\nresponsive to many factors, it is possible that sustaining housing\r\naffordability may help at least in arresting the decline in the\r\nfertility rate\".
\r\nPage: 85
\r\n\r\n Sir, improving the TFR is\r\na critical issue if Singaporeans are to remain the core of our society.\r\nIf economic growth is overwhelmingly the Government's goal, then\r\nachieving higher housing prices at the expense of fertility may\r\nnot be considered a problem. But if the happiness and sustainability\r\nof Singapore society is the overarching goal, then there is a need\r\nto unravel the exact relationship between high property prices and\r\nfertility and what responses might arrest or even reverse the decline\r\nin fertility rates. We will have to look beyond immediate procreation\r\nincentives to the bigger picture. My point, Sir, is to ask: since\r\nthe Government had co-sponsored the draft UN resolution to stress\r\nthe importance of happiness and well-being in guiding policies,\r\nwhat tangible changes can we expect in the Government's general\r\napproach? Will Government policies from now on be framed to focus\r\non whether they will lead to happiness and contentment for Singaporeans\r\nas a whole? Will we be coming up with our own national index of happiness\r\nand well-being?
\r\n\r\n Sir, our founding elected\r\nleaders believed that happiness is important to be included in our\r\nnational pledge. Let us continue to put these beliefs to action.\r\nWe have been achieving progress and prosperity. Let us give happiness\r\nthe rightful place in our pledge for this Parliament, so as to achieve\r\nhappiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I add to the congratulations on your election\r\nas the Eighth Speaker of Singapore. Sir, I thank you for the opportunity\r\nto rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. In\r\nmy speech, I will cover two broad points: the shaping of a new social\r\ncompact in this new political environment, and some thoughts on\r\nholistic education for our children.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the President has delivered\r\nan all-embracing, broad-ranging speech which covered many different\r\nfacets of life in Singapore. He has outlined his views on how this Parliament\r\ncan take Singapore forward. In his speech, he has also re-affirmed\r\nthe vision for Singapore, in creating and maintaining a better life\r\nfor all – a job, a home and a multi-pathway education system with\r\nmany opportunities and options waiting at the end of each path.
\r\n\r\n There is, however, a new environment\r\nin which we will have to operate in order to make good on this vision.\r\nSingapore has a rapidly changing landscape on several fronts:-
\r\n\r\n (i) After an excellent economic\r\nrebound in 2010, with a 14.5% growth, we are now moving into more\r\ndifficult and uncertain economic times.
\r\n\r\n (ii) Our societal needs have\r\nalso evolved. Our basic needs in food, education, security, housing\r\nand healthcare have been met. But Singaporeans have newer demands,\r\ndemands which sit higher on the hierarchy of needs and these present\r\ngreater difficulties.
\r\n\r\n (iii) At the same time, the\r\npolitical landscape has also evolved with great pace and in several\r\nways, and continues to do so. As Dr Lam Pin Min mentioned, there\r\nis now greater political awareness and a heightened subscription\r\nto political ideology and idealism. We are seeing more vocal, diverse\r\nand liberal expressions of desire and a keener interest in Government\r\npolicies and laws.
\r\nPage: 86
\r\n\r\n The challenge for us lies\r\nin being able to unite all Singaporeans, foster a shared sense of\r\npurpose and goal and drive Singapore forward in such an evolving\r\npolitical landscape.
\r\n\r\n In the last few months, straddling\r\nboth the General and Presidential Elections, we saw an outpouring\r\nof unhappiness, resentment even, at the implementation of some policies.\r\nAs a new Member of Parliament, I must confess I was somewhat taken\r\naback. But when analysed to a greater or lesser extent, I think\r\nthat those sentiments of unhappiness were probably an accurate reflection\r\nof matters on the ground. It was felt that the Government did not\r\nlisten, or did not want to listen, or simply decided on policies\r\nand laws regardless of what the ground sentiment was. As a result, Singaporeans\r\nsent a message through the Elections and the Ruling party was returned to\r\npower with its lowest margin, and lost a GRC for the first time.
\r\n\r\n It has certainly been more\r\ndifficult for the Government to navigate and operate in this new\r\nlandscape. But more difficult does not mean it is bad. In fact,\r\nI see political maturity as a good thing for Singapore and Singaporeans.\r\nIt is good for Singapore that its citizens want to be engaged with\r\nthe Government, to understand and challenge its policies in open\r\nand honest debate, and to be very much a part of the decision making\r\nprocess.
\r\n\r\n Hence, rather than allow this\r\nnew awareness and idealism to grow into a tension and divide us,\r\nwe should harness this growing political awareness and interest\r\nand use it as capital to build a new compact between the Government\r\nand its people for whom its policies are designed.
\r\n\r\n Indeed the Government has\r\nresolved to be much more open and seek out alternative ways in which\r\nto reach out to citizens. Active citizenry was something that was promoted\r\nat the National Day Rally by the Prime Minister. I read over the\r\nweekend that the Government will also deploy civil servants to gain\r\na better sense of ground reaction and sentiment.
\r\n\r\n Sir, in many ways we are already\r\nshaping this new compact. Singaporeans now expect that the Government\r\nmust not only have strong and effective leaders, it must operate\r\nin an environment where the policy-making is an inclusive process.\r\nAs this new compact takes shape, there are, Sir, to my mind, three\r\nimportant considerations.
\r\n\r\n First, we have to learn to\r\ndeepen and broaden our engagement with Singaporeans from all parts\r\nof society. There must also be an emotional connection. While we rationalise\r\nand explain policies and law to Singaporeans, sometimes unfavourable ones,\r\nwe can do more, not only to reason by logic but also to connect\r\nbetter with the hearts of Singaporeans and, perhaps even learn to\r\nunderstand what some Singaporeans sometimes find difficult to articulate.\r\nIt goes without saying that not all laws and not all policies will\r\nfind favour, even after the most open of consultations and engagement.\r\nBut it would help if Singaporeans understand, if not necessarily\r\nagree with, the rationale behind a policy decision.
\r\nPage: 87
\r\n\r\n Sir, I think the Government\r\nneeds to spend some time to change several perceptions, that dealings\r\nwith the Government is a one-way street, that the Government does\r\nnot listen, that feedback is notionally gathered when the Government\r\nhas already made up its mind by the time it consults with the public.\r\nI believe we need to cultivate a better understanding and foster\r\na spirit of partnership to make all Singaporeans feel that they are\r\nengaging the Government on a dynamic, interactive platform. Only\r\nthen can we foster a shared ownership of matters which affect the\r\nlives of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, the Government must\r\nproactively review and constantly re-consider the rationale and\r\napplicability of policies and update them. It is only if we do so\r\nthat we can earn and cultivate the trust which Singaporeans invest\r\nin the Government. We are now beyond even the P-65 generation. Singaporeans\r\nin this generation are not only more educated but also cynical to\r\nan extent and naturally inquisitive. They want to know how a policy\r\ndecision is reached and what has been considered in reaching that\r\ndecision.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the political compact\r\nof today requires more than just a belief that the Government is\r\ngood and that it would always make the right decisions. In the past,\r\nwhen you see a doctor and get a diagnosis and a prescription from\r\nthe doctor, it would almost always be religiously adhered to. Today,\r\nyou are more likely to find that the same patient will look up the\r\nInternet to verify both the diagnosis and the prescription just\r\nto check if indeed the doctor knows what he is talking about.
\r\n\r\n We must accept that we are\r\nnow operating in this sphere. A sphere which will accord process\r\nand accountability with as much if not greater weight than the decision\r\nitself. It is not a generation that will invest trust just on blind\r\nfaith.
\r\n\r\n In the last few months, there\r\nhave been a number of policy revisions which have been fairly well\r\nreceived. The Government has revised the income ceiling for HDB applications.\r\nIt was a move that was greeted with widespread cheer. The reasons\r\ngiven for revising the ceiling were that income levels were going\r\nup, and couples were marrying later. And a combination of these\r\nfactors meant that unless the income ceilings were raised, a significant\r\nnumber of our people would not make it within the HDB fold.
\r\n\r\n But there was also some circumspection,\r\nand perhaps some scepticism. It was felt that the revisions came\r\nat a time when it was viewed as a knee-jerk reaction in response to\r\nrising sentiments against the Government. Rising income levels and\r\nlater marriages have been a trend for some years now, even prior\r\nto the revisions, and there have been previous calls made to relook\r\nand revise the income ceilings. Why is it only now that the Government\r\nis responding to these calls?
\r\n\r\n The same could perhaps be\r\nsaid of the review of Ministerial salaries, an issue which had occupied\r\nthis House several times in the past. Why was it not necessary to\r\nreview previously, but had to be done so now? In my view, Sir, the\r\ngreater accountability and access to the basis for making those\r\ndecisions, especially those which affect the lives and livelihoods\r\nof Singaporeans are needed.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, we should always,\r\ndespite what I have said, be careful about not allowing the deeper\r\nand broader engagement to become a situation where the Government\r\nbows to all demands and becomes populist. We have been fortunate\r\nto have had a strong and decisive Government, highly competent,\r\nwell capable of looking after Singapore both in the short and long\r\nterm. It is an advantage which not many governments in the world, if\r\nindeed there are, would have. That has meant that our Government\r\ndid not shirk from making unpopular decisions, if indeed those decisions\r\nare believed to be in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans,\r\neven if it comes with the prospect of losing some amount of political\r\ncapital. Singaporeans must accept that not every demand can be met.
\r\nPage: 88
\r\n\r\n I therefore urge Singaporeans\r\nto meet the Government half way. They need to be rational and practical\r\nas to the limits within which the ideals are pushed. The compact will\r\nneed to balance idealism with real-world complexities and practical\r\nlimitations. It would be irresponsible to expect the Government\r\nto embark on popular policies which might well have short-term gains\r\nand political mileage but which have longer term adverse consequences\r\nfor Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I believe that these\r\nthree factors, collectively, will anchor the new socio-political compact\r\nbetween the Government and the people of Singapore. The President\r\nhas called on all Singaporeans to build our future together. It\r\nis my respectful view that, before we do that, we must first settle\r\non this new equilibrium in the relationship between the Government\r\nand its people.
\r\n\r\n Sir, allow me now to move\r\nonto my next point, in relation to the Government's renewed emphasis\r\non attaining a holistic education for our children. In Singapore,\r\nit goes without saying: land and other natural resources are scarce,\r\nour people capital represents our most valuable resource. In his\r\nAddress to this House, the President had noted that heavy investments\r\nhave been and continue to be made in education for the young; and\r\nthat we should maximise their pathways, give them options, help\r\nthem gain confidence and blossom. Sir, to my mind, this is absolutely\r\nvital. There is no doubt that the future of Singapore lies in our\r\nchildren.
\r\n\r\n One of the best ways to invest\r\nin our children is to continually improve and transform the education\r\nsystem to meet the needs of new generations of children. When Minister of\r\nEducation Heng Swee Keat delivered his speech at the Annual Work\r\nPlan Seminar, he said that education has to be a long-term endeavour.\r\nA child entering Primary 1 next year will contribute to our workforce\r\nonly around the year 2030. This point resonated with me because\r\nit graphically illustrates why it is that we must be long term in\r\nour vision and planning. If we get our policies wrong, then the\r\nimpact will be felt by a whole new generation of citizens.
\r\n\r\n Over the years, progressive\r\nchanges have indeed been made to our system. The most recent ones\r\nhave been very well received. The focus has shifted to quality and diversity,\r\nwith the goal being to develop the potential of every child to the\r\nmaximum, particularly in terms of character development and the\r\ninculcation of a good value system in our children. In addition,\r\nmore choices are being introduced to our students so that they can\r\ndevelop their strengths and interests not only at a different pace,\r\nbut also on different paths.
\r\n\r\n I recently organised a forum\r\nin my constituency to invite ideas and comments to get a better\r\nsense of the areas of concern in Singapore's education policies.\r\nI found that my residents' desire to be involved in and to be heard\r\non Government policies, which I spoke of earlier, was very evident\r\nduring this forum. It was very well attended, and we had grassroots\r\nleaders and residents representing parents, teachers and students\r\ntake part in the debate. We had a very lively debate and this has\r\nhelped shaped some of the points which I would now make.
\r\nPage: 89
\r\n\r\n First, the Ministry has in\r\nits Addendum made clear that the values and character development\r\nwill be placed at the front and centre of our education system.\r\nOur policies will be designed to build a sense of shared values\r\nand respect so that we can appreciate and celebrate the diversity\r\nin our country. Sir, this re-affirmation is timely. But it is also not\r\na new policy.
\r\n\r\n In 2006, the \"Teach Less,\r\nLearn More\" movement was started. This movement introduced a focus\r\non helping teachers and students focus on the fundamentals of effective\r\nteaching, so that our students would be, and I quote from the 2010 Parliamentary\r\nresponse, \"engaged, learn with understanding and are developed holistically,\r\nbeyond preparing for tests and examinations\". That was the objective\r\nof the 2006 movement.
\r\n\r\n I believe most if not all\r\nparents and teachers will agree that values and character development\r\nshould be placed at the core of any good education system. But the question\r\nis how is it different from our earlier initiatives, and how is\r\nthis going to be introduced and implemented in our classrooms? In\r\nmy view, it would be wholly counter-intuitive to make values and\r\ncharacter development a teaching module on which tutorials can be\r\nhad.
\r\n\r\n In considering this question,\r\nI came across a paper. In 2008, the Ontario government launched\r\na Character Development Initiative for their schools. They grappled\r\nwith the same difficulties as we have – coming from a system which\r\ntended to put academic excellence ahead of everything else. In the\r\nend, they settled on a few key principles, and I found the report\r\nto be instructive.
\r\n\r\n We cannot just set aside some\r\ntime to teach core values and character development. Instead, these\r\nconcepts have to be woven into the fabric of our education system;\r\nit has to permeate all that happens in schools. It cannot be taught\r\nlike any other content-based subjects.
\r\n\r\n Good values and strong character\r\ntraits have to be experienced. It has to be lived and imparted by\r\nexample. It has to be demonstrated and exemplified by our school principals\r\nand our teachers on a daily basis, and reinforced by the community\r\nand parents at home. At the end of the day, character is built and\r\nvalues instilled by giving the child an opportunity to live life's\r\nexperiences – such as when they fail a school exam, or lose a football\r\nmatch, or work with peers in a group project or simply resolve a\r\ndispute in the school courtyard.
\r\n\r\n The Ontario paper also prescribes\r\nthat, and I quote, \"Character development must be integrated into\r\nthe curricular experiences of students and embedded into the culture\r\nof the school and classroom in an explicit and intentional manner.\"\r\nSir, I hope we can consider this approach and realign the focus\r\nin our school curriculum so that the relevant measure of our students\r\nis not just the academic grades achieved, but also in that student's\r\nfundamental moral precepts and value system. We might well need\r\nto have a mindset shift to reinforce the message that a quality\r\neducation is a whole lot more than just academic development, but\r\nit would be worth that shift if our children emerge from the system\r\nas children who will think critically, feel deeply and act wisely.
\r\nPage: 90
\r\n\r\n Secondly, Sir, the topic of\r\npre-school education. I know that this is not a new debate at all\r\nand there have been previous calls to nationalise early pre-school\r\neducation. The Ministry has resisted this system because it did\r\nnot want the pre-school system to become merely an extension of\r\nthe formal school system, where numeracy and literacy skills get\r\nemphasised at the expense of other developmental goals.
\r\n\r\n I agree with that, and I am\r\nnot advocating an extension to formal schooling. But I do believe\r\nthat more could be done to start the process of inculcating core\r\nvalues and character development from an early age. It has long\r\nbeen recognised that children between the ages of three and seven\r\nhave a strong cognitive ability and that this can best be nurtured\r\nthrough play at that age. The pre-school years are a critical period\r\nfor the development of our children. They lay the foundation for\r\nour children's education prior to formal schooling.
\r\n\r\n There have already been recent\r\nmovements by the Government to improve the standards of and accredit\r\npre-school education such as SPARK, and also various recent MCYS\r\nefforts. Just last night, the 25th Anniversary of PCF was celebrated\r\nwith a pledge to improve the standards of pre-school education.
\r\n\r\n Yet, pre-school education\r\nremains not compulsory nor is pre-school curriculum content currently\r\nregulated by the Government. Hence, in addition to continuing to accredit\r\ngood quality pre-schools, I hope the Government could also develop\r\na suitable programme for pre-schoolers to nurture character building\r\nand shape the inculcation of a strong moral system from an early\r\nage. I also hope that we can invest more in training and equipping\r\npre-school teachers to be able to help our pre-school children at\r\nthat age. Those are the formative years in a child's learning path\r\nand I feel we should not lose the opportunity to seed the foundation\r\nof good quality values and encouraging the development of strong\r\nmoral fibre in our children.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Sir, this is a very\r\nlocal request. The Minister has also outlined his vision for every\r\nschool in the neighbourhood to be a good school. Again, this has\r\nbeen very warmly received. In my constituency at Jalan Besar, however,\r\nthe issue is a more fundamental one because there are no schools\r\nat all in my constituency, and I hope the Ministry can look into\r\nthe possibility of building a new school in this neighbourhood. Jalan\r\nBesar is a mature estate, but there is an increasing young parent\r\npopulation and hence sufficient demand, particularly in the areas\r\naround City View which is a new DBSS project which has just received\r\nits first residents a few months ago. And so, the overall younger\r\nresidents, young parent profile, has increased. Sir, with that,\r\nI whole-heartedly support the Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Speaker: Order. I propose\r\nto take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair\r\nagain at 3.50 pm.
\r\n \r\n \r\nPage: 91
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the\r\nMinister for Education and Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President\r\nfor his Address. The President spoke of changes that are occurring\r\nwithin our society and the challenges we face in building our shared\r\nfuture. His words, Sir, struck a chord with me. My own experience\r\nof serving constituents since the General Election in May has been\r\nnothing short of eventful. Doing so, with a baby on the way, has\r\nmade it even more interesting. People approach me to strike up conversations\r\nabout pregnancy and childbirth. They ask me how I am coping. We\r\ntrade parenting tips and advice and they share their hopes and fears\r\nfor their own children. This has given me ample opportunity to reflect\r\nupon the kind of society we are building for ourselves and leaving\r\nfor the next generation.
\r\n\r\n I am among a new batch of\r\nMPs elected to this House after a watershed General Election (GE).\r\nWe operate in what the media has taken to calling the \"new normal\". There\r\nis a sense that the game has changed, to the disadvantage and discomfort\r\nof those who only know how to play by the old rules. I see it differently.\r\nWhether you choose to call it the \"new normal\" or something else,\r\nI embrace the present. And why not? The forces that shape the political\r\nlandscape as it currently stands have also shaped the perceptions\r\nand instincts of many of us here.
\r\n\r\n We are the product of our\r\npersonal experiences. I was a child of the late-1970s and 1980s,\r\na teenager of the early 1990s. The story of Singapore in the years\r\nwhen I was growing up was largely an upbeat one. Growth was good\r\nin most years, and indeed came to be expected. There were jobs.\r\nIncomes rose. Our parents told us how their lives have improved\r\nvastly compared to those of their parents, and they hoped, too,\r\nthat our lives would represent similar quantum leaps in comfort\r\nand prosperity over theirs.
\r\n\r\n As our economy grew, we could\r\nafford to put away more and more resources for long-term goals,\r\nsuch as investing in our people. I, too, was a beneficiary. As an undergraduate\r\nstudying Economics and Political Science overseas, I felt convinced\r\nthat my country had got it right. In classes and tutorials, we argued\r\nendlessly about problems like unemployment, slow growth, no growth,\r\nbloated welfare systems, fractious labour relations, grid-locked\r\nparliaments – problems which troubled societies more developed than\r\nours. I felt a thrill of pride every time Singapore was held up\r\nas an example of a country that had found a miracle formula to sustained\r\nsuccess – and more than a twinge of indignation when detractors\r\nargued that our success was no more than the result of a historical\r\nfluke.
\r\n\r\n In 1998, I started work in\r\nthe civil service, while the Asian Economic Crisis was in full swing.\r\nMy views were quickly moderated by a new reality. Like stages in\r\na roller coaster ride, we went from climbing a long, steep incline\r\nto a series of swoops, turns and somersaults. In quick succession,\r\nwe experienced the Asian economic crisis, followed by the bursting\r\nof the dot-com bubble, the 9-11 terrorist attacks, SARS, the Flu Pandemic,\r\nand most recently, the Global Financial Crisis.
\r\n\r\n There always seemed to be\r\na new challenge on the horizon. At the same time, major tectonic\r\nshifts are re-shaping the global landscape – most notably, the rise\r\nof China and India. With nimble steering and steadfast implementation,\r\nSingapore has stayed clear of the worst effects these challenges\r\ncould bring. We have managed to avoid many of the problems that\r\nlarger, more developed economies still face. I remain convinced\r\nthat many of our broad policies are right. But over time and with\r\nexperience, my understanding became more nuanced. I do see new challenges\r\nthat will stretch our ability and put our resourcefulness to the\r\ntest.
\r\nPage: 92
\r\n\r\n First, the trade-offs involved\r\nin our strategies are getting more stark, and the pay-offs becoming\r\nslimmer. My generation has seen improvements, but not necessarily\r\nthe quantum leap that our parents' generation had enjoyed compared\r\nto our grandparents' generation. That is inevitable, as we start\r\nfrom ever-higher bases. Whether it is landing new investments, creating\r\nnew jobs or incubating new engines of growth, we have to run fast\r\njust to stay in the same place, and faster still, if we want to\r\nget ahead of the competition.
\r\n\r\n Second, even the best conceived\r\nstrategies and policies are not immune to shortcomings in implementation,\r\ngaps in communication and sometimes, human error. Meanwhile, our\r\npeople are becoming better educated, and their expectations of government\r\ngreater. Society is becoming more complex and diverse. People rally around\r\na wider range of causes, and form expert opinions on issues close\r\nto their heart. Against this backdrop, the bar has risen considerably\r\nfor policy implementation and communication. Representatives of\r\ngovernment agencies who communicate policies and enforce rules on\r\nthe ground find themselves having to withstand the scrutiny of an increasingly\r\nsophisticated and involved public. Residents in my constituency,\r\nfor example, in their dealings with Government agencies and their\r\nrepresentatives, do not shy away from pointing out flaws in implementation,\r\nimperfections in the application of rules, or unsuitable choices\r\nof words and phrases. They do not hesitate to tell me how they think\r\nI can improve too, for which I am grateful.
\r\n\r\n Outreach and consultation\r\npresent new areas of challenge. People do want to have a say on\r\nthings that concern them and I have come to learn that this could\r\ninclude how openings should be constructed in the lift landing or\r\nwhere a road divider should be positioned exactly. Not to mention\r\nless tangible but possibly more far reaching policy like education,\r\nhealthcare and employment. Having gathered views – how to shape common\r\nunderstanding and how to formulate plans that the community can\r\ntake true ownership of, also require judgement and skill. Communications,\r\ntoo, are a challenge because it is not just about conveying information\r\nbut about fostering genuine understanding. To do all these well,\r\nrequires dedicated resources, large amounts of time and the right\r\nkind of people. But there are good reasons why we should take the\r\ntrouble and make the investment. In many areas, the Government does\r\nnot have a monopoly on good ideas. Tapping on the community's strengths\r\nand ideas often helps us realise better outcomes for all. I have\r\nseen many examples – the teaching of Mother Tongue, the organisation\r\nand delivery of special education, or something as everyday as re-organising\r\ntraffic flow in a housing estate.
\r\n\r\n Policies that are shaped and\r\nowned by the community also have better chances of retaining support\r\nand of being sustained. Improving on policy implementation, communications,\r\noutreach, and working hand-in-hand with the public – these, to me,\r\nare the demands of the \"new normal\".
\r\n\r\n It represents everyday challenges\r\nat many levels. For elected representatives, it means an even heavier\r\ninvestment in constituency work and ground presence. For Government\r\nagencies, it means a rebalancing of effort between conceptualisation\r\nand delivery, between planning and implementation. It means redefining\r\na set of skills, and equipping our officers with them.
\r\nPage: 93
\r\n\r\n For volunteers in our grassroots\r\nbodies, it means higher standards of service and commitment. Some\r\nwill say that these are all details. But details do not take care\r\nof themselves. Someone – and very possibly, many \"someones\" – have\r\nto do it. Many of the things that made Singapore great – and cleanliness\r\ncomes to mind as an example – are the results of many individuals\r\ncollectively looking after details, and sweating the small stuff.\r\nIt is the attention to detail and robustness in delivery that makes\r\nour system greater than the sum of its parts. It is one of the hallmarks\r\nthat keep Singapore unique, and a precious legacy to be handed over\r\nto the next generation.
\r\n\r\n I have said, Mr Speaker, that\r\nbetter implementation and outreach are the demands that stand before\r\nus. Meeting those demands, however, does not imply that the Government\r\nwill be able to deliver what every single citizen wants. No amount\r\nof consultation or outreach can guarantee every single person a\r\ndream home, for instance. There may also be instances where constraints\r\nof the law prevent us from meeting every individual's request. But\r\nI think we do owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to pursue\r\nevery possible opportunity to make things better.
\r\n\r\n These are the thoughts that\r\nmotivate me as I carry out my constituency work. They are also the\r\nthoughts that motivate me as I work on specific issues that I have\r\nbeen privileged to be involved in, all of which entail working closely\r\nwith the community.
\r\n\r\n One example is in strengthening\r\nthe education system and the schools' outreach to parents. As Vice-Chair\r\nof Community and Parents in Support of Schools (Compass), I have\r\nthe opportunity to meet and hear the views of many parents and individuals\r\nwho want to better understand what they have observed in schools\r\nor in their children's learning experience, and offer concrete suggestions\r\non how we can further strengthen our partnership with parents. On\r\nthe part of the Ministry of Education, we value such interactions\r\nhighly. We are actively thinking about how to scale up such interactions\r\nso as to be able to invite the insights and perspectives of more\r\nparticipants.
\r\n\r\n Another example close to my\r\nheart is the ongoing review of Special Education for students with\r\nspecial learning needs. This is an area in which many voluntary\r\nwelfare organisations (VWOs) and passionate individuals have left\r\ntheir mark, and with whom public sector agencies like the Ministry\r\nof Education, MCYS and the National Council of Social Services work\r\nin close partnership. My team is now actively tapping the views\r\nof many stakeholders in studying how best to improve the quality\r\nand accessibility of Special Education, enhance assistance to families\r\nwho need more help, and improve support for special needs students\r\nin the mainstream schools.
\r\n\r\n In the area of Mother Tongue\r\nteaching and learning, too, community efforts have played a key\r\nrole in supporting the efforts of schools and educators, and continue\r\nto do so. For example, the Malay Language Learning and Promotion\r\nCommittee (MLLPC), chaired by my colleague Senior Parliamentary\r\nSecretary, Mr Hawazi Daipi, has supported Malay language and literary\r\nactivities put together by various Malay community organisations,\r\nfor example debates and video-making competitions. Likewise, the\r\nTamil Language Learning and Promotion Committee (TLLPC), chaired\r\nby Minister Iswaran, had also worked extensively with various community\r\npartners to organise a wide range of programmes to promote the use\r\nof Tamil in the wider community, such as creating a radio jockey\r\nprogramme for students and holding a Tamil Language Festival in\r\nApril this year. Mr Speaker, with your leave I shall use Mandarin\r\nfor the rest of my speech.
\r\nPage: 94
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech,\r\nplease refer to Pg 140-141 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .]\r\nMr Speaker, after being elected as a MP, I was appointed as the\r\nHead of the Bi-cultural Working Group and took over the work of\r\nCommittee to Promote Chinese Language Learning. I am honoured to\r\njoin in the family of promoting Chinese learning, and discuss this\r\nimportant topic with many seniors, experts and community leaders\r\nwho are the in the Chinese teaching circle.
\r\n\r\n There are many changes over\r\nthe years in our Chinese learning environment. My parents are both\r\nChinese educated and I have some thoughts about this. I have consulted\r\nmany people in the cultural and education sector. Overall, we are\r\nall concerned about the level of the language and the learning environment.
\r\n\r\n I think I should be considered\r\na product of the bilingual education system in the 1980s. Looking\r\nback at my time, I actually envy today's students because both the condition\r\nand drive of learning Chinese are better today.
\r\n\r\n First, as China rises economically\r\nand exerts more influence in the world, Chinese parents, and even\r\nsome non-Chinese parents, are realising the importance of learning Chinese.\r\nAlthough some still feel it is difficult to learn, fewer and fewer\r\npeople think that Chinese has nothing to do with them or their children's\r\nfuture.
\r\n\r\n Second, the Internet and the\r\nfast flow of information have enabled Chinese learning more interesting\r\nand diversified, and further proved the vitality of the Chinese\r\nlanguage. I think many people still remember that, before computer\r\nand the Internet became popular, some questioned whether Chinese\r\nwould be rendered redundant in the digital era. Now time has proven\r\nthat Chinese not only has strong vitality but can also generate new\r\ncontent and new vocabulary. What we can learn and use has increased.
\r\n\r\n MOE is conducting reforms\r\nin Mother Tongue education, including Chinese, to cater to the strength\r\nand interests of each student and to make Chinese learning more enjoyable\r\nand practical. We hope each student can learn Mother Tongue to the\r\nfullest of his potential and reach the highest level that he can\r\nmanage.
\r\n\r\n With the support of the community,\r\nschools and teachers, MOE has come up with many new ideas, organising\r\nactivities such as writing and speaking competitions. Meanwhile,\r\nthey also use traditional textbooks such as Dizigui to inspire\r\nstudents to learn Chinese and create conducive Chinese-learning\r\nenvironment. Many efforts have been made.
\r\n\r\n Besides the condition and\r\ndrive of learning, we also need to consider how to maintain and\r\nimprove the standard. During our discussions, one question repeatedly\r\npops up – is it difficult to learn Chinese and be bilingual?
\r\n\r\n Personally, I feel this is\r\nnot a question that can be judged by itself. The key is whether we\r\nhave the environment. The environment is the combination of the\r\nschools, the community and the family. We continue to improve our\r\nschools and we have the strong support of the community. The family\r\nis perhaps the most important part.
\r\nPage: 95
\r\n\r\n How to create conducive Mother\r\nTongue environment at home according to the family's language background\r\nis a challenge to many parents, including myself. We can pool our\r\nideas and discuss this together. Fortunately, we constantly receive\r\nsuggestions from the public during our work. We are pleased to see\r\nthat many of them are young people who have benefited from our bilingual\r\npolicy. They love Chinese and feel deeply that mastering Mother\r\nTongue is crucial to the success of the future generation. I believe that,\r\nMother Tongue education will achieve better results with the support\r\nof the Government, the community and individuals, just like any\r\nother issue that we endeavour to solve.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, I am optimistic\r\nabout the New Normal and Singapore's future. I am pleased to read\r\nex-MP Goh Choon Kang's article on today's Zaobao, titled\r\n\"How to get the politics right\".
\r\n\r\n He said, \"To get the politics\r\nright, voters cannot be just bystanders; they must be active participants\r\nand supervisors. Most voters are mature and rational. This is the\r\nonly way to make sure rationality always retains the upper hand\r\nunder any circumstances.\"
\r\n\r\n His view confirms my experience\r\nfrom interacting with residents and the public. No matter if it\r\nis a constituency matter, or things under Government agency's purview,\r\nI see every criticism as an opportunity to make progress and every\r\nquestion an opportunity to promote communication. I also learned\r\nmuch knowledge and experience from these residents and the public.\r\nTheir feedback is not limited to pointing out where the Government\r\nhas not done enough. Where the Government has done well or improved, they\r\nalso acknowledge and give encouragement. The important thing is\r\nthat there are people who are willing to contribute ideas at the\r\nexpense of their own time and effort.
\r\n\r\n Government agencies must implement\r\npolicies diligently and communicate with the public in a clear and\r\nsincere manner. Hand in hand with the public, we must be able to build\r\na more cohesive society. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion to thank\r\nthe President's Address.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to the\r\nPresident for his speech delivered at the Opening of Parliament.\r\nThe President has outlined a clear plan, and statement of intent,\r\nfor upholding the values of our society, while growing the economy\r\nto deliver a better life for all Singaporeans. It should hopefully\r\nincrease the happiness quotient for our nation. It may seem odd\r\nto raise on this occasion, certain aspects of the recent Presidential\r\nElection, which caused some confusion and even unhappiness. But\r\nthe President's Opening Speech is a timely reminder of the critical\r\nrole he plays in our system of Government, and these issues are simply\r\ntoo important to overlook.
\r\n\r\n I would like to highlight\r\nthree aspects of the Presidential Election, namely, one – the qualifications\r\nto be elected as President; two – the duties and powers of the President; and\r\nthree – the manner in which the elections should be run.
\r\n\r\n Taking first the qualifications\r\nto be elected as President, the recent contest threw up some interesting\r\nposers. While certain criteria such as serving previously as a Minister were\r\nclear, others were less clear. Does the reference to a chairman\r\nin the same breath as a chief executive officer, connote an executive\r\nchairman as opposed to one who held a non-executive role? The difference\r\nis more than one of semantics, when one considers that the nation\r\nis looking for a candidate with the requisite experience and ability\r\nto manage the affairs of a sizeable entity.
\r\nPage: 96
\r\n\r\n The posers did not stop there.\r\nShould a co-operative equate to a company incorporated under the\r\nCompanies Act? And perhaps the issue that sparked the most controversy\r\nunder this head – did a senior position in a fund management company, which\r\nhad assets under management but not paid-up capital of over $100\r\nmillion, constitute a similar or comparable position so as to qualify\r\nthe person to run for President? The candidate in question was himself\r\nquoted in the media as having been surprised, albeit pleasantly,\r\nthat he got his certificate of eligibility.
\r\n\r\n It is worth pointing out that\r\nthe assessment of whether a candidate is in a similar or comparable\r\nposition is made by a three-member Presidential Elections Committee, whose\r\ndecision is final and not subject to appeal or review in any court\r\nof law.
\r\n\r\n I do not seek to criticise\r\nthe actual decisions of the Presidential Elections Committee, whose\r\nmembers are all of impeccable standing. But it seems incongruous\r\nthat on something so fundamental as the qualifications to be President,\r\nthere should be a wide range of views on what falls within and without\r\nthe statutory criteria. And that the issue would be decided by three\r\nindividuals, no matter how wise, without review by any other body.
\r\n\r\n Based on the precedent set\r\nin this recent election, there is a whole host of non-executive\r\nchairmen and hedge fund managers that could harbour hopes of eligibility, should\r\nthey decide to run for President in 2017. In fact, each assessment\r\nby the Presidential Elections Committee is specific to the individual\r\ncandidate, so they may very well be disappointed. But this itself\r\nwould lead to further queries as why one candidate is eligible and\r\nanother, in another similar or similar-sounding position, is not.
\r\n\r\n More significantly, was it\r\nthe intention of Parliament to have such a wide range of persons\r\nwho would be qualified to run for President? The government of the\r\nday should review the situation and consider if greater clarity\r\n– whether to make the group of potential candidates narrower or\r\nwider – should be introduced. It is simply too critical an issue\r\nto be left open to interpretation.
\r\n\r\n The next aspect I would raise\r\nis that of the functions of the President. In the run-up to, and\r\nduring, the actual campaign period, voters were confronted with\r\nthe rather unsettling spectacle of candidates coming up with different\r\nviews as to what the President could or could not do. We even saw\r\na couple of candidates, none of whom are legally-trained or citing\r\nany legal authority, disagreeing with remarks made by the Minister\r\nfor Law as to the scope of the powers of the President.
\r\n\r\n As a lawyer myself, I do consider\r\nthat the Constitution is clear on the functions and duties of the\r\nPresident. I also believe the majority of voters were not confused,\r\nand voted for their choice of candidate according to the role laid\r\ndown by the Constitution. Rather than to use the words of one candidate,\r\nthe role that some of them would \"like to have\". However, there\r\nis no telling how many voters were genuinely confused, or even misled, about\r\nwhat the President could do for them. And it certainly had an impact\r\non the way the respective campaigns were carried out, which is the\r\nlast aspect to which I turn.
\r\nPage: 97
\r\n\r\n The role of the President\r\nwas conceived clearly as a non-political one, so as to unite all\r\nsegments of society. To that end, the Constitution provides that\r\nthe President shall not be a Member of Parliament nor even a member\r\nof a political party. It was probably envisaged that the election\r\nof the President would be on that basis, as exemplified by the only\r\nprevious contest involving the late Dr Ong Teng Cheong where the\r\nfocus was on the candidate's credentials and experience. However,\r\nit was perhaps inevitable that any form of election would be susceptible\r\nto politicking and campaign tactics.
\r\n\r\n Given the different views\r\nthe candidates held of the powers and duties of the President, this\r\nspilled over into some candidates promising to raise issues which\r\nwere more akin to those to be raised by Parliamentarians or political\r\nparties, and one candidate even spoke of promoting the profile of\r\nnon-PAP forces. Added to the fact that all four candidates had been\r\nmembers of political parties, three of them until shortly before\r\nthe election, and one of whom who actually contested in the last\r\nGeneral Elections in May this year, and the election of our supposedly\r\nnon-political President had strong political overtones to it.
\r\n\r\n I ask whether this the best\r\nprocess by which we elect our head of state to be a unifying figure\r\nfor those of different race, religion and political persuasion.\r\nShould criteria be introduced to require a candidate not to have\r\nbeen a member of a political party for a minimum period of years,\r\nand not to have taken part in any political activities or contested\r\nan election in that time? Should limitations be placed on the sort\r\nof campaigning candidates can engage in, so that it stays non-political\r\nand they do not promise to do something if elected, which is not\r\nlegally within their powers?
\r\n\r\n I believe the electorate have\r\nas a whole voted wisely and well in the recent Presidential Election.\r\nBut that does not mean that these issues should not be addressed. The\r\nrole of the President, and the election of the best person for that\r\nrole, is far too important to leave things as they are. And changes\r\nshould be introduced well before the next Presidential Election\r\nin 2017, so that the position is made clear to all, detached from the\r\nhubris of a national election. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address was very thought-provoking,\r\nand very timely. It transcends and reaches out to all segments of\r\nSingapore society: young and old; rich and poor; Malays, Chinese,\r\nIndians and all others; and Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans. The\r\nAddress calls for an all embracing and inclusive approach. I therefore\r\nhave the pleasure to humbly support the Motion of thanks to the\r\nPresident for his Address.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, before I\r\ndwell on a key issue raised in the President's Address which is\r\nclose to my heart and which is relevant to my constituents and Singaporeans\r\nas a whole, please permit me to say this. Many people thought I\r\nwill never be here. A few were surprised by our stamina in trying\r\nto get here. But, I am here today and I wish to thank the residents\r\nof Potong Pasir for their support and for making this possible.\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I will now, with all humility, get to the real\r\nbusiness.
\r\nPage: 98
\r\n\r\n Sir, the President in his\r\nAddress in speaking about senior citizens, said very emphatically,\r\nand I quote: \"Your generation did much to build today's Singapore.…You deserve\r\nour full support. Your CPF savings and HDB flat will help to take\r\ncare of your basic needs. We will help you to remain active and\r\nhealthy, keep healthcare affordable and ease the burden on your\r\nfamilies who are caring for you.\"
\r\n\r\n One in 11 Singaporeans or\r\n9% of our resident population is over the age of 65. By 2030, our\r\nnation will face a \"silver tsunami\" when this ratio will be one\r\nin five. In 2012, the first cohort of Baby Boomers born in 1947\r\nwill turn 65 years old. The ageing rate will rise from 4% per annum\r\nto 6% per annum. On the other end of the pendulum, we have on average\r\n8.5 births to every 1,000 persons. The fertility rate is about 1.11%.
\r\n\r\n The scene is unfolding in\r\nsuch a dramatic way that it will not be very long before where instead\r\nof the young having to care for the old as it is now, the old may\r\nhave to care for themselves and maybe the young. This is indeed\r\na very serious issue which requires soul searching and comprehensive\r\nplans to deal with. Time is running against us. We cannot stop the\r\nclock. For me, this is an issue very close to home. In Potong Pasir, the\r\npercentage of older persons is much higher than the national average. Approximately\r\n37% of residents in Potong Pasir are 50 years and above. As of May\r\nthis year, we have more than 600 residents who are above the age\r\nof 80 years in our very small community.
\r\n\r\n The late mercurial Steve Jobs\r\nhad this to say about facing one's end, \"No one wants to die. Even\r\npeople who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there.\r\nAnd yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped\r\nit. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the\r\nsingle best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent.\"
\r\n\r\n Against this canvas, a lot\r\nneeds to be done, and done now. In Potong Pasir, we have plans to\r\nestablish an Active Ageing Centre. This is to engage more senior\r\ncitizens to stay healthy physically and mentally and to interact\r\nsocially. To do this, various activities will be planned to reach\r\nout to them. We want to make them feel that they are wanted, they are\r\nneeded, they will be cared for and that they will not be left alone.
\r\n\r\n In Potong Pasir, we are proud\r\nto have our very own St Andrew's Village. The St Andrew's Village\r\norganises many activities to bond our community, including caring\r\nfor our young and our elderly. They engage our senior citizens with\r\nmeaningful leisure activities and forge friendships among our elderly.\r\nWe hope to work more with organisations such as St Andrew's Village.
\r\n\r\n In caring for our elderly,\r\nthe family must also play their part. In mapping out and putting\r\ntogether our programmes, we must ensure that relationships in the\r\ncommunity will be strengthened. Everyone will be made to feel wanted.\r\nEveryone must begin to care for one another, whether it be a family\r\nmember or a neighbour. After all, as Mother Theresa said, \"Love\r\nbegins at home.\"
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not\r\nkitchen table wisdom. It is my hope and my dream. I am going to\r\nwork on it and achieve it. There is a Chinese proverb: \"The glory\r\nis not in never failing, but rising every time you fail.\" Sir, as\r\nyou know, history can be made by attempting the impossible. Our\r\nolder generation did. That is why Singapore is where it is today.\r\nI, too, believe in it. But, Sir, miracles take a little longer.
\r\nPage: 99
\r\n\r\n Just like we owe a mountain\r\nof debt and gratitude to our older generation for all that they\r\ndid, the sacrifices they made and the sufferings they endured, at\r\nleast if we tried, successive generations will also thank us for\r\nit. We may make mistakes. There is nothing wrong. Mistake is a patient\r\nteacher.
\r\n\r\n Sir, our Government has long\r\nrecognised the ageing issue. Active steps have been and are being\r\ntaken. Constructive programmes have been and are being put in place. The\r\napproach at the national level will have to be a holistic one. Ageing\r\naffects not only health and well-being but also brings about educational,\r\nsocial, economic and cultural issues to the forefront.
\r\n\r\n The Ministry of Community\r\nDevelopment, Youth and Sports (MCYS) set up the Council for the\r\nThird Age to promote active ageing. The Council initiated the flagship 50Plus\r\nExpo and Active Ageing Festival and Active Ager Awards. MCYS also\r\nintroduced the Caregiver Training Grant in 2007. This helps to defray\r\nthe costs for caregivers and assist them in acquiring the necessary\r\nskills to care for their loved ones.
\r\n\r\n The People's Association,\r\nin turn, runs a Wellness Programme which aims to have a target to\r\nreach out to one in two Singaporeans aged 50 and above by 2014.\r\nThe Programme encourages seniors to participate in local interest\r\ngroups and leverages on a range of social and community activities.
\r\n\r\n The ageing issue is not only\r\nstaring down at us. Even other First-World countries like Japan\r\nhave to face this head on. Japan, which has the highest rate of\r\nsenior citizens known for their longevity, has, as a nation and\r\na community, long put in national and domestic measures to help\r\ntheir senior citizens stay actively engaged and grow old in dignity.\r\nWhilst the country's pensions, healthcare and welfare services are\r\nfeeling the strain, they are still taking steps to care for the\r\naged.
\r\n\r\n According to an article in TODAY on\r\nSunday, 16 October 2011, the Japanese elderly population needing\r\nnursing care is projected to reach 5.69 million by 2015. The article quotes\r\nthe British Guardian newspaper as saying: \"Other countries\r\nare encouraging immigration to solve their demographic woes, but\r\nnot Japan, which is instead developing an extraordinary array of\r\nhigh-tech products and services.\"
\r\n\r\n Cars with dashboards with\r\nlarge numbers and letters, swivelling seats that make it easier\r\nto get in and out, bicycles designed and geared for arthritic hands,\r\nsupermarket aisles widened for motorised wheelchairs, etc, etc,\r\nare some examples. There is a lot we can learn from the Japanese\r\nexperience now so that we are well ahead of the curve. We should\r\nfind enough lessons and experience to chart our own programmes,\r\nso that our seniors will be well taken care of and can live with\r\nwhat the Japanese call \"ikigai\" which means \"making life\r\nworth living\".
\r\n\r\n Sir, I know that like me,\r\nmany Singaporeans will not turn a blind eye to the problems of our\r\nelderly that need to be addressed on a very urgent basis and in\r\na constructive way. We will remember the philosopher, Panin's instructive\r\nwords: \"In youth, the days are short and the years are long; in\r\nold age, the years are short and the days are long.\" We will all\r\nget there one day.
\r\nPage: 100
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, I end as\r\nI began. We all got here the hard way. The journey has been tough.\r\nBut it has prepared us for the even tougher road ahead. It may be\r\ndaunting but Singaporeans have the nerve and fibre to stand up and\r\nface any challenge that comes their way. We will all succeed if\r\nwe remain united in dealing with anything that confronts us. I am\r\nconfident of that. It can be seen in the eyes and faces of us all\r\nwhen we stand up for our flag, our national anthem and our older\r\ngeneration. With that, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion wholeheartedly.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, just as with my fellow Members before me, it gives\r\nme great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Motion\r\nof Thanks to the President.
\r\n\r\n In his Address to Parliament,\r\nthe President spoke on the theme of a home we share and a future\r\nwe build together. He spoke on the challenges of growth amidst the\r\ncurrent flux in the global economy but pointed out also and I quote,\r\n\"that we have a well diversified financially sound and competitive\r\neconomy. We have a well-educated, hardworking workforce\". The President,\r\nalso in his concluding remarks, emphasised that as a nation, we\r\nhave achieved something unique in the world – that of a multi-racial city\r\nliving in harmony. On this note, Sir, if you may allow me to divide\r\nmy speech into two areas: the first focusing on the economy and\r\nits impact on young professional managers and executives (PMEs).\r\nI will speak separately in Mandarin on the challenges of ensuring\r\na continued focus on our cultural heritage while maintaining a strong cohesive\r\nmulticultural and multi-ethnic society.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the current\r\nglobal economy is a proverbial yo-yo: one minute up, the next minute\r\ndown. Even amidst the strong fundamentals that we have built in Singapore,\r\nwe have just narrowly avoided a technical recession in the third\r\nquarter of this year. Yet, I hasten to add that compared to the\r\nrest of the world economy, our growth rate is still stable. Recent\r\njob creation statistics in the United States have improved for the\r\nfirst time in many months and should have been a source of celebration.\r\nIt has shown that the US economy, still the single largest in the\r\nworld, is performing better than expected. In September 2011 alone,\r\nalmost 103,000 jobs were reported as being created, an almost two-fold\r\nimprovement from the Labor Department statistics in August 2011.
\r\n\r\n Yet, Sir, the realities\r\nsince Lehman Brothers have been that the unemployment rate in the\r\nUS has stayed stuck at 9.1%, with about 14 million jobless, more\r\nthan twice the population of Singapore. The 100,000 jobs in September,\r\nto put things in perspective, are nothing more than a drop in the\r\nocean, akin to fighting a forest fire with a garden hose. A further\r\nimportant note in the quagmire of statistics is that of the 103,000 reported\r\njobs added back into the US economy, close to 50,000 were due to\r\nworkers returning from strike action, not new jobs at all. In essence,\r\nit was a recovery that was very much a non-event. Far more troubling,\r\nof course, is the Summer 2011 report by the Labor Department again\r\nthat youth unemployment now stands at a total of 4.1 million in\r\nthe United States.
\r\nPage: 101
\r\n\r\n The Euro zone debt crisis\r\nalso continues to loom large over global financial stability. Coming\r\non the back of the 2008 crisis, the second hit is seen to have come\r\ntoo soon. Unemployment in the Euro zone has continued to climb and\r\nit is particularly sobering that a staggering 46.2% of youths in\r\nSpain alone are now unemployed. Greece is not far behind. For much\r\nof the EU, cash-flow is now deemed to mean \"the movement of money\r\nas it makes its way down the toilet\".
\r\n\r\n On the home front, the situation\r\nis rosier. The unemployment situation in Singapore has remained\r\nstable, at about 2%. Our fundamentals remain strong and, amongst younger\r\nSingaporeans, our labour force participation rates remain stable\r\nat 89.4% for those aged 25 to 29, and 89% for those aged 30 to 34.\r\nHigher education amongst younger Singaporeans has also kept them\r\nmobile in the job market compared to their seniors. And a recent\r\ndevelopment is that a far larger proportion is now employed as PMEs.\r\nHowever, Sir, just as Mr Yeo Guat Kwang, the Member for Ang Mo Kio\r\nGRC, had mentioned earlier, I have had the opportunity to hear from\r\nmany young workers, both from trade unions as well as from my residents\r\nin the constituency over the past few months. A common refrain has\r\nbeen concerns over the future of our economy as well as the stability\r\nof the job market. Although a significant proportion of our graduating students\r\nfrom polytechnics as well as universities continue to be able to\r\nfind suitable employment, a growing number is feeling the strain\r\nof both global competition as well as decreasing job security. A\r\nrecent straw poll of 200 young respondents showed that 70% did not\r\nthink that the world economy has recovered since 2009. A further\r\n50% were least optimistic when asked to project the economic performance\r\nof the world economy for 2012. During a recent focus group discussion,\r\na large proportion of time was spent discussing the challenges faced\r\nby young contract workers. Dismiss the current notion of contract\r\nwork as that of older workers or low-wage workers alone. Contract\r\nhire has been the norm in many western economies for PMEs as well.\r\nIn Singapore, this preference for contractors has only recently\r\nseen a rise in demand amongst employers.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, in a Business\r\nTimes article on 11 October 2011, the title read and I quote,\r\n\"contract workers become more attractive to MNCs\". The article alluded\r\nto the fact that more MNCs as well as local companies are beginning\r\nto hire staff on contract basis. Following the Lehman crisis, the\r\nlap to downsizing by many companies, including MNCs in Singapore,\r\na new trend has been to move towards the hiring of short-term contractors\r\nto shift headcount costs to become a variable rather than a fixed\r\ncost. This arrangement works well for some PMEs, young PMEs in particular,\r\nwho gain greater exposure and are able to explore more horizons\r\nin their early career. Flexibility is also an added bonus for them.\r\nHowever, the reality hits home for some, when rolling contracts\r\nmean that career progression and employment benefits are curtailed.\r\nWhile there are many enlightened employers, many young PMEs on contract\r\nfind themselves losing out to their peers on permanent employment\r\nin terms of job security as well as benefits.
\r\n\r\n A working contract, in itself,\r\nis not evil. Many young workers thrive on it. The problem, frankly,\r\nbecomes finding the next job and putting yourself out there on the market.\r\nThe other issue, however, is the fairness of contracts as well as\r\nwhether young workers are aware of their contractual obligations\r\nas well as the type of contracts they have entered into. In our\r\nenthusiasm to start work, I believe that many of us, Sir, have plunged\r\ninto our first job with the eagerness of children in a sweet shop,\r\nonly to find that we have inadvertently ended up in a sweat shop\r\ninstead. While many employers provide their contractors with leave\r\nand even medical benefits comparable to permanent staff, these appear\r\nto be few and far between. Many young workers on contract continue\r\nto sacrifice employment benefits in looking for contract work and\r\nthis may lead to long-term issues. One young lady I spoke to was\r\ntroubled by how she would be treated by her employers should she\r\nsettle down and start a family. She was genuinely worried that her\r\ncontract would not be renewed, should she get pregnant and that\r\nher employer may still legitimately decide not to renew her contract.\r\nA young IT professional was equally worried about finding the next\r\nproject within the industry, with it becoming increasingly crowded\r\nout. Another felt that after two renewals, he seems to have lagged behind\r\nhis peers in career progression when compared to those on permanent employment.
\r\nPage: 102
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, these are\r\njust some of the many feedback that young workers have provided\r\nrecently and represents a microcosm of the bigger issues faced by\r\nthem. Sir, I am heartened that come January 2012, PMEs will be able\r\nto receive limited representations under new guidelines. This change\r\nrecognises the changing demography of our workforce with PMEs soon\r\nbecoming the rank-and-file of today. In fact, based on the labour\r\nforce survey by the Ministry of Manpower, the share of young PMETs\r\nin the age band of 25 to 29 has increased significantly from 55%\r\nin 1999 to 69% in 2009. Sir, it is in this vein that I sincerely\r\nurge the Ministry of Manpower to continue to look into the issue\r\nof contract work, especially the challenges it poses for young PMEs.\r\nI further urge the Ministry to consider a set of guidelines to ensure\r\nthat young workers in particular are not taken advantage of, should\r\nthey be in contract hires and to expand the information base contained\r\nwithin MOM's Career Compass initiative.
\r\n\r\n Unlike in many countries,\r\nyouth employment in Singapore is decidedly optimistic. Although\r\nsome may point to a shrinking youth presence in the workforce at\r\nonly about 36%, this is because youths in Singapore have delayed\r\nrather than having been denied entry into the labour market due\r\nto more furthering their education. At the same time, maintaining\r\nflexibility in the economy and job market is important, especially\r\nwith a volatile global financial situation. But this must never\r\nbe at the expense of the basic rights of workers, young or old.\r\nWe must continue to work together to ensure a dynamic future-ready\r\nworkforce. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to continue my speech\r\nin Mandarin.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Mandarin): [For Mandarin speech,\r\nplease refer to Pg 142-143 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .]\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I feel heartened to hear the President's speech\r\nin Parliament last week. The President said, \"For the younger generation,\r\nSingapore will be the place for you to pursue your dreams and realise\r\nyour future. We hope that you will have the right healthy values.\r\nThese are the factors that helped Singapore achieve success, and they\r\nare what are needed in today's society.\"
\r\n\r\n I personally believe, in\r\norder to strengthen young Singaporeans' national identity and sense\r\nof belonging, we must reinforce the cultural essence and values\r\nof various races. As we move ahead with the times, our society is\r\ngradually becoming more westernised. This is also one reason for\r\nour success. We act as the bridge between Oriental and Western cultures,\r\nplaying matchmaker between two great civilizations. Singapore created\r\na joyous society and prosperous economy on the basis of bilingualism\r\nand bi-culturalism.
\r\nPage: 103
\r\n\r\n At the same time, although\r\nthe western system of education and values are not bad, we must\r\nnot forget that we need to preserve our own traditional culture.\r\nFurthermore, we should not forget that the purpose of preserving\r\nour traditional values is to reflect our unique identity, to show\r\nthat we have undergone soul-searching in our development, and have\r\ndiscovered a different sense of aesthetics, a unique sense of being\r\nSingaporean.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe\r\nthat regardless of whether we are Chinese, Malays or Indians, all\r\nof us have our unique traditions. If we do not understand our roots,\r\nit will be difficult to understand our future. Our multi-culturalism\r\nmust be an important factor in promoting cultural prosperity and\r\nprogress in our civilization. As we create a unique Singapore culture,\r\nvarious races must not only engage in cultural exchanges and integration,\r\nbut also preserve and perfect their individual cultures. The latter\r\nforms the basis of the former. Hence, the traditional culture of\r\nevery race is important. When a nation has a vibrant culture, a\r\npowerful cohesive force can then be formed, as it is our roots.
\r\n\r\n Last year, in its review\r\nof the teaching of Mother Tongue, the Ministry of Education also\r\nemphasised that Mother Tongue is the channel whereby different races\r\nlearn about their own traditions and the roots of Asian culture.\r\nI sincerely urge the Ministry of Education to continue to place\r\nemphasis on developing the teaching of Mother Tongue languages,\r\nto ensure that students' passion for learning their Mother Tongue\r\nis reinforced, even in the face of changing trends both domestically\r\nand abroad. Promoting culture is also an avenue to promote the learning\r\nof our Mother Tongue.
\r\n\r\n Meanwhile, I hope that the\r\nMinistry of Information, Communications and the Arts can enhance\r\ntheir assistance for traditional culture. Many cultural groups of\r\nvarious races face economic pressure, and have also encountered\r\ndifficulties in securing performance venues. The clan associations\r\nalso play an important role. National Heritage Board should also\r\nconsider helping disappearing traditional trades, for example, shops\r\nselling traditional Teochew opera costumes. As the Chinese saying\r\ngoes, every trade has its scholars, likewise, every trade also contains\r\nour cultural roots.
\r\n\r\n I would like to urge the\r\nInter Racial and Religious Circles under MCYS to reinforce our youth's\r\nunderstanding of different races and religion, in order to preserve\r\nthe foundatio-n for social harmony in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir,\r\nSingapore is a multi-cultural small nation, but I believe that inheriting\r\nand preserving the different cultures of our various races has great\r\nbenefits. Through understanding their own roots, young Singaporeans can\r\nappreciate social harmony in Singapore better, and this will strengthen\r\ntheir national identity and sense of belonging.
\r\n\r\n (In English): Our\r\nnation is constantly evolving. Our economy continues to have a strong\r\nfoundation and we have a cohesive society that has weathered many\r\nstorms and emerged stronger. As aptly put by the President, and\r\nI quote, \"these shared trials have strengthened our bonds and helped\r\nus to mature as a nation\". Yet we must not take things for granted.\r\nNo one can predict for certain the surprises that will come our\r\nway. We must continue to build an even stronger and more united\r\ncountry where the interests and rights of workers are protected,\r\nwhere industry can grow and society can grow stronger and more united\r\namidst our diversity. This is our home which we share and our home\r\nis where we will be. Our future is also what we build together.\r\nOn that note, Sir, I support the Motion and I thank the House.
\r\nPage: 104
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's\r\nOffice (Mr Heng Chee How)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, thank\r\nyou for allowing me to speak on the Motion to thank the President for\r\nhis Address. This Address reaffirms the Government's commitment\r\nto create a better life for all Singaporeans and, indeed, through\r\nthat, to pursue their happiness. The vision is inclusive. It is\r\nnot easy to achieve but achieve it we must. Earlier, when I heard\r\nMs Sylvia Lim talk about happiness and how we should pursue it for\r\nthis country, it is something that we should put our heads together\r\nfor and I would certainly like, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if she could\r\nalso share with us further in terms of what might be the suggestions\r\nand the ideas to pursue this happiness in the specifics. Also, she\r\nmentioned the relationship, through a study with regards to the\r\ntotal fertility as well as housing prices and that, therefore, created\r\na nexus on the economic front and yet growth and happiness, according\r\nto her, is supposed to be not related or not pursued this way. So, economics\r\nwhere it works, drives up the housing prices, maybe on the one hand,\r\nbut it also creates the jobs and the pay. So that moves in tandem\r\nand I also like to understand basically how the relationship between\r\ngrowth and happiness will then work out in her scheme of things.
\r\n\r\n Sir, but to me a key enabler\r\nfor a good life for Singaporeans is the availability of good jobs,\r\njobs that pay well and jobs that have safe, balanced working conditions\r\nthat we can be proud of. How do we get these jobs for Singaporeans?\r\nBy attracting and supporting companies that create such jobs and\r\nmaking sure that Singaporeans can do the jobs and have good access\r\nto them. This, in turn, means that we must ensure that the conditions for\r\ninvestment and growth stay positive and that we are bold in investing\r\nin our infrastructure, our workforce capability, our competitiveness\r\nand our inclusiveness. It also means that we must be resolute in\r\nferreting out practices that are sub-standard and that hamper our\r\nprogress economically and socially, and restructure them away.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has come this\r\nfar not by blindly or meekly mimicking others. We have done so by\r\nbeing crystal clear about our own strengths and limitations and\r\nby playing to our strengths and positioning ourselves to be useful\r\nto others. In the immediate post-Cold War decades where many countries\r\nwere still pursuing import substitution, and when we have lost our\r\nhinterland, we chose the path of export-led growth. There were risks\r\nin doing so. We had no particular natural attractiveness to external\r\ninvestments. Yet, we were bold and dared to be different from the\r\nrest of the world, not out of bravado or delusion but out of necessity\r\nand the searing desire to survive and make a better future. We were\r\nalso thoroughly practical – good intention and rousing rhetoric\r\ndo not put food on the table. We must create the basic conditions\r\nand these included tripartism for industrial peace and agility to\r\nrespond to changing circumstances, the EDB venturing out into the\r\nworld to pull in investments, configuring our systems, policies,\r\nregulations to maximise overall effectiveness and efficiencies for\r\nboth local and foreign businesses, educating and training the population\r\nto have the skills to do the jobs and therefore be employed, improving\r\nand safeguarding the health of our people so that we can strengthen\r\nconfidence and morale. The result was fast expansion of the economy,\r\nrising household incomes and sustained improvement in the standard\r\nof living for the majority. With more resources, the Government\r\nwas able to re-invest further to gear up our infrastructure and\r\nprogrammes for the next phase of development and to care and share\r\nmore with Singaporeans, especially with the lower-income citizens.
\r\nPage: 105
\r\n\r\n Economic expansion was never\r\nfor its own sake but growth was the means to a better life for Singaporeans.\r\nThe outcome for Singaporeans is very different from that experienced\r\nby citizens of many other small island nations in the post-war decades.\r\nThis is an outcome that is neither universal nor pre-ordained. Over\r\ntime, things change. Our economy has grown and outgrown the size\r\nof our local workforce. The workforce became more stratified with\r\ngrowing professional and white-collar segments alongside a lower\r\nskilled base. International competition for the investment dollar\r\ngreatly intensified. Technology changed rapidly and industries and\r\njobs were re-structured and de-layered. Lifelong employment was\r\nno longer assured. Costs in Singapore rose. At the same time, the\r\npeople became better educated, better travelled. Expectations for\r\nquality jobs in pay and working conditions and for social infrastructure,\r\nlike housing, transport and recreation rose. There was also a growing\r\nyearning across different arenas for what might be called \"explicit\r\nfairness\", characterised by level playing fields, transparency, accountability\r\nand decency. And just as the saying goes, \"justice must not only\r\nbe done but be seen to be done\" and so, too, Singaporeans demand\r\nfor policies, programmes and politics to be conceived and conducted\r\nwith both sense and sensibility.
\r\n\r\n We must, therefore, strive\r\ntogether for bold investment into our collective future, building\r\nupon our strengths in logical thinking and yet doing it in new ways\r\nto embrace the new social and emotional desires of Singaporeans.\r\nI remind us to strike this balance and be grounded in the reality\r\nof our vulnerabilities because our future must not be constructed\r\non a misunderstanding or a neglect of fact. It must be one that\r\nallows us to know of our limitations and yet find smart ways to\r\ntranscend them. And so, there must be a healthy tension between\r\nour not confusing ourselves as a small economy as a lizard would\r\nbe to a bigger economy of crocodile and yet not short-changing ourselves\r\nby behaving like a worm when we could be a caterpillar with the\r\ndestiny of a butterfly.
\r\n\r\n In recent days, there have\r\nbeen calls for a global movement to occupy Wall Street or its equivalent\r\nin cities around the world in reaction to the woes caused by the\r\nfinancial markets. I recall sometime back that the people in a certain\r\nSouth American country took to the streets bearing pots and pans\r\nto protest against the high unemployment they were suffering from\r\nas a result of economic weakness and mismanagement. We certainly\r\nsee on our TV screens the riots and damage that the austerity measures\r\nin some EU countries have sparked recently. These outpourings of\r\nhuman anger and frustration result from the failure of governments\r\nand society to adapt to changing times and of those who exchanged\r\nlong-term good for short-term pleasure and of living beyond one's\r\nmeans. Hence, we must remind ourselves that refusing to change and mimicking\r\nothers blindly are both dangerous and potentially fatal mindsets.\r\nInstead, we must consider carefully how we can improve, adapt and\r\nthen power ahead.
\r\n\r\n Time does not permit me\r\nto dwell deeply into too many areas and I will just raise three\r\nfor discussion. First, on tripartism. Tripartism has brought industrial\r\npeace and economic progress to Singapore and Singaporeans have benefited\r\nand this is not automatic. The tripartite partners understood the\r\nbasic truths that if investors, whether local or foreign, have to\r\nworry constantly whether their businesses in Singapore would be\r\ndisrupted or their factories burned down, they will go elsewhere.\r\nAnd if they go, the jobs go. We also knew that if workers of any\r\nsegment feel that they have been pushed into a corner with little\r\nfairness and no prospect, then it is a time bomb that must eventually\r\nexplode. Our tripartism is, therefore, constructed upon a clear-eyed understanding\r\nof the realities and the need to find a mechanism and an enduring\r\nset of trustworthy relations to achieve stable, win-win outcomes\r\nover an extended period.
\r\nPage: 106
\r\n\r\n Tripartism has served us\r\nwell. In good times, it has given us the platform to agree on productivity\r\nand competitiveness improvement and gain-sharing. In bad times,\r\nit has granted us the responsiveness and agility to act quickly\r\nand decisively to minimise the pain for workers and for companies.\r\nWhat we have achieved in real outcomes is admired by many in the\r\ninternational community. For example, many countries knew of our\r\nJobs Credit and SPUR programmes. They knew the logic of these arrangements\r\nand they also knew that their countrymen and companies would have\r\nbenefited if similar actions were taken in their case. But the fact\r\nwas that they could not get their social partners to come together\r\nto work for the collective good nor did they have the resources\r\nto do so because their countries were mired in debt. As a result,\r\nwhile Singapore came through the storm with relatively lower retrenchment\r\nfigures and a low unemployment rate, many OECD countries were stuck\r\nwith unemployment ranging from 5%-10% and youth unemployment ranging\r\nfrom 20%-45%. This is but one of the many examples of how Singapore's\r\ntripartism has quietly but surely given us a competitive advantage\r\nand a refuge through the decades.
\r\n\r\n Yet there are those who\r\nmight doubt the authenticity of our tripartism. They say that it\r\nis too quietly done. They do not know what is going on and they\r\nwant to see more of what is actually happening. I spoke recently\r\nto a group of senior civil servants on this subject. I said that\r\nperhaps a traditional approach of our tripartism was like a three-in-one\r\ncoffee mix. It is good coffee, premixed for quick use and convenience.\r\nBut I observe that in today's context many people buy expensive\r\ncoffee machines. You stick a capsule of beans into the machine and\r\nyou press the button and you hear this grinding sound that the machine\r\nmakes as it works on the beans and then out comes the coffee, and then\r\nyou say, \"Ah, this coffee is fresh and good.\" So, I think that there\r\nis a need for tripartism to also adapt to the changing mindset and\r\nexpectation. It is fine for the social partners to share more of\r\nhow each one thinks and what feedback its respective constituencies\r\nare giving. But let us be clear that the quality of the coffee lies\r\nnot in how much grind you hear but in the quality of the bean and\r\nthe mix. Never let our tripartism go the way of that in many other\r\ncountries, bogged down by players' incessant bickering, posturing\r\nwhile the common people suffer and see their jobs evaporate. Mistaking\r\none for the other is to mistake heat for light, form for substance\r\nand rhetoric for solution.
\r\n\r\n Sir, next, I would like\r\nto speak on social capital, in particular on the Wellness programme.\r\nI spoke earlier of the boldness and insight of going into export-led\r\ngrowth, unafraid of going against the trend of the world at that\r\npoint because we knew ourselves well. We also knew where we needed\r\nto head. That was certainly not the only example. Changi Airport,\r\nJurong Island, our MRT system, even the 3G SAF. These are strategic decisions\r\nthat do not come by just looking at existing data and options and\r\ndoing number crunching. These game-changing decisions do not just\r\noptimise for more efficiency. They do not even just innovate on\r\nwhat already exist. They create a new reality and for that they\r\nrequire insight, foresight and gumption, in short, strong leadership.\r\nWe must continue to have the courage to invest ahead in infrastructure,\r\nin capability and capacity to address the emerging needs of society\r\nproactively. This will help Singapore find ways to punch above our\r\nweight and avoid drifting willy-nilly into the league of the \"no\r\ndifferent from other nations\" or worse still, into the company of countries\r\nthat are constantly fire-fighting to fix problems but with decreasing\r\nsuccess.
\r\nPage: 107
\r\n\r\n A key investment that Singapore\r\nmust make is into our ageing population and Mr Sitoh Yih Pin has\r\nspoken a lot about that just now. Today, there are about 300,000 Singaporeans\r\naged above 65. By 2030, there will be 900,000. Knowing this, we\r\nmust create a Singapore that embraces advancing years with a positive\r\nattitude so that Singaporeans may live long, live well and live\r\nwith peace of mind. For that to happen, we have to alter stereotypes\r\nand restructure society and institutions to reflect this new reality.\r\nWe must create the conditions and opportunities for our seniors\r\nto be healthy, to be happy and to be active. The Wellness programme\r\nis a strategic investment to convert this good intention and kind\r\nthought into real outcomes. Wellness is not only about physical\r\nhealth or sickness. Equally importantly, it is about having good\r\nfriends and neighbours. It is about relationships that care. It\r\nis about opportunities for volunteerism. It is about bringing out\r\nthe best in us for ourselves and for each other, and especially among\r\nthe seniors.
\r\n\r\n \r\n A recent People's Association (PA) study on\r\nthe Wellness programme showed that 36% of respondents got to know,\r\nas a result of participating in that programme, more than 10 neighbours;\r\nand 40% make more than 10 new friends; not necessarily neighbours.\r\nDone well, the Wellness programme will produce a level of goodwill, initiative\r\nand mutual support for and among the seniors that we have never\r\nreached before. \r\n
\r\n\r\n It would not only help our\r\nseniors live and feel better but would also indirectly do the same\r\nfor their children. Forty two out of the 87 constituencies already\r\nhave this programme and, so far, 140,000 seniors have been regularly\r\nparticipating in and benefiting from the programme. The plan for\r\n2012 is to add another 20 constituencies to it, subject to resourcing.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Mr Speaker, I would\r\nalso like to say that we must also fine-tune our Performance Indicators\r\nor Tracking Indicators to make sure that we are tracking the meaningful\r\nand avoid being blind-sided. For example, one of the values that Singaporeans\r\nhold dearest is that of decency of treatment. Recently, a newspaper\r\narticle highlighted the plight of some workers of industrial accidents\r\n– that they were given two days of medical leave, which according\r\nto those that they interviewed appeared to be manifestly inadequate\r\nfor the condition that they are suffering. It could be an odd case but\r\nwe have to look further into these kinds of situations. For example,\r\nunder current regulations, companies do not need to report industrial\r\naccidents if injuries do not call for more than two days of medical\r\nleave. And this is probably to avoid swarming the system of very\r\nminor types of episodes – which is right.
\r\n\r\n However, as there are penalties\r\nfor companies with high reported rates of industrial accidents,\r\nthen, we must be careful to check and police the issuing of medical\r\nleave so that a holistic picture emerges for all of us at the national\r\nlevel for each industry and at the company level. This would then\r\nput to rest any suspicion that anyone might have that there was\r\ngaming on the part of companies, leading to unfair treatment of\r\ninjured workers on a systematic basis. Alternatively, if it should\r\nreveal that there was such gaming of the system, then action can\r\nbe taken against the companies.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday,\r\nI attended a ceremony commemorating the 101st Anniversary of the\r\nfounding of the Kwong Wai Shiu Hospital. At the ceremony, we watched\r\na video that chronicled the good work of the hospital for the community\r\nthis past century. The last scene of the video contained the same\r\nin Chinese which, when translated into English, means no matter\r\nhow long the journey, we must never forget why we started on it\r\nin the first place. Sir, Singapore must always be for and about\r\nour people. It must always be about creating that better life and\r\nthat better tomorrow for our people. That was why we started on\r\nthis journey in the first place; that is also why we must press\r\non. I support the Motion.
\r\nPage: 108
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n : Thank you,\r\nSir. If I have your leave, Sir, I would like to make three clarifications\r\nsince Mr Heng referred to my speech earlier. The first is: he mentioned\r\nthe resolution that I made reference to in my speech. And the point\r\nof my speech was that, because Singapore has actually been one of\r\nthe co-sponsors of that draft resolution at the UN, and the text\r\nof the resolution says that the member states are to be pursuing\r\nthe elaboration of additional measures to better capture the importance\r\nof the pursuit of happiness and well-being in guiding their national\r\npolicies, since our Government has endorsed this resolution, I was\r\nasking the Government to elaborate on what additional measures it\r\nintends to put in place since that is the text of the resolution.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, he made reference\r\nto my example on housing – and that was brought up to illustrate\r\nthat if we are really concerned about the declining TFR, concentration\r\non happiness and well-being and sustainability of the society as\r\na whole may require us to weigh the options differently. This means,\r\nright now, the Government seems to say that the TFR is a concern\r\nbut immigration can help us to address that, but the question is what\r\nis the cost of immigration to Singapore if it is done on a large\r\nscale and are we not concerned about taking more steps to improve\r\nthe fertility rate of indigenous Singaporeans? If these studies\r\nbear out a linkage between housing affordability and low fertility\r\nrates, then it is incumbent upon the Government to do something\r\nabout that. Instead of looking at fertility just as a procreation\r\nissue, giving more incentives, we have to look at the bigger picture\r\nand see – if we are serious about improving the fertility rate of\r\nindigenous Singaporeans – we may need to look at some of these things\r\nwhich were not traditionally associated with the mere act of procreation.\r\nMy point was an example of a policy which may need to be relooked\r\nat if we have a different compass – looking at sustainability and\r\nhappiness of society rather than the economics of bringing in immigrants\r\nto replace the population as such.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, Mr Heng asked what\r\nindicators I have in my own mind. I think he knows that there are\r\nmany indicators out there that can be considered. There are factors\r\nlike job security, retirement security, how we use the environment\r\nand various other indicators like that. So, my point in the speech\r\nwas, since the Government has endorsed this resolution saying that\r\nwe need to look at additional measures to measure happiness and well\r\nbeing, I would just like the Government to explain to us whether\r\nthis changes anything.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, let me highlight a couple of points brought up\r\nby the President in his address. He said, \"Strong families are the\r\nbuilding blocks of a resilient society\" and \"our success is defined\r\nnot just by material progress but also by our values and ideals.\"
\r\nPage: 109
\r\n\r\n In a competitive and growth-centric\r\nenvironment like Singapore, bringing up a strong family with good\r\nvalues and ideals is a challenging task. How do we inspire our children to\r\ngo beyond material progress when there is so much emphasis placed\r\non asset enhancement? How do we tell our children to think about\r\nthe values that matter in their lives and not about the values of\r\ntheir HDB flats?
\r\n\r\n This Government has always\r\nemphasised the correlation between a strong economy and the quality\r\nof life here. While it is true we need money for material progress,\r\nwe should also look into other important needs in life that can\r\nhelp build a resilient society but have no correlation to economic\r\ngrowth.
\r\n\r\n In a family unit, the head\r\nof the household is responsible to create an environment conducive\r\nto inculcate good values and ideals in every member of the family.
\r\n\r\n Likewise, at the society\r\nlevel, the Government is responsible to create an environment conducive\r\nto inculcate the same good values and ideals in people to build a\r\nhome and a future that we can all partake and share. The Government\r\nmust formulate and implement policies that will allow an individual\r\nto fulfil his psychological, emotional and spiritual needs apart\r\nfrom material needs, so that he can develop into a responsible member\r\nof the community. When that happens, this person will be able to\r\ncontribute more effectively and positively towards nation building.
\r\n\r\n I am heartened to hear the\r\nPresident acknowledging that our success is defined not just by\r\nmaterial progress but also by our values and ideals. It is indeed\r\ntimely to look beyond growth and economy for nation building.
\r\n\r\n The opening of the two casinos\r\nhas boosted the economy and created some jobs for Singaporeans.\r\nHowever, the benefits brought on by the casinos come with a heavy\r\nprice to some people in the society. MCYS, in its Addendum, states\r\nthat the Ministry will reinforce social safeguards to reduce harm\r\narising from problem gambling. The MCYS statement seems to suggest\r\nthat problem gambling is going to be a big issue going forward.\r\nIf problem gambling is set to grow, the negative impact on our society\r\nas a whole will also grow.
\r\n\r\n Through my years of counselling\r\nexperience, I have come to understand the systemic nature of a family\r\nunit that the action of an individual member will affect or influence\r\nthe family as a whole. Thus, if a part of our society is suffering,\r\nthe nation as a whole will suffer along. I urge MCYS to do more\r\nto build a cohesive and resilient society in a slowing economy.\r\nI also urge the Ministry to help individuals and families at risk\r\nso that their lives will not be destroyed by the roll of a dice\r\nor a flip of a card.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the President\r\nhas also warned of fault lines developing in our society. Fault\r\nlines exist almost everywhere now. It exists in our workplace, public housing\r\nand even schools. Singaporeans are feeling deprived of their privileges\r\nas citizens.
\r\n\r\n How do we manage fault lines\r\nand not let these issues divide the nation? Economic growth certainly\r\ndid not help prevent fault lines from developing further. It certainly\r\ndid not heal any fault lines either. The solution to the fault lines\r\nin our society lies in this House. Most of the fault lines are the\r\nby-products of the growth policies of the Government. The Government\r\nmust address the issues and heal the community.
\r\nPage: 110
\r\n\r\n For the next five years,\r\nI personally hope to contribute to a more robust debate on policies\r\nthat will help Singaporeans fulfil their emotional, psychological\r\nand spiritual needs on top of the basic necessity needs. My aspiration\r\nis to help build a nation on values that will last for generations\r\nto come.
\r\n\r\n Sir, before I proceed with\r\nmy speech in Malay, let me end with a word of wisdom from Confucius.\r\nI quote: \"to put the world in order, we must first put the nation\r\nin order; to put the nation in order, we must put the family in\r\norder; to put the family in order, we must cultivate our personal\r\nlife; and to cultivate our personal life, we must first set our hearts\r\nright.\" These are indeed wise words to heed in our quest for success\r\nbeyond material progress and a more resilient society. I will proceed\r\nwith my Malay speech.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [For Malay speech, please\r\nrefer to Pg 144 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .]\r\nThe 2011 General Elections was a watershed election for Singaporeans.\r\nSingaporeans, especially the residents of Aljunied GRC, have made\r\nthe decision to effect a change to the nation's administrative system\r\nby voting the Opposition into Parliament. The election of six Opposition\r\ncandidates into Parliament is an indication that Singaporeans want\r\nto have a different approach, compared to the previous years where\r\nthe Government Party dominated Parliament. I would like to congratulate\r\nSingaporeans, especially the residents of Aljunied GRC.
\r\n\r\n The 2011 General Elections\r\nwas also a milestone for the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.\r\nFor the first time, a Malay Opposition candidate was elected into\r\nParliament.
\r\n\r\n I am confident that this\r\nchange will bring much good to the Malay/Muslim community. Even\r\nthough there are those who say that differences will impede development\r\nand progress, but for me, differing views and perspectives are part\r\nof human nature, which, if we use correctly, will bring blessings\r\nand all that is good.
\r\n\r\n Since being elected as a\r\nMember of Parliament six months ago, I have received many views,\r\nfeedback and outpouring of hope from Malay/Muslim individuals from\r\nall walks of life. These voices welcome the presence of an alternative\r\nvoice to the Malay/Muslim leadership at present. They are positive\r\nand open to this new situation and hope for the best for the community.
\r\n\r\n Overall, many people hope\r\nthat I voice out issues that are close to the heart of the Malay/Muslim\r\ncommunity. However, they also admit that I have two roles, that\r\nis, as a leader for the Malay/Muslim community as well as the general\r\nSingapore society. Even though they thirst for an alternative voice\r\nto voice out the issues that are related to the Malay/Muslim community,\r\nthey hope that this alternative channel will function in a rational,\r\nresponsible and dignified manner. They want me to conduct my leadership fairly\r\nand equally, regardless of race, language or religion. I would like\r\nto state that I am proud of the Malay/Muslim community for being\r\nrational, concerned, mature and inclusive. This is in contrast to\r\nthe view of some people, who feel that the Malay/Muslim community\r\nfinds it difficult to integrate and is exclusive in nature.
\r\n\r\n Looking ahead, each and\r\nevery member of the Malay/Muslim community must play their respective\r\nroles to improve their lives and achieve progress. I would like\r\nto say that I am open and sincere to work together with the present\r\nMalay/Muslim leadership, as well as Government organisations and\r\nMalay/Muslim bodies.
\r\nPage: 111
\r\n\r\n A collective effort must\r\nbe made by the leaders as well as those being led. Everybody, especially\r\nthe leaders, must fulfil the trust that was given to them with total\r\nsincerity, honesty and confidence. However, in the effort to achieve\r\nsomething good, there will be challenges and twists ahead. If failure\r\nor mistakes happen, everyone, especially the leaders, must be introspective\r\nand look inwards. There will be no use pointing fingers because\r\nit will lead to more divisiveness and loss of cohesion, as the saying\r\ngoes \"United We Stand, Divided We Fall.\" This is the advice that\r\nI give myself first as a leader, and other leaders as well as those\r\nbeing led.
\r\n\r\n I would like to end my speech\r\nwith this pearl of wisdom: \"The fate of a community will not change\r\nif that community does not wish to and make the effort to change\r\nits own fate\". And this change must start from the leadership itself.\r\nI believe that if there is sincerity, honesty coupled with confidence,\r\nthe Malay/Muslim community will continue to progress and become\r\na community that is effective, active and productive in contributing\r\ntowards the development of the nation and Singapore society. This\r\nis in line with our community's values, that is, \"bringing blessings\r\nto everyone\".
\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the chance to join in the debate.\r\nPersonally, I have not been to Bhutan − I wonder if Ms Sylvia Lim\r\nhas been to Bhutan, but I recall reading a little bit about it.\r\nBhutan is at the eastern end of the Himalayas with mountains that\r\nare up to 7,000 metres high, principally a country focused on agriculture,\r\nforestry and a bit of tourism. It is completely land-locked, with about\r\n700,000 people, GDP per capita of about US$1,300 (Year 2006).
\r\n\r\n I think the Opposition Member\r\ncould not have chosen a more dissimilar country to compare Singapore\r\nwith. We are exposed to the seas and the onslaught of competition from\r\nthe world. We were dealt a different deck of cards, a different\r\nhand altogether when we were independent and we must find our own\r\nformula forward. I do not think the Government objects to Singaporeans\r\nbeing happy. In fact, having served at the front bench, I can say\r\nthat all we do is to make sure that, ultimately, we can improve\r\nthe quality of life for all Singaporeans. It is the Government's\r\njob, I believe, to make sure that conditions are right, so that\r\nsuch quality of life can be enjoyed. And whether people are happy\r\nor not: it is really for them to decide.
\r\n\r\n Also, I think Bhutan for\r\nmany years was a monarchy and only in 2008 they held their first\r\ngeneral election. And they are now a constitutional monarchy. They\r\nhave a bicameral system and the Lower House, I think the party is\r\nDPT, won 45 out of 47 seats. So, maybe because they never had an\r\nOpposition or only two Opposition members recently, the people are\r\nvery happy. I really do not know. How does the \"gross national happiness\"\r\nwork? But if you read the literature and study it carefully, the\r\nproponents of this system said that this is an additional or supplemental\r\nmeasure that countries could use. It is not to substitute GDP growth.\r\nSo, I want the Opposition Member, Ms Sylvia Lim, to clarify whether\r\nor not she thinks GDP is total baloney and we should forget about GDP,\r\nand I hope she can confirm her position. I would support that other\r\nthan just gross GDP growth, yes, we should look at other aspects\r\nof growth but not to say that GDP growth is unimportant. Because\r\nif it were unimportant, what does it mean? What is the formula for\r\nGDP – consumption, investment, government spending, exports minus imports?\r\nIf it is unimportant, we do not want any investment in trains or\r\nhousing? If it is unimportant, we do not want any government spending?\r\nWe do not want the private sector investment in jobs for Singaporeans?\r\nIf we do not have GDP growth, given the fact that we were thrown\r\nout to be independent and yet our success was actually nothing short\r\nof miraculous? Even though we are resource-poor, how do we get the funds\r\nto fund all the programmes, all the \"equal opportunities\", the safety\r\nnet, and so forth? So I hope Ms Sylvia Lim will be more specific\r\nin what she means by adopting the gross national happiness (GNH)\r\nand that she will confirm that GDP is still important.
\r\nPage: 112
\r\n\r\n On her point about total\r\nfertility rate (TFR), I think we heard in this House many, many times\r\n– in fact, former Minister Mentor had mentioned it here – that our\r\nnumber one challenge is the replacement rate for Singapore, and\r\nSingaporeans must come first, and there are a lot of efforts put\r\ninto it. In fact, I think the Prime Minister has offered a prize for\r\nanybody who can come up with a solution that helps Singaporeans\r\nreplace themselves. If Ms Sylvia Lim has a special formula, I will\r\nsuggest that she propose it to this House, and I am sure if it works,\r\nthe Government will take that into account. So, to say that the\r\nGovernment did not pay any heed to total fertility growth in Singapore\r\nis, I think, well, to be kind, misleading.
\r\n\r\n I had probably spent a lot\r\nof time rebutting that point. So I will just go through the crux\r\nof what I wish to say. Sir, there is a disconnect as shown in the\r\nGeneral Elections. I have been pondering about it: why is it, despite\r\nour best efforts, despite our best intent, that there is a disconnection\r\nbetween the Government and the people? I think one area is \"Information\r\nAsymmetry\". Having served in the front bench for a few years, I\r\nknow for a fact that we have bright, committed people in the Cabinet.\r\nWhen they receive information, they glean insights from it. They\r\ntry to understand the state of play locally. They discuss and engage\r\nwith counterparts in other countries to see where our geo-political\r\nand geo-economic situation stands and then make informed decisions,\r\neven though there are many unknowns that we have to grapple with,\r\nthe intent of how to improve the quality of life for the majority\r\nof Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n However, the public at large,\r\nespecially the voters, do not have the benefit of this information.\r\nI think this asymmetry is where part of the disconnect can be explained.\r\nSo, I would urge the Government to share more and, if possible,\r\nset the default mode to \"share\" rather than \"do not share\", unless\r\nprohibited for national security reasons. The more information the\r\npeople have, the easier it is for us to bring them on board and\r\nalso the greater will be their buy-in and the more likely we can\r\nachieve a convergence of opinions. And also, importantly, the less\r\nroom there is for the truth to be distorted.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the other point that\r\nI would like to raise is on transport. The formula that we have now\r\nsince 2006 is due for review in 2012 for implementation in 2013.\r\nI hope that the formula review can be brought forward because we\r\nhave had enough experience having worked with that formula since\r\n2006. Also, one of the features that I would like to recommend is\r\nthat the frequency of fare reviews not be carried out annually but, perhaps,\r\nevery two to three years. This formula, I see as only a means to\r\nachieving a higher public transport modal share, up from the 60%\r\nwe have today to about 70% by 2020. Therefore, the formula is not\r\nan end in itself but must produce fares that are affordable. Together\r\nwith MOT's efforts to upgrade the coverage, service and reliability of\r\nour public transport networks, I believe we will achieve the higher\r\npublic transport modal share.
\r\nPage: 113
\r\n\r\n Sir, there is one point\r\nthat I feel passionately about. Whenever folks ask me about polytechnic\r\nstudent fares for MRT and buses – why they do not enjoy the same\r\nfares as their peers in Junior Colleges and ITEs – frankly, I cannot\r\nlook them in the eye and say something that I myself am convinced\r\nabout. So, I would like the Minister to consider aligning this as\r\nfast as he can because there are really no grounds to say that you\r\nare both of the same age, but just because I classify you as polytechnic\r\nstudents, you pay more than your peers. This can be done anytime.\r\nWe do not have to wait for the formula to be reviewed.
\r\n\r\n Another issue is about cyclists\r\non pedestrian paths. I believe Ms Irene Ng's estate in Tampines\r\nhas experimented with it. Can the Minister inform us what we have\r\nlearned from it and whether this can be introduced in other estates,\r\nbecause I think many of us are facing this issue?
\r\n\r\n Lastly, I am very grateful\r\nto have heard from Minister Vivian Balakrishnan that hawker centres\r\nand markets will now be built in new estates. I just want to remind\r\nhim that Pioneer is a new estate and our residents have waited for\r\nmore than 10 years and, hopefully, we can be (not the first) but\r\nat least at the top end of the queue. Thank you, Sir, and I support\r\nthe Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Ms Sylvia Lim\r\n : Thank you,\r\nSir. Mr Foo earlier asked me for clarification about my stand on\r\nGDP as an indicator. I did not say that GDP as an indicator is not\r\nrelevant. But international opinion as well as in the United Nations,\r\nit was clearly recorded, that GDP growth as an indicator as such\r\nis inadequate to represent the state of happiness or sustainability\r\nor well-being of a society. So, that was why the resolution was\r\ncalled for the member states to come up with additional measures\r\nso that we can actually holistically gauge whether a society is\r\nactually moving forward in a sustainable manner.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the\r\nMinister for Defence and Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad\r\nMaliki Bin Osman)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for\r\nallowing me to join in this debate. I stand in support of the Motion.\r\nSir, before I speak on matters that I would like to share with the\r\nHouse, I would like to just seek clarification from the Member for\r\nAljunied, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, who just spoke a while\r\nago. He spoke of the fault lines that exist. And if I heard him\r\ncorrectly, there seems to be an indication, or he alluded to the\r\nfact, that economic growth does not heal fault lines. I just wonder\r\nif what he is saying is that we should not have economic growth,\r\nso that we do not have fault lines or that fault lines will not\r\nexist if there is no economic growth. I am not quite sure what he\r\nreally meant when he spoke about the fact that we are always focusing\r\nso much on economic growth and, because of those fault lines, that\r\nwe are not paying attention to the fault lines.
\r\n\r\n Maybe I could clarify that\r\nthe PAP Government has always been very concerned about potential\r\nsystemic effect. He is right that, if there is a problem in one\r\naspect of the system, there will be a trickling effect. But if there\r\nis success, there will also be trickling effect of the success.\r\nTherefore, while we work on economic growth, while we focus on suggesting\r\nand ensuring that our country and Singaporeans succeed, we get growth and\r\nwe channel the excess growth to issues or fault lines that may exist,\r\nto make sure that we do heal those fault lines. He is a counsellor.\r\nI am also a social worker for many, many years. I worked with families\r\nall my life as a professional social worker, and in all those families\r\nthat I worked with, nothing I think is attributed to economic growth. Nothing\r\nis attributed to the fact that because we are successful, therefore,\r\nwe have family problems. There are many, many issues that relate\r\nto family problems and we cannot pinpoint any particular factor\r\nthat could possibly explain family issues. But what is important\r\nis really whether we have enough support systems in place. We have enough\r\nsocial workers, counsellors and resources that we put in place.\r\nOver time, we have been putting in so much resources. In this House,\r\nfor example, in the last 10 years I have been a Member of this House,\r\nwe have never stopped talking about the need for social workers.\r\nWe have never stopped talking about the need to raise the value\r\nof social workers in society, and that is really the recognition.\r\nWhile we acknowledge there are fault lines, we are not irresponsible\r\nto allow the fault lines to continue to become deepened.
\r\nPage: 114
\r\n\r\n Sir, I want to assure the\r\nMember that we cannot possibly talk about economic growth not being\r\ngood and therefore we need not focus on it, or what the Member is\r\nsaying is, do not focus too much on economic growth. I think there\r\nis this old adage that says that we are so small, we cannot afford\r\nnot to have economic growth. But, really, what is important is how\r\ndo we manage the potential impact of economic growth, the potential impact\r\non individuals and families? It is true that we have to strengthen\r\nour families, and we have been strengthening our families. We have\r\nto make sure that families continue to be the building block. We\r\nare challenged. We spoke a lot about how the elderly is being taken\r\ncare of and the fact that with our lower TFR, the possibility of\r\nfamilies looking after the elderly will continue to be challenged.\r\nBut that does not mean that we cannot continue to have growth rate.\r\nWe need to have more growth to make sure that we can take care of\r\nthe elderly in the future by virtue of the fact that the TFR is\r\nnot coming down, by virtue of the fact that the family may continue\r\nto be challenged.
\r\n\r\n So I think what is important\r\nis to really look at the principles behind governance, how do we\r\nensure that we must make sure that the economy grows so that individuals\r\ncan take advantage of good income, good jobs and support their families,\r\nstrengthen their families and thereby make sure that our children\r\nwill also have a brighter future ahead of them.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, the President\r\nspoke about the new environment we face in Singapore – a changing\r\nsociety, a changing economy and changing politics. These changes\r\nchallenge us to pursue new measures to build a better life for all\r\nSingaporeans. But even as we pursue these new measures, the President\r\ncalled on us to continue to \"strengthen our bonds and build an inclusive\r\nnation where we can all be proud of\". In our bid to build an endearing\r\nhome, we must pursue developments in a way that we celebrate our\r\npast shared memories and create new spectacular memories for our people.\r\nLet me share with Members how we hope to achieve this balance with\r\nour project in Geylang Serai.
\r\n\r\n Prime Minister Lee had announced\r\nat the recent National Day Rally that part of the site occupied\r\nby the former Malay Village in Geylang Serai will be used to develop\r\na new civic centre. The centre will house the Geylang Serai Community\r\nClub, the Southeast Community Development Council and the Malay\r\nHeritage Gallery. There will also be an open plaza for festivals\r\nand activities. How do we ensure that these plans retain and strengthen\r\nGeylang Serai's Malay identity and continue to have a special place\r\nin the heart of the community? Much of this, I think, will depend\r\non how we develop these plans for the centre and the area. It is\r\nmy intention that our plans will be an exercise of co-creation with\r\nthe community on many levels. Let me explain in detail.
\r\nPage: 115
\r\n\r\n First, the workgroup for\r\nthis project will include leaders and professionals from a wide\r\nrange of backgrounds and disciplines. Distinguished architects,\r\nbusinessmen, academics, community leaders and artists are all part\r\nof this workgroup and the various subgroups. The workgroup has met\r\ntwice and has made good progress. In particular, I am pleased to\r\nnote that the workgroup includes Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef; former\r\nMP Mr Yatiman Yusof; CEO of Mendaki, Mdm Moliah Hashim; President\r\nof the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Abdul\r\nRohim Sarip; and Chairman of the Malay Heritage Foundation, Mdm\r\nZuraidah Abdullah, and many more. I am glad to share this list of\r\nthe workgroup members with Members of Parliament. I would like to seek\r\nMr Speaker's permission to distribute the list [a \r\n copy\r\nof list was distributed to hon. Members].
\r\n\r\n Second, we will continue\r\nto reach out and gather feedback from the public. Since August,\r\nwe have received over 200 suggestions through our Facebook account\r\nfor Wisma Geylang Serai, letters to the press and personal emails.\r\nWe have also consulted community leaders and we will do more, and\r\nwill step up our engagement with more stakeholders over the next\r\nfew months.
\r\n\r\n Third, we will launch a\r\ncompetition to name the centre next month. The name \"Wisma Geylang\r\nSerai\" has started to gain some traction with people, but it is\r\nstill a working title. Through the competition, apart from engendering\r\nownership within the community, I hope we can find an original and\r\ncreative name which reflects the Malay heritage, the nature and\r\nflavour of the civic centre, and can connect with the Malay community,\r\nthe area's residents and the general public. Everyone has a part\r\nto play in this centre. Right from the beginning with the finding\r\nof a suitable name, we want to reach out and involve as many people\r\nas possible in this important chapter of Geylang Serai and Singapore's\r\nheritage. I have been encouraged by the positive response so far from\r\nthe Malay community. What is more heartening is that even the non-Malays\r\nare also contributing their ideas. Sir, with your permission, I\r\nwould like to speak in Malay.
\r\n\r\n \r\n (In Malay): [For Malay speech, please\r\nrefer to Pg 145-147 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .] Mr\r\nSpeaker, the main theme of the President's speech is the importance\r\nfor us to build an inclusive nation, where principles like working\r\nhard and meritocracy continue to be the main pillars of our country.\r\nThe nation's vision to be inclusive is welcomed by the Malay community\r\nand we have benefitted from many Government policies for the past 45\r\nyears since Independence. For example, in terms of education, we\r\nhave seen more of the young Malay-Muslim cohort between 15 and 19\r\nyears old with polytechnic diploma qualifications, increasing seven\r\ntimes between 2000 and 2010, and the number of the cohort between\r\n20 and 44 years with a university degree has increased three fold between\r\n2000 and 2010.
\r\n\r\n Sceptics will easily say\r\nthat this is not satisfactory. However, I feel that it is important that\r\nwe achieve success rather than looking for shortcomings to criticise.\r\nAlthough we agree that there are segments of the community that\r\nare still impeded by social problems, we must also be proud of the\r\nsuccess of our community. For this group, we will continue to craft\r\nstrategies and programmes, with the cooperation of the members of\r\nthe community who are successful, to help upgrade their abilities.\r\nWhat is important is that we continue to be seen as a community\r\nthat is important and is needed in our nation's progress, and we\r\nhave the ability to continue contributing to the nation's success.\r\nWe can see individuals in our community who continue to become our inspiration\r\nand our idols. Their experiences going through life by continuing\r\nto achieve success can become a great memory for our community.\r\nWhat is important is that we possess the leadership to help them.
\r\nPage: 116
\r\n\r\n Just now, the Member of\r\nParliament for Aljunied GRC said that as a leader, he is ready to\r\ncontribute to the community. I feel that it is hard for us to just\r\nsay that we are leaders and our leadership should be measured based\r\non our success in helping the community. We must be valued as a\r\nleader and I feel uncomfortable for us to call ourselves leaders,\r\nunless we have shown our ability to help bring our community to\r\na higher level.
\r\n\r\n In our effort to move forward\r\nand develop our beloved nation, we must pursue developments that\r\ncelebrate our shared memories from the past, whether as individuals or\r\nas a community, and create a new great memory for our community.\r\nAllow me to explain how we can achieve this balance in our project\r\nin Geylang Serai.
\r\n\r\n In Prime Minister Lee Hsien\r\nLoong's speech during the National Day Rally recently, he announced\r\nthat part of the site occupied by the former Malay Village in Geylang\r\nSerai will be used to develop a new civic centre. The centre will\r\nhouse the Geylang Serai Community Club, the Southeast Community\r\nDevelopment Council and the Malay Heritage Gallery. There will be\r\nan open public plaza to encourage many festivals and activities.\r\nHow do we ensure that these plans retain and strengthen Geylang\r\nSerai's Malay identity and continue to have a special place in the\r\nheart of the community? This will depend a lot on how we develop\r\nthese plans for the centre and the area. I hope that this plan will\r\nbe a co-creation effort with the community from many levels. Allow\r\nme to explain how this will be achieved.
\r\n\r\n First, the workgroup for\r\nthis project will include leaders and professionals from a wide\r\nrange of backgrounds and disciplines. Architects, businessmen, academics, community\r\nleaders and artists, who are all distinguished, will be part of\r\nthis workgroup and the various subgroups.
\r\n\r\n Second, we will continue\r\nto reach out and gather feedback from the public. Since last August,\r\nwe have received over 200 suggestions and comments through our Facebook account\r\nfor Wisma Geylang Serai, letters to the press and personal emails.\r\nWe have also begun to consult community leaders and we will step\r\nup our engagement with more stakeholders for the next few months.
\r\n\r\n Third, we will launch a\r\ncompetition to name the centre next month. The name \"Wisma Geylang\r\nSerai\" has begun to be familiar with some people, but it is still\r\na temporary name. Through this competition, apart from increasing\r\nthe sense of ownership among Malays for this project, I hope we\r\ncan find an original and creative name which reflects the Malay\r\nheritage, the characteristic and surrounding of the civic centre,\r\nand has meaning to the Malay community, the area's residents and\r\nthe general public. Everyone has a part to play in this centre,\r\nand we want to reach out and involve as many people as possible\r\nin this important chapter of Geylang Serai and Singapore's heritage.\r\nI have been encouraged by the positive response so far from the\r\nMalay community. What is more pleasing is that even non-Malays are\r\nalso contributing their ideas and suggestions.
\r\nPage: 117
\r\n\r\n Many look forward to an\r\nexciting future and a centre that remembers its rich Malay heritage.\r\nI received an email from Mr Muhammad Nadim Adam who sent me a detailed paper\r\nthat contains many interesting ideas for Wisma Geylang Serai. It\r\nshows his concerns and interest towards the \"Wisma Geylang Serai\"\r\nproject. In his conclusion, Mr Muhammad hoped that \"Wisma Geylang\r\nSerai will become the pulse and identity of the Singapore Malay\r\ncommunity that is caring, aware of its history and able to continue\r\nto face the future confidently and objectively.\" These letters voice\r\nout the sentiments of many people among the Malay community, and\r\nour plans should reflect the community's memories of the past and\r\nhopes for the future, in order to build a centre that is distinctive,\r\nvibrant and endearing, that will reflect the feeling of the community.
\r\n\r\n The celebration of our shared\r\nmemories of Geylang Serai is important not just to the Malay community,\r\nbut for all Singaporeans. Geylang Serai is part of both our Malay heritage\r\nand also national heritage. Although the area has a distinctive\r\nMalay identity, especially during the Hari Raya season, many different\r\ngroups of people have called Geylang Serai their home for a long\r\ntime. It is a microcosm of the multi-cultural and multi-racial life\r\nof our country, one that makes Singapore unique.
\r\n\r\n Apart from celebrating our\r\nshared memories at the centre, the community also would like to\r\nsee is a centre that creates new spectacular memories in the coming\r\nyears. The aim is for the centre to be a hub of life and full of\r\nvibrance, and contribute to the arts, culture and life of Geylang\r\nSerai. In fact, the centre can even be a cultural ambassador of\r\nMalay Singapore arts for the region.
\r\n\r\n Many people have asked if\r\nWisma Geylang Serai can continue to provide something that is relevant\r\nto the community and thrive after its initial opening. This is an\r\nimportant question that will be studied closely by the workgroup\r\nI mentioned earlier. However, I am optimistic that our centre will\r\nattract public interest and create excitement in Geylang Serai for\r\na few reasons.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, the civic centre\r\nwill be managed in a way that is not for profit, but for the community.\r\nAs a civic centre housing Geylang Serai CC and the South East CDC,\r\nthe People's Association will supervise its development and manage\r\nit when it is ready.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, the centre will\r\noffer a range of activities that are both interesting and unique\r\nto Geylang Serai. The move to bring together different groups will\r\nallow the mixture of arts and activities.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, we will study ways\r\nto promote cultural and artistic activities within the vicinity\r\nof the centre. Over the next few years, the pedestrian mall along\r\nGeylang Road from Paya Lebar Road to the civic centre will be widened\r\nto almost 20 metres while construction is being done in the area.\r\nThis space can be used for many types of activities, such as Hari\r\nRaya bazaars, open-air performances and even arts and cultural festivals.
\r\n\r\n Finally, the workgroup has\r\nreceived feedback that it is important that the centre be accessible\r\nand connected to other areas so that it will always be lively. This\r\nworkgroup will look at how the centre, market and shopping complexes\r\ncan be linked better so that it will be a thriving and distinctive\r\nhub, and find solutions to the various traffic and parking situations\r\nin the area.
\r\nPage: 118
\r\n\r\n (In English): This\r\nis our work on Wisma Geylang Serai. Over the next few months, my workgroup\r\nwill continue to gather feedback and suggestions to finalise our recommendations\r\nand design brief for the civic centre by around June 2012. A design competition\r\nbased on this brief will be launched in the second half of next\r\nyear, so that we can get the best architectural ideas for our centre.\r\nIf everything goes according to schedule, we will see the centre\r\nbuilt and ready by 2016.
\r\n\r\n Wisma Geylang Serai is just\r\none project but I believe this approach of reaching out widely to\r\ninvolve Singaporeans in co-creating our shared future, celebrating\r\npast memories and creating opportunities for new, spectacular memories,\r\nwill be the way forward to build an inclusive nation where every\r\ncommunity has a place and a stake in our country's development.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond to Dr Maliki. I am glad\r\nthat Member Dr Maliki agrees that the poor have to be taken care\r\nof. I agree with Dr Maliki that the Government should continue to\r\ndo more and economic growth is not the sole objective. The Government\r\nmay be judged by how family problems and issues are dealt with,\r\nespecially since some of these problems are the results of economic\r\ngrowth bypassing these very families.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman\r\n :\r\nSir, I do not think there is a direct correlation between economic\r\ngrowth and family problems. As I mentioned earlier, if you study family\r\nissues, there are many dynamic factors that relate to problems that\r\nfamilies face. Families who do well economically have got family\r\nissues. Families who do not do well economically also have got family\r\nissues. So, there is no correlation or a direct relationship between\r\neconomic growth and difficulties in families. These are dynamic factors.\r\nSocial workers and counsellors can tell you that these factors are\r\nmulti-dimensional and I do not think it is easy for us to just simply\r\nsay that economic growth at all costs will translate to family problems.\r\nSir, I urge the Member to look at these issues of family difficulties\r\nin a more holistic manner, to study the dynamic process that happens\r\nin families and for us to see how economic growth in itself can\r\nhelp facilitate and help these families get out of the difficulties\r\nthey are facing. I think it is more than just that correlation but\r\nthere is a whole slew of factors that we have to understand. We want\r\nto continue to understand them and to help families. We will continue\r\nto put in resources as a result of economic growth to help these\r\nfamilies.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah)\r\n : (In Mandarin): [For\r\nMandarin speech, please refer to Pg 148 for Vernacular Speeches\r\n \r\n .]\r\nMr Speaker, I have originally intended to devote my entire speech\r\ntoday to push for the Government to resume building new hawker centres.\r\nTo my delight, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Dr\r\nVivian Balakrishnan, has announced the building of 10 new hawker\r\ncentres on 8 October. I thank the Minister for hearing our voices\r\nand reviewing the policy with an open mind.
\r\nPage: 119
\r\n\r\n I felt strongly that there\r\nare clearly many areas in Singapore that are under-served by affordable\r\neateries and there is also insufficient competition in some areas;\r\nresulting in rising food prices at many eating outlets. Hawker centres\r\nare particularly helpful to low-income Singaporeans who are trying\r\nto stretch every dollar they can.
\r\n\r\n Though not originally intended,\r\nhawker centres have become a uniquely Singapore icon, providing\r\na common space where Singaporeans of all races can come together\r\nas well as a low barrier to entry opportunity for Singaporeans who\r\nwant to start a small business.
\r\n\r\n On behalf of Singaporeans\r\nthat will benefit from the new hawker centres, I thank the Government\r\nfor the change in policy. It does show that our policies do adjust\r\nwith the times and the Government is not too square and fixated\r\nabout the ideology. While I agree that by and large, we should leave\r\nit to the \"invisible hand\" of the market forces to do the job, there\r\nwill be instances where the visible hand of the Government is needed and\r\nin areas where there is social impact. I hope this would also herald\r\nthe start of many more public goods that the Government will provide\r\nto improve the lives of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n (In English): Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, since Independence, our preoccupation has always been\r\nto get our policies right so that we can survive as a small island\r\nstate and uplift the lives of our citizens. Many of our policies\r\nin our earlier days were often tough or even harsh, such as the\r\nCPF scheme, National Service, resettlements and so on. But given\r\nthe circumstances then, people accepted the pain and united behind\r\nthe Government in the unwinding road of nation building. We could\r\nhave been another \"Greece\" if our earlier generations had not gotten\r\nour policies right; and imagine Singapore at the mercy of other\r\ncountries to bail us out today. I am grateful to the earlier generations\r\nof Singaporeans for building a stable and safe Singapore, without\r\nwhich we would not enjoy the good life and happiness we have today.
\r\n\r\n Forty-six years on, the\r\ncountry has progressed and become more affluent. We are now on more\r\nstable path with the strong foundation built. We are in a strong competitive\r\nposition to run the next lap and we have built substantial resources\r\nand advantages to enhance our survivability. However, the social\r\nand political environment today has changed and the next phase of\r\nour development calls for a different approach of Government. Tough\r\npolicies, even if they are for the long-term good, would increasingly\r\nbe a tough sell. Our citizens expect the Government to do more to smoothen\r\nout the rough edges of policy and reduce any impact to the minimal. Singaporeans\r\nwant to be heard and to have a greater say in policies. This is\r\na natural course of things in a country's political development.\r\nI see this as a healthy progression in our society and in our politics.
\r\n\r\n The catch phrase of the\r\nday is that we must get our policy and politics right. This is another\r\nway of saying that we just got to do more things better if we still\r\nwant to be an exceptional country. People's expectations of the\r\nGovernment have gone up. Getting our politics right would encompass\r\nvarious aspects. Among others, the Government would need to strengthen\r\nthe emotional connections with the people, see how we re-distribute\r\nthe fruits of economic success and so on. And inevitably, it would\r\nalso involve decisions on inter-generation distribution of resources;\r\nhow we allocate resources between today's Singaporeans and future\r\nSingaporeans or tomorrow's Singaporeans, how much sacrifice we are\r\nprepared to take today for a better tomorrow.
\r\nPage: 120
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe\r\nthat hon. Members in this House are in agreement that we should\r\ncontinue to work hard and invest today for a better tomorrow. It\r\nis in our value system; whether it is our household or the country,\r\nwe tend to save more for the next generations and take more of the\r\npains today for a better tomorrow. In Singapore's context, our inherent\r\nvulnerabilities do not permit otherwise. If we do not save or do\r\nnot invest and upgrade, we may well have no tomorrow. The grim situation\r\nthat Greece and many of the European welfare states are facing are\r\nobviously because they have popularly spent more yesterday than\r\ncould be funded by their tax collections and hence piling up enormous\r\ndeficits and debts. Some estimated that Greece, with its current fiscal\r\nposition, will need something like100 years to service their debt\r\nand I can imagine the financial burden to their future generations.\r\nThey have gotten both the policies and politics wrong.
\r\n\r\n But I am sure Members of\r\nthis House would also agree that with the changing social and economic\r\nlandscape, we need to spend more on today's Singaporeans than what we\r\nhave done in the past. There are already early indications of that.\r\nFor example, we are spending more on Workfare, healthcare, social\r\nassistance and so on. I hope we will spend more on public goods\r\nlike hawker centres.
\r\n\r\n The constitutional changes\r\nto the spending formula on the income of our reserves; which leads\r\nto a higher NIR contribution to the annual Budget, is also to help\r\nreduce the tax burden on today's Singaporeans. There are good, long-term\r\nand \"policy-right\" reasons why we need to spare more thoughts to\r\nbetter take care of the well-being of today's Singaporeans. The\r\nglobal economic race has become more competitive and intense. It\r\ncomes, of course, with the social challenges and brings along stresses\r\nand strains to our society.
\r\n\r\n As a small island state,\r\nwe have no choice but to take on the challenges and competition\r\nof globalisation. That is the only way for us to survive and to\r\nthrive. To sustain ourselves in this competitive landscape, we need\r\nto forge a new social compact where the people and the Government\r\ncome together as Singapore United to take on the world competition.\r\nWhat do I mean by the \"new social compact\"?
\r\n\r\n On the part of the Government,\r\nit commits to utilise whatever resources and capabilities we have\r\nto help Singaporeans prepare and cope with the ever intense competitions\r\nthat are to come. Our social safety nets need to be further strengthened. Singaporeans'\r\ninterests and well-being must come first and there must be a wider sharing\r\nof the fruits of success.
\r\n\r\n On the part of the people,\r\nwe would need to remain open, stay plugged and relevant to the world\r\nto build a dynamic economy. Singapore has to continue to be the\r\ncentre of excellence to attract capital and talents across the world.\r\nWe have to make a clear shift in our economy where more focus will\r\nbe on skills upgrading, innovation and improving productivity. Today's\r\nSingaporeans must feel that they have a stake in this country and can\r\nlive a fulfilling and happy life despite the challenges.
\r\n\r\n The implication of all this\r\nis that we will need to spend more than before to help today's Singaporeans.\r\nThis would mean higher Government spending and perhaps lesser to\r\nsave for tomorrow than before. Potentially, it may also mean slower\r\ngrowth of our reserves as there may be smaller budget surpluses\r\nto be transferred to reserves. And this to me is the new reality\r\nand the new normal.
\r\nPage: 121
\r\n\r\n However, the line we should\r\nnot cross is that while we want to spend more on today's Singaporeans\r\nto cope with the new challenges and the stresses of globalisation,\r\nwe should never go down the road of spending more today just to\r\nbe popular or spending just to have this short-lived happiness.\r\nIt is a difficult discipline and balance. One of the reference base\r\nlines is that we must never dip into our reserves to spend on populist measures\r\nand we must not compromise on our long-term security just to be\r\npopular. And hon. Members in this House can all play a part to uphold\r\nthis discipline and balance.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, to get\r\nour policy and politics right, a lot hinges on the way we execute\r\npolicies. Often, Singaporeans' grouses are not with the intent or\r\nneed of the policy but rather how it is being executed and carried\r\nout. In particular, how much thought and care we have put into helping\r\npeople who are impacted by the policy changes. Maximising efficiency\r\nand minimising financial costs often come across as the key drivers\r\nand hence the Government may often appear too \"cold\" or too \"straight-in-face\"\r\nin policy execution. This could cause resentment and negative feelings\r\nthat linger for a long time. This is not helpful in our effort to\r\nstrengthen our citizens' sense of ownership of this country.
\r\n\r\n I want to use the remaining\r\ntime of my speech today to speak up for a silent group of Singaporeans\r\nwho are most impacted by one of Government's most recent policy changes,\r\nwhich is the aggressive ramp-up of HDB home building programme.\r\nIn the last few years, owing to population growth and the sharp\r\nrecovery in the economy in 2009, housing supply has lagged behind\r\ndemand resulting in the current housing imbalance. MND and its agencies\r\nhave since taken strong and decisive measures to address this and\r\nmore flats are expected to come on stream in the next few years.\r\nThe Government has committed to build 25,000 HDB flats this year,\r\nwith another 25,000 flats next year. There will also be more rental\r\nunits as well as private land sales to meet the strong demand. This\r\nis a significant increase in housing supply in a short span of time.
\r\n\r\n I support the Government's\r\nmove to build more flats to meet the demand; especially for the\r\nfirst-time home buyers, and we have to keep the price of new flats\r\naffordable for them. However, I hope the rapid building programme\r\nwould also come with equally rapid delivery of the supporting infrastructure\r\nand amenities. Let us take the example of Zhenghua, an estate which\r\nis in the northern part of Singapore, where there will be more than\r\n4,000 new flats from now till 2015. A resident living there described\r\nthis as a \"BTO tsunami\". There has been a series of BTO launches\r\nand more are expected to be announced.
\r\n\r\n Residents by now are already\r\nresigned to the fact that there will be less open space, more blockages\r\nof view by the new flats outside their windows. Unbearable construction\r\nnoises and dust from the building sites are now their daily irritants.\r\nMost affected are the elderly residents, infants and pregnant mothers\r\nwho are not able to rest well and school-going kids studying for\r\ntheir exams. A resident living in a 3-room flat in Segar Meadows\r\nnext to three BTO sites complained that the dust from the construction sites\r\nprevented them from drying their clothes outside. He said he has\r\nto buy a laundry dryer under an instalment plan so that he can dry\r\nhis children's white school uniform inside his house. Some of sporting\r\nfacilities like the basketball court and archery range have to make\r\nway for new flats planted at close proximity to existing buildings.
\r\nPage: 122
\r\n\r\n Most residents are mentally\r\nprepared with the short-term pain from the construction activities.\r\nHowever, what they are concerned with is the state of their estates\r\nwhen these new flats are completed and new residents start to fill\r\nup the blocks in the next few years. Will the existing infrastructure\r\nand amenities be able to cope with the increased residential population?\r\nAlready, roads are congested and public transport crowded even without\r\nthe new population increase. They expect the transport situation\r\nto get worse in the next few years, unless something is done.
\r\n\r\n More amenities and affordable\r\neateries need to be planned and I really hope that there will be\r\na new hawker centre there. Just like we do not want to grow our\r\neconomy at all costs, we should be careful not to build our housing\r\nat all costs. And here, the cost that I am most concerned with is\r\nthe social costs which are impossible to quantify in dollars and\r\ncents.
\r\n\r\n Mr Charles Yeo, a resident\r\nthat I get in touch with regularly on email, sent me a quote from\r\nan article he saw at the weekend Business Times on 24 September\r\n2011 entitled, \"When dollars and cents make little sense\". In the\r\narticle, the writer Ms Teh Hooi Ling wrote, \"In the quest for efficiency,\r\nfor rational decision-making, we have attempted to put a number\r\nto everything. But not everything can be valued in monetary terms.\r\nOften times, money has the tendency to cloud our judgement on what\r\nis the right thing to do.\"
\r\n\r\n To me, getting the politics\r\nright means making sure that citizens feel that they are fairly\r\ntaken care of and the Government is thoughtful to their needs and\r\nconcerns. The human impact of policies and social costs must feature\r\nprominently in our policy considerations. It should not be just\r\na balancing or residual item in the policy equation. Sir, with that,\r\nI support the Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Minister of State for Health (Dr Amy\r\nKhor Lean Suan)\r\n : Mr Speaker, Sir, we are at the threshold\r\nof a new era in Singapore's political scene. We have a younger electorate\r\nwith higher expectations, and who are more outspoken. They represent\r\na new generation of voters, who are unencumbered by the past. For\r\ngood or for ill, this is likely to be the norm for Singapore. Sir,\r\nagainst this backdrop, allow me to highlight three points, namely,\r\nan inspiring vision, intense debate and indispensable principles,\r\nin response to the President's Address.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, we need an inspiring\r\nvision. As a new Parliament assumes office, there is a need for\r\nan inspiring vision for Singapore – one that unites, forges ahead,\r\nand harnesses the collective will and energy of the people. President\r\nTan has articulated such a vision, captured in the phrase \"A better\r\nlife for all.\" It is a simple phrase, yet one that encapsulates\r\nwhat any government must set out as its raison d'etre – to\r\ncreate the conditions for every citizen to have a better life. The\r\nbetter life President Tan speaks of must ring true in every sense\r\nof the word – material, physical, social and cultural. This calls\r\nfor a broader definition of what constitutes individual and collective\r\nsuccess and growth. Indeed, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat has\r\nbegun to re-shape the school curriculum to emphasise character,\r\nvalues and other intangibles to reaffirm to Singaporeans that success\r\nhas many faces.
\r\nPage: 123
\r\n\r\n One criticism often levelled\r\nat Singapore is its incessant emphasis on economic growth to the\r\nexclusion of everything else, and I think Members have just heard\r\na couple of these earlier. Hitherto, many people believe that we\r\nhave defined our prosperity in largely monetary terms, but in the\r\nprocess, we might have lost what critics call \"our soul\".
\r\n\r\n This negative mood is not\r\nnew. Former NMP Viswa Sadasivan filed an Adjournment Motion during\r\nthe last Parliament Session to argue that Singapore should look\r\nbeyond GDP as a measure of well-being. In my reply to him, I explained\r\nthat the Government's objective has never been to pursue economic\r\ngrowth whatever it takes. I took some pains to explain that we have\r\nin place re-distributive policies and help schemes to uplift the\r\nlower end of society, including helping them to buy a house.
\r\n\r\n Arguably, the help schemes\r\nwere considered inadequate by some. But it is never the case that\r\nSingapore is just a mean capitalist machine, creating wealth for\r\nthe elite. We also take into account the growing desire for alternative\r\ndefinition of success in education, in career direction, in personal\r\nenrichment, in quality of life, including better environmental quality,\r\nmore housing options, more recreational facilities, etc. All of which\r\ncontribute to the well-being or happiness of Singaporeans.
\r\n\r\n That our founding fathers\r\nhad seen it fit and critical to list happiness together with prosperity\r\nand progress as the three key outcomes they want to achieve for\r\nour nation, for Singapore shows that this has been and will always\r\nbe what the PAP Government seeks for all Singaporeans. But as President\r\nTan has said in his Address, \"to achieve a better life for all,\r\nour economy must grow.\" This is basic to improving our lives. I\r\nam sure many Members in this House will agree with me that man or\r\nwoman cannot live on fresh air, love or for that matter happiness\r\nalone. One needs only to look at the overriding calls now by the\r\nAmericans and many Europeans for their governments to turn around\r\nthe economy, create jobs, to know that this is so. In this regard,\r\nI am also wondering if the Member, Mr Muhamad Faizal Bin Abdul Manap, is\r\nsaying that, to resolve the problems of some families, it is better\r\nto have no growth or slow growth. No growth or slow growth will\r\nmake everyone worse off, but it will have the harshest impact on\r\nthe poor, the very group that we are all trying to help. The correct\r\napproach is not to dumb down the top but to pump up the bottom.\r\nBut, clearly, Mr Viswa Sadasivan's views still resonate among a\r\nsignificant group of our population: that not enough is being done.
\r\n\r\n In this regard, REACH's\r\nsurvey on National Day Rally (NDR) 2011 is very telling. While a\r\nsignificant 73% of the 841 respondents agreed that Singapore should\r\nnot become a welfare state even as it should progressively improve\r\nits social safety net, only slightly more than half (51%) feel that\r\nthe Government has done enough to ensure that the vulnerable groups\r\nsuch as the poor and those with special needs are looked after.
\r\n\r\n Sir, I believe that the\r\npresent Government will need to re-double its efforts to demonstrate\r\nto detractors the humane side of our economic growth policies. As\r\na start, the three key pillars of our social safety net – Workfare,\r\nComCare and Medifund – can be further strengthened. The recent joint\r\nreport by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) and Department of Statistics\r\n(DOS) shows that the real income growth for low-wage Singaporeans\r\nin the 20th percentile was \"flat\" from 2001 to 2010.
\r\n\r\n They would not have enjoyed\r\nthe fruits of Singapore's economic growth in the good years if not\r\nfor re-distributive schemes such as the Workfare Income Supplement\r\n(WIS). But as many Members of Parliament and myself have raised\r\nin this House before, we need to further enhance the WIS by increasing\r\nthe cash component of the scheme. We also need to increase the frequency\r\nof the payout from half yearly to at least quarterly. Furthermore,\r\nthe total quantum of WIS payouts should be reviewed regularly taking\r\ninto account inflation and wage growth to ensure its relevance.\r\nIn this way, WIS will make a significant difference to the take-home\r\npay of the low-wage worker.
\r\nPage: 124
\r\n\r\n As regards ComCare, help\r\nshould be extended beyond the households with incomes of $1,500\r\nper month and below, which approximates the lowest 10th percentile\r\nof households, to those with incomes of $2,500 per month and below,\r\nwhich approximates the lowest 20th percentile of households. Our\r\nexperience at the CDCs shows that many households in this income\r\ngroup do need help to cope, especially with the rising cost of living.\r\nAt the South West CDC, we have already increased the qualifying\r\nhousehold income ceiling for our local help schemes to $2,500 per\r\nmonth. The key point here is that the qualifying criteria as well\r\nas the quantum and types of assistance need to be reviewed periodically\r\nand revised, if necessary. The rules should also be applied flexibly to\r\nensure that no one who genuinely needs help falls through the cracks.
\r\n\r\n Ultimately, the sustainable\r\nway to help the low and lower middle income workers achieve a better\r\nlife is to upgrade their skills for better paying jobs. At the same\r\ntime, companies must also embark on best sourcing, instead of cheap\r\nsourcing. They also need to raise productivity and enhance the quality\r\nof the jobs they offer. This will enable them to pay locals with\r\nthe relevant skills higher wages. Jobs will then be better matched\r\nto locals, and we will rely less on foreign workers.
\r\n\r\n To further ensure a Singaporean\r\ncore workforce, I am in favour of NTUC's proposal for a tiered S-Pass\r\nscheme with higher qualifying salaries. This will eliminate some competition\r\nfor jobs with the locals at the scheme's current minimum salary\r\nof $2,000 per month for semi-skilled workers. NTUC's idea of imposing\r\nquotas for foreign professionals on Q1-type passes should also be\r\nconsidered as more experienced foreigners may be hired over younger\r\nlocal diploma and degree graduates. The quota could vary depending\r\non the industry so as to minimise labour market rigidity and erosion\r\nof competitiveness.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, we must be prepared\r\nfor intensive debate. Sir, the recent two elections, the General\r\nElection (GE) and Presidential Election (PE), have shown that politics\r\nis becoming more polarising and that an increasing number of Singaporeans\r\nwant their voices to be heard. Opposition politicians will in all\r\nlikelihood challenge many policies. If so, they are doing what they\r\nset out to do, but this could make for a more fractious political\r\nscene. In this context, to keep to the vision which President Tan\r\nhas articulated, we need to approach differences and debate in a\r\nspirit of dialogue and civility. Criticism must be welcomed, because\r\nit will sharpen policies. But criticism must also be responsible\r\nand constructive, with the view to improving policies, not merely\r\nscoring political points. Hence, debate, and not just in Parliament,\r\nbut also in personal dialogues, in any and every platform, but especially\r\nonline, needs to be rational, sensible, well thought-out and meaningful.\r\nSmoke and noise will only befuddle, and not enlighten. But for broad\r\nbased intelligent and responsible debate to occur, the Government\r\nwill need to step up its engagement efforts both online and offline.
\r\n\r\n Indeed, in the REACH National\r\nDay Rally survey, more than eight in 10 (83%) feel that the Government\r\nas a whole should be more active and adept at engaging Singaporeans online.\r\nA similar percentage, 82%, also desire reliable websites where people\r\ncan have open debate and express different but balanced views. But\r\nwhat is worrying is that only slightly more than six in 10 (62%)\r\nagree that the \"anonymous and chaotic nature of the Internet often\r\nlends itself to \"negative views and ridiculous untruths, which can\r\ndistort reality\". This seems to suggest that there is a bias towards\r\nonline extreme views which are more tantalising than pro-government\r\nor \"balanced\" views.
\r\nPage: 125
\r\n\r\n Online engagement will increasingly\r\nbecome more important with the growing number of digital citizens.\r\nIt is simply impossible to engage on all sites. The Government could\r\nengage on sites which allow for reasoned and constructive debate\r\nand gain traction. Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse\r\nshould support such sites or else start them. They should not be\r\nafraid of being labelled \"pro-government\".
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, we must always\r\nabide by the indispensable principles. But while policies continue\r\nto be refined, there are always fundamental values and basic principles\r\nwhich we should adhere to. The same REACH survey on responses to\r\nthis year's National Day Rally show that 76% of the respondents\r\nagree that Singapore should maintain its basic strategic directions\r\ninstead of veering towards popular policies.
\r\n\r\n Despite the sound and fury\r\nof both the General Elections and Presidential Election, I find\r\nthese responses very heartening. Because they indicate that Singaporeans\r\nby and large do not expect major policy shifts which may endanger\r\nour long-term survival. If populist policies bring short-term relief,\r\nbut long-term damage, I believe that such policies will be rejected\r\nby the majority.
\r\n\r\n What are some of these indispensable\r\nprinciples that we should never jettison? Let me mention three which\r\nhave served us well over the past few decades and I believe will continue\r\nto ensure our success.
\r\n\r\n Firstly, practise fiscal\r\nsustainability. We must beware the dangers of the welfare state, and\r\nthe ruin that comes from unsustainable public finance or excessive\r\ndebt. One only needs to look at Greece to appreciate how things\r\ncan go awry if we fail to adhere to this. Hence, even as we continue\r\nto strengthen our social safety net, we must not go the way of western\r\nstyle welfarism which has saddled not just Greece, but many European economies\r\nwith unsustainable government budgets. Ultimately, jobs are lost,\r\nwages cut, austerity measures need to be put in place, and the country\r\nsuffers.
\r\n\r\n Secondly, as the former\r\nMinister Mentor once said, the Government must always keep on moral\r\nand intellectual high ground, and especially the former. In this\r\nnew normal with higher expectations from the public, we need to\r\nreaffirm the spirit of public service. Civil servants will have\r\nto re-capture the spirit of their high calling – greater civility\r\nand servanthood in all they do. To enable the Government to better\r\ncraft and implement policies with both \"the head and heart\", every\r\ncivil servant that will be involved in policy making should be attached\r\nto community-based and frontline agencies for a period of at least\r\nthree months or more, to observe and participate in dealings with\r\nthe public. They should not just be sent for cursory visits.
\r\n\r\n Thirdly, promote social\r\nmobility. It is in the nature of things that the cream rises to the\r\ntop. We must educate, persuade and cajole the cream to stoop to\r\nlift others, but never hamper their rise in the first place. To\r\ndo so will impoverish us all. At the same time, we must do all we\r\ncan to ensure social mobility for all segments of the population, particularly\r\nthe low and lower middle income.
\r\nPage: 126
\r\n\r\n More resources should therefore\r\nbe put into ensuring that their children have an equal chance to\r\nexcel in school, acquire skills and maximise their potential. In\r\nthis respect, I am glad that the MOE has affirmed that every child,\r\nregardless of family circumstances and background, will have access\r\nto opportunities. I am also glad that MOE has pledged to create\r\nmore pathways to match the interests and aptitude of every student,\r\nincluding making every school a \"good school\". Making every school\r\na \"good school\" will help reduce the angst of parents when their\r\nchildren cannot get into a primary or secondary school of their\r\nchoice. But, with our strong Asian culture of wanting the best for\r\nour children, it will not be easy to convince parents that all schools can\r\nbe \"good schools\" and that, there are, as what Minister Lim Swee\r\nSay will likely say, \"No betterer schools! But, try we must.\"
\r\n\r\n Sir, I support President\r\nTan's vision of a better life for all. There are no easy answers or\r\nshort-cut solutions to achieve this, as noted by President Tan.\r\nIn fact, the goals will always be moving. But at the same time,\r\nthe goal is immensely meaningful and inspiring. Sir, I, therefore,\r\npledge my utmost to help make it happen and I would like to urge\r\nall of us in this House to join me in this quest.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr David Ong (Jurong)\r\n : Mr\r\nSpeaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the Motion for\r\nthanking President Tony Tan for his Opening Address to the Twelfth Parliament.\r\nThe President has illustrated a robust overview of the various aspect\r\nof Singapore's society, an inclusive nation where all must come\r\ntogether as one people to face our challenges with confidence and\r\nbuild our future together. As a new Member of this House, I am thankful\r\nfor the opportunity to serve and I am deeply humbled at the task\r\nat hand.
\r\n\r\n Singapore has evolved, both\r\nas a country and as a society. We have very high literacy rate,\r\nthe world's busiest airport and seaport, and are one of the most\r\nwired nations in the world. It will be foolish to assume that these\r\nmilestones were achieved by sheer luck. Credit must be given to\r\nthose who have brought us here. These include our forefathers, our\r\ncitizenry who have worked hard, and former Members of this House,\r\nwho pored through policies always putting society before self. Allow\r\nme to express my gratitude to them on record.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the buzzword today\r\nis the \"new normal\". The social landscape in Singapore is vastly\r\ndifferent from 10 years ago. However, relevance today does not equate\r\nto continued relevance in this globalised world. As we strive to\r\nembrace and make globalisation work for Singapore, we should never\r\nneglect segments of society that cannot adapt to this rapidly changing\r\nworld. Sir, allow me to speak of some issues that affect Singaporeans\r\ntoday.
\r\n\r\n We have an ageing population\r\nwith 530,000 elderly Singaporeans aged above 60 years. The pace\r\nwill increase notably next year when the first cohort of the baby boomers\r\nreaches 65 years of age. While the reasons are obvious from lower\r\nbirth rates, better health care and longer life span, the solutions\r\nin tackling these issues facing an ageing population are far and\r\nfew. Sir, I understand the severity of the task confronting our\r\npolicymakers in the face of this insurmountable issue. They have,\r\non the one hand, worked with the fundamental philosophy that the\r\nfamily remains the primary unit of care and support, while, at the\r\nsame time, develop interventionist policies to tackling the challenges\r\nof an ageing population head-on.
\r\nPage: 127
\r\n\r\n Sir, I wish to speak on\r\ntwo issues: retirement financing and elderly healthcare. It is understood\r\nthat most health problems develop at older age, with weaker immunity\r\nand a sedentary lifestyle. While healthcare in Singapore is largely\r\nsubsidised, to many, it is still a significant financial burden\r\non families. It is also unfortunate that in many cases, many of\r\nour seniors have little or no Medisave, MediShield or other insurance\r\ncoverage. Therefore, they are fully dependent on the younger generation\r\nfor payments of medical bills. We have a world-class medical infrastructure.\r\nSimilarly, we should also have a world-class framework to alleviate\r\nthe burden of medical cost. It is evident that with better quality\r\nof life, health awareness and medical facilities, life expectancy\r\ncould continue to rise. Presently, we have 29,000 elderly who are\r\n85 years and above, who are not covered by MediShield. We should\r\nreview the extension of MediShield coverage for elderly citizens\r\nbeyond the age of 85 years. This will provide greater peace of mind\r\nfor the elderly and their loved ones.
\r\n\r\n Sir, residents I meet during\r\nthe Meet-the-People sessions often lament that the Government seeks\r\nto lock up their CPF funds such that they will never see them. While I\r\nunderstand why they feel such angst, their understanding is usually\r\nfar from the truth. I see wisdom in the Government's rationale in\r\nensuring there is adequate CPF funds to see them through their retirement\r\nyears. However, the truth is that many Singaporeans do not have\r\nenough money to retire. The problem is magnified when a sole-breadwinner\r\nretires and has both himself and his spouse to support.
\r\n\r\n The typical Singaporean's\r\nargument that the CPF is their money is not wrong. It is an undeniable\r\nfact. Therefore, retirement policies regarding CPF must be relooked.\r\nAt the same time, there must be built-in flexibility in the way\r\nCPF is withdrawn when retirement age comes. We must never become\r\na society, where we \"work till we die\". While raising the retirement\r\nage is an option, it cannot be a panacea. Retirement is a milestone\r\nthat must be respected. Therefore, we must look at the issues surrounding\r\ndrawing of CPF monies as well as addressing people's thinking that\r\ntheir CPF money is being unfairly held back.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the elderly need not\r\nbe a burden to society. We will get old. It is a fact of life. No one\r\nseeks to be a burden on another person. Similarly, nobody wishes\r\nto be sick and requires regular medical attention. However, unforeseen\r\ncircumstances, from illness to disabilities force an individual\r\nto rely heavily on someone for care and assistance. While the family\r\nremains at the forefront of care and support, we must never assume\r\nthat the family is sufficient in providing assistance. There is\r\na real limit to complete assistance by family members. Therefore,\r\nwe have to up our game, in providing a holistic care for our elderly.\r\nI applaud the Health Ministry in providing more space for community hospitals;\r\nhowever, we cannot and must not stop here.
\r\n\r\n Professional care must extend\r\nbeyond the gates of a community hospital. Many a time, families\r\nare at wits end in caring for elders who are chronically ill, such\r\nas stroke and dementia, and thus may need specialised care, such\r\nas colostomy or tracheostomy. Therefore, I urge the Health Ministry\r\nto look at these cases and frame policies that will extend care\r\nbeyond the walls of a hospital to the confines of an individual's\r\nhome.
\r\nPage: 128
\r\n\r\n In Singapore, we have about\r\n300,000 full-time domestic workers. While a majority of them perform\r\nhousehold chores, there is a significant and growing number hired\r\nto double-up or solely to look after the elderly. While it is commendable\r\nthat the families pay lower levy in such cases, we have a problem\r\nat hand. Many a time, families have difficulty getting domestic\r\nhelp. They are hurdled with long waiting time while they struggle\r\nto care for their elderly sick. Even when they get one, these domestic\r\nhelpers are not mentally prepared, physically abled and trained\r\nto care for the elderly sick, making them an occupational hazard.\r\nIt does not help that in most cases, the domestic worker is usually\r\nalone with the elderly at home.
\r\n\r\n Respite care in nursing\r\nhomes is limited, more expensive and there are currently severe\r\nshortages in the system. All we have now for elder care financing\r\nis a rudimentary system in ElderShield that needs to be more comprehensive.\r\nCurrently, ElderShield pays out only when the insured has deficiency\r\nin three Activities of Daily Living (ADL). In fact, care is also\r\nrequired when one suffers from two ADLs. But if ElderShield is to\r\npay for two ADL, the premiums would be substantially higher. So\r\nthe Government has to study this very carefully. Until ElderShield\r\nbecomes more robust with wider coverage, there will be very slow\r\ndevelopment of eldercare services by the private sector. More support\r\nmust also be considered for needy elderly and caregivers who face\r\nemotional and financial strains. Perhaps, the Government can endorse\r\nleave entitlements for the caregivers to look after elderly parents\r\nso that the caregivers do not need to struggle with their commitments\r\nat work and provide care for their elders.
\r\n\r\n Financing long-term care\r\nof the aged is an important issue that must be tackled now. I urge\r\nthe Government to study this issue with a view to enhance easy access,\r\nqualitative home care and family support services for the overall\r\nwell-being of our elderly. Elderly issues will become more pronounced\r\nand acute with our rapidly ageing society. I am, however, heartened\r\nto note the President's assurance to elderly citizens that Singapore will\r\nalways be their home where they can spend their silver years in\r\npeace of mind.
\r\n\r\n Sir, allow me to shift focus\r\nand touch on the predicaments of small- and medium-sized enterprises\r\n(SMEs). The 2011 Budget had provisions for local SMEs to increase productivity,\r\nwith cash grants and corporate income tax rebates. Raising productivity\r\nis an important milestone and I am glad the Government sees wisdom\r\nin providing reliefs to encourage SMEs to raise productivity. However,\r\non the ground, SMEs are struggling.
\r\n\r\n Sir, as I said in the beginning,\r\nglobalisation has meant a continual struggle for companies big and\r\nsmall, to maintain their relevance and succeed in a competitive environment.\r\nSMEs, unlike MNCs, have to deal with the three evils of weakening\r\nglobal economy, manpower challenges and rising business costs.
\r\n\r\n Sir, the first evil is the\r\nweakening global economy which is still struggling to find the bottom.\r\nEurope and US' economies are in trouble whilst Japan has been in\r\nrecession for years now. Despite this bleak global outlook, we can\r\ntackle the manpower problem and the rising business costs domestically.
\r\n\r\n SMEs employ some 65% of\r\nour workforce and they have been gravely affected by the recent\r\ntightening of foreign manpower supply, particularly in the service\r\nsector. I have met several SMEs and representatives of the Association\r\nof SMEs. They do understand the Government's rationale of tightening\r\nforeign workers, the need to raise productivity and real incomes\r\nof Singaporeans. However, SMEs have stated unequivocally that the pace\r\nof tightening foreign manpower is too fast.
\r\nPage: 129
\r\n\r\n Many SMEs owners are faced\r\nwith non-renewals of their existing skilled and reliable staff.\r\nThis has seriously affected their business operations and has threatened\r\ntheir business viability. The SMEs would like the Government to\r\nbe more measured in its pace, give them time to adjust, to introduce\r\ntechnology, to work harder at attracting Singaporeans and to look\r\nat re-deployment plans where necessary. Rather than being perceived\r\nas \"tightening the noose\" around the SMEs, I urge the Government\r\nto invest in and build our SMEs to the next level.
\r\n\r\n Sir, SMEs play an important\r\npart in Singapore's economy. Many SMEs provide everyday goods and\r\nservices, from floral, pastry, retail, delivery to food and beverages and\r\nmany others in between. They serve as a conduit between the large\r\nenterprises and the consumers. Hence, they should never be neglected\r\nnor pitched against the MNCs. Their plight must be considered in\r\npolicy-making and cannot afford to be ignored. I urge the Government\r\nto hear them, consult with them and help them as they adjust towards a\r\nnew normal.
\r\n\r\n Sir, allow me to touch on\r\ntwo social issues very briefly: the casinos and the problems with\r\nlicensed moneylenders. Our two casinos have passed their first year\r\nof operation. They are extremely profitable. We are all well aware\r\nof the detrimental effects of problem gambling. It does not help\r\nthat gambling is addictive. I urge MCYS to perform an in-depth study\r\non the gambling patterns amongst Singaporeans and foreign workers as\r\nwell as the credit situation in Singapore.
\r\n\r\n Finally, Sir, the issue\r\nof licensed moneylenders. These credit companies have mushroomed\r\nfrom 160 to about 260 in less than two years. Their methods of advertisements\r\nin local dailies and easy access are creating social problems not\r\njust for the borrower, but also for their parents, spouses, children\r\nand relatives.
\r\n\r\n I am happy to note the recent\r\nmeasures taken by the Ministry of Law to tighten control before\r\nthe problem gets out of hand. Sir, I urge the Ministry of Law to\r\nalso review the Moneylenders Act 2009 and assess the safeguards\r\non interest rates and late payment penalties. For example, for loans\r\namount above $3,000 and income above $20,000 a year, there is no\r\ncap to the interest charged and the interest rate is usually a mutual\r\nagreement between the borrower and the moneylender.
\r\n\r\n A resident of mine recently\r\nshowed me an IOU, where he borrowed $2,000. His interest rate was\r\n180% per annum, which meant that his loan repayment for one year amounted\r\nto $5,860 or close to three times the initial amount borrowed. He\r\nwas late on his payments, and a penalty of 240% interest on principal\r\nand interests was levied. His debt is spiralling out of control\r\nand he cannot find a way to repay. On top of this, he is now served\r\nwith a legal letter of demand with legal costs. I do urge the Government\r\nto look into this matter with urgency and suggest appropriate amendments\r\nto the Moneylenders Act.
\r\n\r\n Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore\r\ntoday is at an important junction where traffic is wild with many\r\nblind spots. We cannot assume that no accidents will happen as we\r\nnavigate this volatile traffic. The global outlook does not look\r\nvery promising, especially in the short term. Nevertheless, tackling\r\ncrises is not new to Singapore. We have weathered storms quickly\r\nand effectively before. This is what makes us unique and has allowed\r\nus to maintain a strategic foothold in this globalised world. As\r\nwe strive to maintain our relevance and prosper, we must never neglect\r\nthe people, Singaporeans, who have for generations, sweat to defend\r\nand provide for this land we call home. I am confident that we will\r\ntackle the challenges ahead with gusto.
\r\nPage: 130
\r\n\r\n On happiness quotient, it\r\nis an innate desire for parents to provide and increase happiness\r\nfor our families, just like our forefathers' desire for its people\r\nto achieve happiness. Happiness is relative. It has many ingredients\r\nand economics is just one of them. One's happiness quotient is also\r\nlinked to one's value system. How one manages expectations and ambitions.\r\nAs much as we want the Government to increase our happiness quotient,\r\nI believe that we as individuals can influence, increase and pursue our\r\nown happiness for ourselves and better yet for others. Sir, I support\r\nthe Motion.
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh)\r\n :\r\nSir, I see several pairs of eyes pleading with me to keep it short\r\nand I will try and raise the happiness quotient of this House by doing\r\nso. I rise to support the Motion. There are many difficult issues\r\nwhich the Government and this House will have to grapple with in\r\nthe next five years. These will no doubt include the rising cost\r\nof living and the widening income gap. In this regard, Singapore\r\nis not unique. These are the very same issues that have reached\r\na critical point in other countries, as evidenced by the angry demonstrations\r\nwe have witnessed recently. What is less clear is what the demonstrators\r\nwant changed or how they can achieve it. There will inevitably be\r\ncalls for social safety nets to be strengthened. That will give\r\nrise to concerns about welfarism. And we have heard those arguments\r\nin this House.
\r\n\r\n The welfare state was no\r\ndoubt developed out of good intentions, to improve the lives of\r\npeople and many people did benefit from it, depending on whether\r\nyou lived at the right time. But it is often not appreciated that\r\nthe Government has nothing. It funds its programmes by taking money\r\nfrom A to pay to B, or spending money that it does not have. That\r\nis what many countries have done and the day of reckoning has arrived\r\nfor them. I would hope that we have sufficiently absorbed experience\r\nof others not to go down the same path. The definition of \"madness\"\r\nis to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different\r\nresult.
\r\n\r\n I believe most Singaporeans\r\ndo not want us to become a welfare state. They recognise the value\r\nof receiving reward for work and living within one's means. They also\r\ndo not want the Government to tax them anymore than it needs to.\r\nBut most would also like the Government to do more. How can we achieve\r\nall these without sacrificing our core principles? That is a real\r\nchallenge because as Milton Friedman once said, \"every person is\r\nperfectly capable of persuading himself that what is in his interest\r\nis in the country's interest.\" Reasonable people will have different\r\nviews on this issue and the debate will go on for many years. But\r\nthere is one group I believe we can help more without compromising\r\nour values, and that is the elderly. And rather than talk about them\r\ngenerally, I would like to raise a specific issue.
\r\n\r\n At my Meet-the-People Session\r\n(MPS) last week, a resident, let us call her Mdm Mary, approached\r\nme for help. Mary is 71, a single. She worked hard as a Personal\r\nAssistant (PA) to a company director for many years and now owns\r\nher own flat in Toa Payoh where she lives with her widowed sister.\r\nThey did not receive any form of financial support and had been\r\nliving off their savings, and these savings are now running dry. They\r\nare still healthy but understandably worried of what would happen\r\nif either or both of them should fall ill. Mary believes that her\r\nonly option is to sell the flat and downgrade to a studio apartment.\r\nThat is logical, but it is also not easy to get one as demand far exceeds\r\nsupply. She wanted me to secure priority for a studio apartment\r\nand was disappointed that I could not. Hers is not a unique situation.\r\nIn my recent block visit to a block of 3-room flats in Toa Payoh,\r\nI met others in similar situations. Elderly Singaporeans who are\r\nasset rich but cash poor. I am sure many in this House would have\r\nas well.
\r\nPage: 131
\r\n\r\n We all accept that society\r\nhas changed over the last 30 years. One of the institutions most\r\naffected is the family unit. Much as we like to resist it, there\r\nare some consequences which are inevitable. More Singaporeans will\r\nnot marry. Those who do will have fewer children. Our fertility\r\nrate has dropped below 1.2. However much money we throw at the problem,\r\nwhile it can increase slightly, it will never rise anywhere close to\r\nthe replacement level of 2.1. The days of large families are over.\r\nThis has nothing to do with the \"Stop at Two\" policy in the 1970s\r\nor any particular Government policy. We are witnessing a world-wide\r\ntrend brought about by a confluence of factors and some of these\r\nfactors are what we consider positive to us like more women entering\r\nthe workforce. So it is not just about rising housing prices. That\r\nis a simplistic way to look at it. But whatever the cost, the result\r\nis that when we get old and retire, we have to depend less on the\r\nyounger generation to maintain us. The Maintenance of Parents Act, however\r\nmuch it was improved recently, can only go so far and do so much. Singaporeans\r\nwould have to plan carefully for their retirement and plan early.\r\nBut the fact of the matter is, many will not or will not be able\r\nto. In particular, those who earn less may not be able to put enough\r\naway as salaries stagnate and the cost of living rises.
\r\n\r\n Singaporeans have long relied\r\non two main pillars of security – our CPF and our homes. For the\r\nless well-off, these are their only pillars. For many elderly, it\r\nis too late to talk about savings, investments or insurance. They\r\nare from a generation who were less educated but who worked hard\r\nand in difficult circumstances to provide for their families and\r\nto build a better life for their children. By and large, they succeeded.\r\nFor one reason or another, they now receive little or no support\r\nfrom their families. As families get smaller, we will see more Mdm\r\nMarys looking for help.
\r\n\r\n The CPF has its limitations.\r\nThe monthly payout is not sufficient to maintain a reasonable lifestyle,\r\nparticularly in the current environment. It is also inadequate to\r\ndeal with the crisis such as medical expenses. Medisave cannot be\r\nused for all treatments and there are limits to drawdowns. This\r\napplies to every Singaporean. So why do I highlight the elderly?\r\nTwo reasons. First, unlike the young, most cannot do much to improve\r\ntheir prospects. Retraining will be difficult and getting a job\r\n– next to impossible. Second, many have means because they own their\r\nown homes outright. They are the beneficiaries of a far-sighted\r\npolicy by the PAP Government to encourage Singaporeans to own their\r\nown homes. And because of sound economic management, they have seen\r\nthe values of their homes rise significantly. We take this for granted\r\nand some even complain about it. But an entire generation of Singaporeans\r\nis better off for it. As in any policy, the difficulty lies not\r\nwith the objective for the policy, but its consequences. Most elderly\r\ntoday have a major part, in some cases almost all, of their networth\r\nlocked up in their homes. The problem is that this benefit remains\r\nlocked up and therefore unhelpful in times of need. This is the\r\nproblem of Mdm Mary, and many others like her.
\r\nPage: 132
\r\n\r\n Mdm Mary came to me not\r\nlooking for handout, just an opportunity to provide for her sister\r\nand herself using her own means. But what options do we provide\r\nher and others like her today? We say she can downgrade. Easier\r\nsaid than done. It works if she can get a studio apartment, but\r\nthose are not easy to come by. So she will need to buy a resale flat\r\nwhich is expensive. She will not be able to obtain a loan because\r\nof her age. Therefore, most of the proceeds of the sale of a flat\r\nwould be ploughed back into her new flat. So that does not address\r\nthe problem. Besides, do we really want older Singaporeans to move,\r\nbreak ties they have developed with their neighbours over many years\r\nand start all over again in an unfamiliar environment. That cannot\r\nbe good for their well-being. We want them to grow old among friends\r\nand people they know, people who will look out for them. Second\r\noption, she can sell and then rent a home, but she will be barred\r\nfor 30 months from getting an HDB rental flat, and even then, she\r\nis unlikely to get one because she has the proceeds of the sale\r\nof her flat. So she has to rent from the open market which is expensive\r\nand uncertain because she will have to keep renewing her lease and\r\ntherefore be subject to market forces. Not a good solution. We tell\r\nher that she can rent out a room to earn income. But Mary does not\r\nhave a spare room because her sister stays with her. Again, is it\r\nreally a feasible solution for two elderly women or any elderly\r\nperson to let a stranger into their home? Further, it may take some\r\ntime to find a suitable tenant and the value of the home remains\r\nlocked up.
\r\n\r\n Sir, a few years ago, we\r\nintroduced reverse mortgages to unlock value, but that has not proven\r\npopular. I can understand why. It is very inflexible. It only applies\r\nto 2- or 3-room flats. The monthly payments are low. I asked HDB\r\nfor some estimates in Mary's case. Her flat now has a market value\r\nof above $300,000 and has 57 years left on the lease. Mary will\r\nreceive an upfront payment of $5,000 and a monthly payment of about $630.\r\nSix hundred and thirty dollars a month is difficult for two elderly\r\nwomen. Further, there is a number of disadvantages. The payments\r\nare based on the present-day value of the flat as determined by\r\nthe HDB, which means Mary does not benefit from any rise in property\r\nprices in the following years. Once she signs on, she cannot sign\r\nout. So she can no longer sell her flat or bequeath it to her beneficiaries.\r\nWhen she passes on, the flat is taken back by the HDB and the remaining\r\nvalue cashed out at current prices and given to her beneficiaries.\r\nSo what is the point of having a $300,000 home, if you cannot extract\r\nvalue in times of need? It is a good thing to be asset rich, but\r\nelderly Singaporeans do not want to be cash poor.
\r\n\r\n I therefore urge the Government\r\nto come up with a different programme to help older Singaporeans\r\nunlock the value of their HDB flats. One suggestion is to have a\r\nmore flexible lease buyback programme. For example, can we not allow\r\nSingaporeans to sell back portions of their lease to HDB at market\r\nvalue? A 70-year-old couple does not need a 50- or 60-year-old lease.\r\nIf they can sell part of the lease back to HDB, say, in parcel of five\r\nor 10 years, that would give them a decent sum. This would have\r\na number of advantages. A lump sum payment would give them more\r\nflexibility in planning and meeting their immediate needs such as\r\nthe cost of an operation or other medical needs. Only a small portion\r\nof their lease would be valued at current prices, which means they still\r\nbenefit from rising property prices and the effects of inflation\r\nare reduced. They will continue to have the option to sell their\r\nflat if they want to buy a studio apartment when one becomes available,\r\nor they can leave the flat behind for their loved ones. More importantly\r\nand underpinning this suggestion is that they will not be receiving something\r\nfor nothing. They will be using their own asset to support themselves,\r\nand this is consistent with our core principles.
\r\nPage: 133
\r\n\r\n What are the downsides?\r\nWill too many apply? We can prevent a floodgate of applications\r\nby placing conditions on who will qualify such as imposing an age\r\ncriteria for applicants in matching the number of surrenders or\r\nspecifying a minimum balance of 10 years to ensure that the lease\r\nwill not expire prematurely. Will this not result in flats in the\r\nsame block having different tenures? Yes, it will but with technology,\r\nthat should not be a problem to administer. Such a scheme would\r\nbe in addition to all the other programmes currently available and\r\nwould give the elderly more options and greater flexibility to take\r\ncare of their own needs. This would strengthen HDB's role, not only\r\nas a builder of homes, but as an important institution in the welfare\r\nof Singaporeans and particularly the elderly. This is what our home\r\nownership policy was designed to do, not just provide a roof over\r\nour heads, certainly not to provide an asset which one can buy and\r\nsell to make money, but to give every Singaporean a stake in this\r\ncountry and to provide for their well-being. And what better way\r\nto do that by having that home, benefit and work for Singaporeans\r\nthroughout their entire lives.
\r\n\r\n This Government is well\r\ncapable of developing effective programmes to allow the elderly\r\nto make the best use of their homes. Our Workfare and Jobs Credit\r\nprogrammes show that we can think out of the box and come out with\r\nbold, creative and effective programmes to help working Singaporeans\r\nand our elderly desire no less. Sir, I support the Motion.
\r\nPage: 133
\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen)\r\n :\r\nMr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your consent to move that the debate\r\nbe now adjourned?
\r\nPage: 133
\r\nPage: 134
\r\n \r\nPage: 140
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Ms Sim Ann \r\n
\r\nPage: 142
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Mr Alex\r\nYam \r\n
\r\nPage: 144
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Mr Muhamad\r\nFaisal Bin Abdul Manap\r\n
\r\nPage: 145
\r\n\r\n Vernacular\r\nSpeech by Dr Mohamad\r\nMaliki Bin Osman\r\n
\r\nPage: 148
\r\n \r\n