Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

6.34 pm

Page: 506

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Manpower (Mr Hawazi Daipi): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak in support of the motion to thank the President for his Address to this Twelfth Parliament. I know this has been a very long week, so I would like to thank Members for their continued attention.

I would like to focus on inclusive growth for Singapore and for Singaporeans through education and training, and how everyone has a chance to work towards a good life. The Government has invested much in education and training, so that every Singaporean can be "armed" with the necessary skills – our best "weapon" to seek a good living and future for ourselves and our families. Decent work and a good job can also be a source of personal satisfaction, fulfilment as well as dignity. In a country such as ours where human resources remain our best and sole resource for economic survival, Singapore depends on our people to survive and thrive. Work is the best means for Singaporeans to achieve self-reliance while participating in and reaping the benefits of the economic growth of our country.

But with the world moving much faster than before, having the skills to stay in our jobs today is no longer enough. We also need to have the capabilities to meet the demands of tomorrow. Supporting Singaporeans through continuous learning is our way of helping Singaporeans stay employable with the new knowledge and skills sets required to remain relevant in the job market. This is why, apart from Pre-Employment Training, the Government has also invested heavily in our Continuing Education and Training (CET) framework.

But while most workers strive on and seek out opportunities to obtain the skills, experience and qualifications to stay relevant and ahead of the game, there is a group of people among us who are less poised to take advantage of these opportunities ‒ the less-educated and less-skilled. They must not be left behind. The Tripartite Committee for Low-Wage Workers and Inclusive Growth (TriCom), which I chair, was set up in October 2010 to deal with the challenges faced by our low-wage workers. The key focus of TriCom is to help those who missed out on opportunities in school to catch the boat now and pick up the skills needed to earn a good living. The Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) is an alternative pathway that allows those without formal qualifications to be granted nationally recognised qualification and certification based on their workplace skills and experience.

Low-wage workers face unique challenges and barriers to training which keep them from stepping out of the low-income trap. To help them surmount these challenges, the Workfare Training Support (WTS) Scheme was launched in July last year to support them in the pursuit of training for greater income and social mobility. The generous course fee subsidies and absentee payroll support help them to reduce the cost of training for themselves as well as their employers. Training commitment award payments of up to $400 a year to reward them for completing training. There are other specific ways to encourage low-wages workers to take up skills training. The Workfare-Skills Up, for example, provides, among others, mentorship. English at workplace raises accessibility of literacy training as it is conducted at the workplace.

As low-wage workers improve their own circumstances through training, we can help uplift them by providing them with better wages and employment standards. The second focus of the TriCom is on best sourcing because a significant number of low-wage workers are employed in outsourced sectors, such as the security and cleaning services sectors.

Page: 507

Low-wage workers in outsourced sectors are particularly vulnerable as they and their employers typically lack the bargaining power to make a difference to their wages and employment standards. Buyers of outsourced services tend to look to price as the determining factor for services which do not have defining quality and value propositions. For cleaning and security sectors, this is usually the case. When a buyer procures based on the lowest price it can get for the service, it encourages unhealthy price competition that depresses wages and employment standards across the sector as service providers try to undercut one another to win the contract. The Tripartite Advisory on Responsible Outsourcing Practices shows the way forward for service buyers to act responsibly to ensure that the workers of their outsourced service providers are provided with basic employment standards and benefits. The TriCom is revising the Advisory to update the recommendations for better implementation. The revised Advisory and a step-by-step guidebook, which will provide practical tips for procurement officers and management, will be launched sometime next month.

Mr Zainal Sapari has said that the Government and the NTUC have done much to help low-wage workers and urges for more to be done. I cannot agree more. But beyond schemes and subsidies, my hope is to see the betterment of our low-wage workers with the support of a more socially conscious business and social community. The need to change the way that we, as the procurer of services – be it decision makers in companies, facilities managers or the end-user beneficiaries – value the service and hard work of our workers should be looked into again. Driving a hard bargain to reduce what we pay to the service providers and, in turn, their workers, may bring short-term cost benefits and cost-savings, but often result in unseen costs, such as poorer service levels and risks of service disruption and cost to the low-wage workers, as it is the workers and their families who will bear the brunt of depressed wages. We cannot as a society call for more to be done for low-wage workers, but not ourselves play our part as responsible buyers of such services. Cleaning and security services are after all small costs for most companies.

As to whether the Government can cease outsourcing manual jobs, that may not be practical. Outsourcing allows the Government to focus on its core business and tap on private-sector expertise and efficiency. It is not to save costs by depressing wages. Doing away with outsourcing is also not the silver bullet that Mr Zainal seems to suggest. We should aim to uplift all low-wage workers, not just the small number that the Government can directly employ. Mr Zainal will be happy to note that the Government will walk the talk in best sourcing. The Prime Minister has said that the Government will support this. We are studying how the Government can better implement the best sourcing practices in the Tripartite Advisory. I hope that, with the Government taking the lead, the private sector will follow suit too.

As we uplift the vulnerable workers through skills for good employment, the Government is also determined to open the path to opportunities for our young people by maximising their potential through education. Let me now speak on another issue close to my heart – ensuring that every child has the chance to fully develop through education despite their circumstances.

Page: 508

The Prime Minister yesterday spoke about one of our national concerns as Singapore becomes more developed – that students from less well-off families tend to do less well in education. This is a global phenomenon, not unique to Singapore, and it is something the Government is committed to addressing.

We have done this first and foremost by continuously making heavy investments to develop and nurture our young. This is complemented by the unique working relationship between various stakeholders in society. Like the tripartite partnership that has supported the economic growth, we have built a similar collaborative framework in the education sector – between schools, parents and the community – to bring about the best education for our young. For instance, over the past decade, through concerted effort, we have aggressively tackled the issue of school dropouts – bringing it down from 4% in the year 2000 to 1% in 2010. The story narrated by Ms Jessica Tan is one example where schools tried to help. A girl who had dropped out from school one year before that, to come back and get the education that she needs, to be able to be on a good footing for the future.

Beyond that, we continue to do more for academically weaker students. We have put in place learning support programmes to level up those weaker in English and Mathematics at the primary level. At the secondary level, Dr Intan Azura would be glad to know that we have been doing more for our Normal (Technical) students. A new N(T) STEP curriculum, which places stronger emphasis on building students' self-motivation and self-esteem, character development, numeracy and literacy was introduced. New subjects, like Elements of Business Skills with industrial attachment, are well received by teachers and students alike.

We have also provided more resources to Normal (Technical) students. In calculating teacher quota, for example, we give consideration to schools with more Normal course students, by providing additional manpower grants, and an additional Head of Department for N(T) for schools with larger Normal (Technical) enrolment. In tandem with curriculum demands, we have provided more teachers too. Dr Intan may be pleased to know that, for example, subjects such as Computer Applications, Design & Technology, which require closer supervision, are taught in groups of 20, a smaller class size. Many schools also deploy their Allied Educators to support N(T) students.

We have been extremely encouraged by our existing Specialised Schools − NorthLight School and Assumption Pathway School – catering to students with different learning styles. Given the positive experiences from students in these schools, we see value in using a whole-school approach to nurture the whole child, hence our motivation to embark on the two new Specialised Schools. This approach will enable us to deliver some of the support Dr Intan has called for N(T) students: create a customised curriculum, execute appropriate teaching pedagogies, and recruit committed teachers with the right skills and attitudes.

Dr Intan has expressed concern that the new Specialised Schools may lead to more segregation. This is a valid concern. We believe that by meeting the learning needs of N(T) students more effectively, we will be able to help them pick up the skills, competencies and values to lead a productive and fulfilling life. In the long run, this will help ensure these students succeed in life and promote a more inclusive society.

I assure Members that the intention here is in no way to segregate N(T) students but to offer them with another option in the education landscape to better support and meet their learning needs. The bulk of our Normal (Technical) students will still be in our mainstream schools together with the Express and Normal Academic students. For these students, we will continue to study how we can improve their learning experiences, including scaling up learning points from our Specialised Schools and N(T) Mark II schools.

Page: 509

While we have in place the programmes and policies to help the vulnerable in our population, overcoming the odds to succeed takes immense personal courage and commitment. I am encouraged by those who have succeeded and done well. Let me cite a recent story published in The Straits Times . Christopher Zhuo grew up in a home environment plagued by loan sharks. The eldest of three sons became the head of household at the age of 18. Determined to turn life around for his family, Christopher worked hard at school, and earned a diploma in business studies before landing scholarships which paid for his university fees. Today, he is a successful trader in the finance industry and has earned enough to buy a hawker stall for his mother. This was published in The Straits Times on 16 July 2011.

But this is not an isolated case − our findings show that of students living in 3-room flats or smaller, one in every two still go on to our publicly-funded universities or polytechnics. We will continue to support students with Edusave, Opportunity Fund and IHL bursaries as well as financial assistance.

Our meritocratic approach and inclusive education system have made it possible for students from disadvantaged families to succeed. In this area, we have done better than most developed countries. In 2009, Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted by the OECD found that Singapore students fared very well out of 65 countries studied, coming in fifth in Reading, second in Mathematics and fourth in Science. However, what was more impressive to me was that the study found that half of our students from lower socio-economic backgrounds perform better than what their circumstances would predict. They are called the "Resilient Students". The proportion of "Resilient Students" in Singapore is twice that of other countries in the study where on average one-quarter performed better than what their circumstances would predict. So, in a nutshell, everyone in Singapore, including the low-income families and their children, can do well in school.

Going forward, we must press on to ensure that no child is left behind. We must strengthen the partnership between schools, parents and the community. As Chairman of COMPASS, over the past few months, I have met many parents who are both concerned about their child's education and supportive of efforts of teachers and schools. As we move towards a Student-Centric, Values-Driven education system, we need the schools and parents to work together to overcome problems of learning and to give greater support to our students. Schools can reinforce values imparted by parents to their children, while parents can provide a supportive environment for their children's learning and to develop important life skills.

We see evidence of this strong collaborative spirit in many of our schools. At St Hilda's Primary School, for example, the parent support group initiated and maintains the Reading is Fun Program (RIFP) and Maths Made Easy (MME) to help Primary 1 and Primary 2 pupils who are weaker in these areas. Both programmes involve parent volunteers dedicating time and energy to help our children become more confident readers and mathematicians through fun activities such as story-telling and games. We can reach out and work with even more parents, including those with less academically inclined children, to further reduce dropout rates and encourage even more to progress to post-secondary education.

Page: 510

As we progress with sights set for the future, let us offer the helping hands for those who are vulnerable among us or who have fallen behind along the way. It is my hope for an inclusive society for Singapore – a future where every Singaporean counts and no one is left behind. Sir, may I just say a few words in Malay?

( In Malay ): [Please refer to Pg 541 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Prime Minister had emphasised yesterday, the Government's priority will be to create opportunities for all our people to progress. In addition, this will be complemented by strengthening our social safety nets so that the vulnerable do not fall through the cracks and can improve themselves and become self-reliant.

Over the years, we have created a society that is more inclusive and we will do even more going forward. Aside from MOE and MOM, the whole Government and community want low-income families to succeed, and have been making concerted efforts to do so.

Today, low-wage workers and their families have a chance to improve their well-being, with a range of programmes developed by WDA and other organisations. Through the Workforce Skills Qualifications Programme (WSQ), those without formal qualifications have the chance to improve themselves and their incomes. To further help the low-income workers, we have the Workfare Training Support Scheme. This is a skills training network to help our workers upgrade their capabilities so that they remain employable.

Many students from low-income families too have made it to the ITEs, polytechnics and universities. There are many bursaries and schemes in place both by the Government and community groups like the LBKM (Prophet Muhammad's Birthday Memorial Scholarship Fund), Mendaki and others, to help them, so that students from poor families can continue to study and improve their capabilities. I hope that low-income families do not lose hope and look for role models that they can emulate to encourage their children to achieve success in studies, as well as in areas of interest that they are good at.

Those who are less well-off should also not lose hope. As the 2009 PISA study by the OECD has indicated, in terms of proportion, there are many more "Resilient Students" in Singapore compared to many other developed countries. These "Resilient Students" are those from low socio-economic backgrounds, who had achieved better than their circumstances would have predicted based on their family's status. Our children must do better than us, and their children even better than them.

As a community, we have seen significant improvements in our educational performance over the past decade. The percentage of Malay students in the Primary 1 cohort admitted to post-secondary institutions improved tremendously from 70% in 2000 to 86% in 2009. The proportion of Malays aged 15 and over with at least post-secondary qualifications has doubled from 18% in 2000 to 36% in 2010. This should encourage and spur us to progress further.

Page: 511

Mr Speaker, as the Prime Minister had noted, Singapore's next 10 years will be very challenging. As a community, we must seize the many opportunities available, be it to constantly upgrade our skills or support our young fully to be the best they can be. I am confident that based on our community's achievement so far, we can emerge even stronger, more resilient and successful in the years to come. Mr Speaker, with this, I support the motion of thanks to the President.

6.57 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mr Speaker, Sir, there has been so much discussion about the pursuit of Happiness in this House over the past five days. Happiness is indeed an abstract philosophy with so many differing opinions. What exactly is happiness? As strange as it can be, there would not be happiness without sadness or misery. Human beings cannot stay in a positive state forever. This would become his normal state and would not feel happy anymore.

The debate on Happiness has, paradoxically, generated much heated exchanges, disagreement and sporadically some unhappiness. In fact, life is full of paradoxes. Take for example, we have bigger houses but smaller families; more medicine but less wellness; teach less, learn more; and on few occasions during the debate, we became long on quantity, but short on quality.

Sir, happiness, to me, is simply the blessing of waking up in the morning and knowing that I can still live another day to serve my fellow countrymen and spend time with my family and friends. Having said all these, I will do my best to sum up the debate in a concise manner so that I can contribute to the GCH or Gross Chamber Happiness in the House.

Over the last five days, I have had the privilege of listening to the many eloquent speeches of my parliamentary colleagues. During my opening speech, I had said that I would be looking forward to a candid discussion in this House. Having heard some 70 speakers, every single one of them, including the Prime Minister and several Ministers, I am sure we will all agree that the quality of this debate in this House has been nothing short of being robust, constructive and, on some occasions, heart and mind-lifting.

We were also brought on a teleport journey, from the era of patriotic courtiers of Tang Dynasty in feudalistic ancient China, to the perceived Utopia on Earth – Bhutan; and from doom and gloom Europe, back to vibrant and inclusive Singapore. While this House spoke on a wide array of issues, it is clear that all of us can agree on one fundamental tenet – that we as parliamentarians will strive to make Singapore a better home for all Singaporeans.

Over the last few days, many issues were raised by my fellow colleagues. One hot issue that was debated fervently was how to make Singapore a better place by improving the quality, accessibility and affordability of healthcare. With the impending silver tsunami, many Members have highlighted how healthcare policies need to be changed to ensure that the needs of the ageing population can be met. I also echo the sentiment that we should look into ways to help all Singaporeans cope with the rising healthcare costs.

Page: 512

Besides healthcare, the rapidly ageing population entails other challenges. Members suggested ways to help the elderly population stay employed, active and healthy. I am sure the Ministerial Committee on Ageing, chaired by Minister Gan, will look into the issues that an ageing population will face in the future and I am confident that ageing as an upcoming challenge will be addressed holistically and adequately.

Another recurring theme that arose during the debate was public housing. Members had spoken about the need to make public housing relevant to the needs of Singaporeans today. At the same time, we must remember that HDB flats should stay affordable so as to maintain its objective of housing and rooting Singaporeans to the nation. I am sure we can all agree that HDB's job today is much different from 30 to 40 years ago. Today, it has to cater to various segments of the population with different housing needs. I am reassured by Minister Khaw's declaration that his Ministry will build more homes and also address the specific needs of various segments of society, in particular the newlyweds and the low-income families, over the next couple of years.

Members have also spoken passionately about the need to reform and review our education system to ensure that it stays relevant to Singaporeans, including those with special needs. I am particularly impressed by Minister Heng's promise of making "every school a good school" and the emphasis on character development. As we look to meet the challenges in the future, let us, as the Prime Minister had noted in his speech, ensure that our education system stays nimble and flexible towards the new challenges that we will face.

Our transport system has for decades been a model of emulation for many other countries. But as we move towards a new future, perhaps it is time to revisit some of our fundamentals in public transport. There is room for improvement. Members had spoken about making the public transport more efficient and less crowded. And I certainly look forward to a cheaper, better, faster and, hopefully, reliable transport network. Several of my fellow colleagues have raised a pertinent point about transport concessions for polytechnic students and I believe this is something we can consider sooner than later.

The pursuit of economic growth has also been a topic of contention. In particular, Members have asked if doing so was at the expense of Singaporeans for they had to bear with the inadequacy of the infrastructure due to immigration and the inconveniences and discomfort of overcrowding. In order to achieve inclusive growth, Members had given many great ideas to help PMEs, women, low-wage workers and other vulnerable groups.

In reviewing what we had achieved over the past decade, I am quick to agree with Ministers of State Lawrence Wong and Tan Chuan-Jin that the Government had seized windows of opportunities that arose. In fact, it was the result of grabbing such opportunities that had resulted in growths of median income for Singaporeans. It was a trade-off and not a matter of poor scenario planning by the Government, as some Members had alleged. Such trade-offs do not benefit the Government alone but the majority of Singaporeans while adversely affecting some.

After all, as an ophthalmologist, I am perhaps one of the best persons, in addition to Dr Lim, to tell you that hindsight is always 20/20 or best vision of all. Similarly, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, it is impossible to have 100% foresight for we can never be certain of the volatile future and must be prepared for any surprises that come our way. What we can do is to grab the opportunities as they arise and be responsive to the needs of all Singaporeans. We must also remember that only with growth can we have the ability and means to support strong investments in education, healthcare, housing and social assistance programmes for all Singaporeans. We should see economic growth as a means to an end.

Page: 513

With a changing world and an evolving political landscape, we, as parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, must set forth to forge a new social compact with the people. This is done in the midst of an increasing influence of the social media and the Internet as a new platform for citizen engagement, which many Members in the House have already spoken passionately about. I am extremely glad that the Government would take a "more open approach" to governing the country, which would include sharing more information with the public and engaging the citizens more. Let us be political leaders, like what Minister Lim Swee Say had alluded to, who work with our citizens for the betterment of all Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my fellow hon. colleagues in the House, PAP or otherwise have stated clearly the passionate causes which they will be championing during their term. Let us all leave this session of Parliament remembering that building a better life for all Singaporeans means not only waxing lyrical about policies and legislations but turning words into actions that can benefit Singaporeans of all segments of society, including the marginalised. I am thrilled by Minister Yaacob's speech where he highlighted how technology will be harnessed to close the gaps for people with special needs – with their causes championed, we will build a more inclusive society. I am also delighted to acknowledge Acting Minister Chan's promise to do more to strengthen our social safety net and to ensure that no one will fall through the gaps.

But as we seek to do all these, to make Singapore the best home for all Singaporeans, we must, as some Members in the House have warned, remember our history and how we have transformed Singapore from a Third World to a First World country. Our journey together over the last 46 years had not been built on welfarism, nor had it been built on populist policies. As Ministers of State Amy Khor and Lee Yi Shyan have reminded us, while we pursue ways to make growth inclusive for all, we should not forget that we still need to balance fiscal sustainability, fiscal prudence and fiscal management for future generations. Rome was not built in a day. Neither was Singapore. Let us remember that our modernity, our success, our growth, was not an overnight phenomenon but rather a result of years and years of toil, hard work and determination by Singaporeans, yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I end, allow me to indulge in a short story. This is a story which I used to read to my children when they were much younger. It is entitled The Giving Tree . I am sure most of you must have read it before. It was published in 1964 by Harper and Row. It is a children's book written and illustrated by Shel Silverstein. This book has become one of Silverstein's best known titles and has been translated into more than 30 languages. It reads:

"Once there was a tree and she loved a little boy.

And everyday the boy would come.

And he would gather leaves

And make them into crowns and play king of the forest.

Page: 514

He would climb up her trunk

And swing from her branches and eat apples.

And when he was tired, he would sleep in her shade.

And the boy loved the tree

And the tree was happy.

But soon the boy grew older and one day he came and asked,

'Can you give me some money to buy things and have fun?'

'I have no money,' said the tree, €˜Just apples, twigs and leaves.'

'But you can take my apples, boy, and sell them in the city.'

So he did.

But soon again the boy came back and he said to the tree,

'I'm now a man and I want a house to keep me warm.'

'I can't give you a house', the tree said, 'The forest is my house.'

'But you may cut my branches off and build yourself a home.'

And time went by and the boy came back with sadness in his eyes.

'I want a boat that will take me far away. Can you give me a boat?'

'Cut down my trunk and make a boat,' said the tree,

'Then you can sail away and be happy.'

And after many years the boy came back, both of them were old.

'I really cannot help you if you ask me for another gift.'

'I'm nothing but an old stump €¦ and sorry I've nothing more to give.'

'I do not need very much now, just a quiet place to rest,'

The boy whispered, with a weary smile.

'Well', said the tree, 'An old stump is still good for that.'

'Come, boy', she said, 'Sit down, sit down and rest.'

And the tree was happy."

Sir, metaphorically, I see the tree as our country, Singapore; and the little boy, its people – like you and me. Like many Singaporeans, my siblings and I have benefited from the meritocracy and the social mobility Singapore has offered. My siblings and I, four of us, grew up in a 3-room HDB flat in Tanglin Halt Road. Although there were two bedrooms, all of us squeezed into one. My parents slept on a bed, while the four of us slept on mattresses on the floor. We were contented. We were happy. My father, who had only primary school education, supported all four of us through university locally by sheer hard work and thrift. All of us have decent jobs now, make a decent living, own our own homes and are now parents ourselves.

Page: 515

The PAP Government, like the tree, has done well in providing and caring for its people over the last 46 years. We should give credit when credit is due. We should never throw the baby out with the bath water, as my hon. colleague, Mr Christopher de Souza, aptly puts it. However we should also not rest on our laurels but must continue to do more to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I said this with my hand on my heart.

Allow me to sum up the closing address with this quote from Helen Keller, a deaf-blind activist and it revisits the concept of happiness. She said, "Many persons have the wrong idea of what constitutes true happiness. It is not attained through self-gratification but through fidelity to a worthy purpose." On that note, I would like to thank all Members for supporting the motion and Mr Speaker, Sir, for your patience over the past five days. [ Applause .]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".'