Debate on President's Address

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17 October, 2011],

'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.".' – (Dr Lam Pin Min).

Question again proposed.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to address this House on this new term. If I may, I would like to congratulate you and our Deputy Speakers on your appointments. I look forward to your stewardship at the forthcoming sessions in this House. Please allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

( In Malay ): [Please refer to Pg 424-425 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, for the past few months, from my conversations with some members of the Malay/Muslim community, many have voiced concerns about employment and cost of living issues, due to intense competition within the country as well as overseas. They are also concerned with the fast pace of development in Singapore.

Page: 358

Over the years, our efforts to make Singapore's economy relevant to face competition in the global and regional markets required us to change the type of industries we have. This resulted in changing needs in our workforce and in the type of educational qualifications required.

Our workers must stay relevant and continue to add value in order to keep pace with the global economic changes. Our Malay/Muslim workers are aware of competition from the foreign workforce in Singapore, especially for those from the middle-age group. It affects those without the necessary qualifications even more. Many feel that competition is even more intense, especially our students in our schools and institutions of learning. To them, the pressure is huge.

Many readily understand that competition cannot be avoided, and Singapore's economy must be open and global in nature. However, as the Government, we must explore more ways to help our workers to be more competitive and, at the same time, as far as possible, we must protect the workers' interests so that they can earn a comfortable living in Singapore.

At the same time, the Malay/Muslim community must also be proud of the great progress made. Many Malays have achieved success in various fields, including new areas, because they can overcome challenges and competition. However, competition being competition, whether big or small, we must do our best to overcome it.

Just look at the experiences of Taufik Batisah and Hadi Mirza, two of our popular artistes. Both are winners of the Singapore Idol competition. They managed to prevail against the competition from rivals of all backgrounds. However, in terms of income, they still need to compete with artistes from the West, China, Korea and local Mandarin artistes.

Therefore, they have to find ways – by exploring the regional Malay market. Their move must be commended as they made use of their talents to beat the competition by exploring new markets. They are still popular idols. Their hard work allows them to overcome fierce competition. I have spoken to them, and I am pleased that they are aware of the challenges in front of them and continue to look for their own opportunities and markets.

Our community has similar determination and drive. I feel that more can be done by the Government and Malay bodies to help our community compete better and face the global economy, especially in terms of shaping the community's mindset to be ready to prevail against competition.

The tightening of the criteria for inflow of foreign workers is welcomed. It will help our local low- and middle-income workers. However, we must also change the way some employers employ their workers. Maybe due to the fact that they can easily employ foreign workers for the past few years, there are some employers who selectively employ cheaper foreign workers compared to local workers. I understand that to the private company, time equates to money. But all these depend on the work environment that we wish to cultivate. We must ensure that local workers are not left behind in the long term, whether in terms of lesser pay or uncertainty in job opportunities due to competition from a foreign workforce.

Page: 359

I hope that the Government can help to instil an employment culture that takes into account the value of local workers as well as the high quality of our education. The fact that our economy is open, and the labour market must be based on meritocracy, should not become a convenient excuse for employers not to invest in the talent and career progression of local workers.

Another related issue is that we may hear stories about the presence of discrimination at the workplace. It may just be grumblings among a small group but, in reality, the Government had taken the correct measures to implement policies that prevent employers from using race as a criterion for employment, or language as a criterion. This effort must continue. I also feel that the members of minority communities who feel discriminated to be educated so that they report on irresponsible employers.

I am aware that MOM has made much progress in handling some of these concerns, including certain multinational companies that sometimes act unfairly in terms of employing workers from a certain race or profile. At times, the upper management are not aware of the practices among their own subordinates. But from what I know, most management act fairly and follow the principle of openness and meritocracy.

I am sure most of us work hard and make reasonable effort to get the relevant qualifications. But what we hope is that we are given equal opportunities, in the spirit of meritocracy. Hence, I urge members of the community who feel that they are affected to work together with the authorities. I am sure that the Government will investigate and study such complaints.

Mr Speaker, our community has achieved a lot of progress, and in today's new political landscape, members of the Malay/Muslim community from all walks of life are getting more interested about Singapore's progress and their own progress. I have been involved in many discussions and dialogues for the past months, and one clear thing was the need for a wider approach. The community wants their concerns about their future to be heard, whether it is about daily issues like education and employment, or issues like religiosity and the preservation of Malay culture.

I urge the Government, agencies and bodies like MENDAKI, MUIS and other Malay bodies, to cultivate better cooperation and consensus among the general public, and not only among leaders of certain organisations, so that we can better understand the community's aspirations, including their worries and concerns.

For the past few years, more and more Malays are active on the internet, and there are many forum groups and commentaries. Like other platforms on the internet, we can also see many false and unfair statements. However, after talking to many people, I feel that we cannot totally blame them, because they may not have been engaged effectively and do not fully understand the context behind policies, or why certain issues arise. I am sure that many of them will understand the implication of Government policies if they were engaged effectively.

Page: 360

I would like to encourage Malay institutions within Government and also Malay bodies to be more responsive and use the internet to help the community further understand the available channels of assistance, and explain how they can make better use of policies. With that, it is hoped that feedback and suggestions from members of the community will become more constructive, after they understand the issues much better.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to refer to the hon. Member, Mr Yee Jenn Jong's speech yesterday with regard to SMEs. He mentioned an article published in the Straits Times yesterday on issues that SMEs face. I happened to be the adviser for that group, the Association of SMEs (ASME), and have worked closely with a number of the ASME's business leaders in the last few months. There are more pressing issues that SMEs face today than GLCs. In fact, competition comes in all forms, even MNCs would have the skills to offer cheaper prices. Other SMEs, because businesses in certain tiers, find it hard to differentiate as well. For example, in the real estate and construction sectors, the competition from low-cost Chinese construction companies is tough. The issue of business is a practical one – profitability, human resources, costs of doing business. So, let us not try to politicise the issue by targeting the GLCs and cooperatives and focus on the real issues if you are truly interested in helping the SMEs.

In fact, one of the major issues they face today is the lack of manpower and high cost of business due to the tighter quotas on foreign workers, the levies imposed on Work Permit holders and the higher wage criteria for "S" Passes. And I certainly agree that we have to level the playing field for our workers, as mentioned in my Malay speech earlier. But if you speak to business leaders, as a result of some of these policies, some have slowed growth plans, which means fewer jobs for locals. Some are thinking of relocating, which also means even fewer jobs for locals. Some already moved part of their operations overseas where labour is less restrictive and usually at lower cost. So, I think MOM and MTI have a tough job ahead trying to balance this – the interests of our local workers, while trying to retain companies here – locals as well as MNCs. And I am aware a number of MNCs have also considered the same and a number have sought assurances from the Government that we will continue to foster a favourable business environment.

So, Workers' Party members, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Yaw Shin Leong, are contradicting each other. Mr Yee is concerned for the SMEs interests, while Mr Yaw would like further restrictions to foreign workers in addition to what the Government has put in place. I have not heard how Workers' Party can assure SMEs and businesses in turn that Singapore is a place where their business can flourish and not be viewed as restrictive. Let us not forget the reality that businessmen are all practical people and companies have options to relocate and what that means is lost jobs for Singapore. I fear for the jobs of Singaporeans because SMEs employ about 60% of the Singapore workforce.

But I do agree with Mr Yee that many SMEs are struggling because of the high costs of doing business here. As Minister of State Teo Ser Luck also mentioned that there is no lack of grants but, in addition to the higher costs, many are finding it hard to benefit from our productivity measures because of inherent weaknesses in being smaller in size.

Page: 361

I believe that SMEs also need a collective voice so that they can be proactive like the larger companies to voice the concerns of the sector more effectively, rather than individual, fragmented viewpoints. Their interests are varied because this segment is diverse, but they can focus on the major areas that the Government can help and level the playing field.

The next gap I see is that many have no skills, no HR functions, no CFO functions, so many are not able to cope with changes or benefit from Government measures or productivity the same way the bigger firms can. So, by helping SMEs understand the Government better and working with the Ministries closely, hopefully, both sides are better adapted to work together proactively, being prepared for issues that are coming up.

But back to Mr Yee, I also did not quite get the point of his argument about Bhutan. Many years ago, we aspired towards the modern Swiss way of life. And, today, is he asking Singaporeans to be more like Bhutan? The Workers' Party seems fascinated with monarchies and dynasties – first aspiring to be like the Tang dynasty and, now, the Bhutanese monarchy. Whatever happened to First World Parliament and modern democracy?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address mentioned that "we want a fair and just society that ensures the well-being of every citizen", and I agree with this view. But I would also add the sense of fairness of how the Government deals with the people is also important.

In the recent General Election and Presidential Election, speaking to people, reading forums in the mainstream media and online, one sentiment can be seen in common – that the sense of fairness, social justice runs through the Internet generation. This is something that the Government needs to come to terms with, especially in these times of the "Jasmine Revolution", the "Arab Spring" and "Occupy Wall Street" movements. The Government needs to better demonstrate that we conduct our business, engage and transact with our citizens in a fair manner. We can and should do more to expose Singaporeans to the deliberations that have been made in policies and what trade-offs we are making, and share measures that are in place to assure them that the policy will benefit them in a fair manner. This is especially true to emotive issues and one fault of the Government is that many a time, we let doubts linger and so, the sentiment of unfairness festers over time.

For the GE, for example, the issue of boundary changes, where the PA was politicised, and more recently, the issue of appointment of PA Advisers was raised, and the way we addressed the issues were to quickly move on rather than go head-on. The Government needs to spend time to engage Singaporeans on why the current practices are as such and why our system is a fair one.

On boundary changes, there will always be population movement, and so, moving forward, I think there should be a need to better justify the changes and earlier, if possible, where the population growth or decline has come from and why the changes have to happen.

On the politicisation of PA, when I had ordinary Singaporeans asking if my PAP campaign banners were made using public funds, I figured we have not done enough to demonstrate how the system safeguards Government property and funding from use for political campaigning.

Page: 362

The rationale for the appointments of Advisers will probably need a longer explanation from the relevant authorities. But the difference in a Government appointee is that in times when difficult Government policies need to be implemented and where bonding between the Government and the people needs to be fostered, this is where the difference is. This is where politicking stops and real work happens. So, with issues like GST increases, transport fare increases, and to explain housing and social welfare policies, the Government can be assured of an aligned execution on the ground.

Sir, in fact, many Advisers do more and bring the community behind them to cushion the impact of tough and unpopular Government policies. So, rather than take political issue with how much MCYS gives for ComCare, the grassroots and the Advisers raise funds, bring patrons into the community to augment financial assistance, to help needy residents – in support of the Government's "many helping hands" approach. The community must do its part in addition to the Government's efforts.

However, there is still much scope needed to address the issue of fairness, such as the safeguards in place to make the system fair and do not disadvantage any Singaporean who does not stay in a PAP ward.

In the Presidential Election, the issue of the President's son's deferment during NS raised questions among many local Singaporeans over whether there was preferential treatment involved. The Minister of Defence had given us a good reply during the PQ earlier. But this is a good enough example where we can explain that the system is fair, there is no preferential treatment. The issue here is we let the doubts linger for many months before the explanation came out. What this means is that we risk doubts over the credibility and trust of the Government.

We have to be more serious in addressing the issue of fairness, especially with a more educated Singapore and not let critics label this Government as disconnected, self-serving or uncompassionate. Let us not take for granted that public opinion can be fostered easily, let there be more debate and openness on the ground so that people better understand that this Government is working in their best interests. And so the way we announce our policies is also just as important.

Sir, the policy changes in the Addendum to the President's Address all came in quick succession, that even as a MP, I had to keep pace. And surely, in those few days, the ordinary citizen cannot appreciate the work that had gone into all these policies, and the trade-offs taken. So, either we slow policy implementation, which is not preferred, or we take more time to prepare the ground in advance. Perhaps, this House can consider pushing our Third Readings of Bills to the following sitting after the Second Readings are completed. Show that the Government is willing to deliberate on debates and arguments raised in the Second Reading. Then, allow the public to consider the views presented, and allow the media to carry follow-on views. And for the Third Reading, the Government is in a better position to consider all viewpoints, adjust and rationalise the policy better.

Page: 363

The Government must learn to carry the ground better on the back of its policies. Expose the electorate to deeper matters of government concerns and trade-offs, so that they can better understand how the policy is derived, whether the Government has been fair and connected in its approach.

Mr Speaker, Sir, undoubtedly the challenges of Government today are not easy. As we have heard in this House, there are many issues that need to be resolved. But we seem to be in firefighting mode, defending our policies and putting in place new ones to address immediate concerns.

What I believe is missing from this people-Government compact of today compared to our early post-Independence years is the trust and confidence that the Government shares the ideals of the people. The questions for the Government of today: Is this generation of Singaporeans today aligned with the shared vision of the Government? Are Singaporeans today inspired by this Government to continue to believe that –

Mr Speaker: Mr Zaqy, please wrap up your speech.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Yes. We have undergone three generations of Government that have taken us from the Communist years, rapid growth and modernisation. So, what do we envision fourth-generation Singapore or Singapore 4.0 to be? What ideals and shared vision can Singaporeans of today identify with?

To credit our founding fathers of independent Singapore, there were many ideals that they believed in, where statistics, benchmarks and rankings would have foretold that post-Independence Singapore was impossible. Back in 1965, if we benchmarked Singapore against many islands of comparable size with no natural resources, cut-off from Malaysia, the analysts would have told us that we should have remained a backward port.

When S Rajaratnam wrote the Pledge to fuel the core values of multi-racialism and meritocracy, even the developed Western countries then were struggling with minority rights, economic progress and social mobility.

Today, we need this Government to do the same – to sell a vision of a life and a nation that our people can aspire to for years to come – ideals that appeal to our human survival and comfort instincts. And ideals that we must believe we can try to achieve against the odds.

Sir, we need to carry the nation towards a common dream, a common set of ideals that we can all identify with – and in the process strengthen again that bond and trust that the Government truly understands their aspirations and will take them there as we had many years ago. Our predecessors had written our story from Third World to First. I look forward to this new Government in this new term, and hope that we can inspire this nation forward to write the next chapter of our Singapore story together. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

3.22 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I begin, please allow me to congratulate you on your election as Speaker of the House. Sir, in his speech to the House, the President noted, "we must find ways to use the new media constructively, to connect with the digital generation and sustain fruitful conversations on issues concerning us all". MICA's Addendum noted that the Ministry seeks to find innovative ways to connect with citizens and it plays an important role in driving and coordinating whole-of-government efforts in fostering an informed and engaged citizenry.

Page: 364

Mr Speaker, Sir, my speech today relates to suggesting ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. It is divided into two parts. First, I assess Singapore's mainstream media landscape, which directly affects the online world. Secondly, I seek to provide suggestions to the Government on how it can sow the seeds for a media and information environment where Singaporeans are as far as possible, inoculated from lies and misinformation online, and biased reporting from other media outlets in general.

Sir, the new media environment does not exist in a vacuum. Some Singaporeans routinely wonder why alternative political commentary websites are so popular among Singaporeans – these include Singapore Recalcitrant , Singapore Daily , Singapore Notes and sites from across the centre-left of the political spectrum like Yawning Bread , The Online Citizen and even some articles from the discontinued Temasek Review . Could it be that because for every ounce of misinformation, perceived or otherwise, these websites and blogs also ask serious questions pertaining to governance in Singapore – questions that are side-stepped, diluted or even ignored by the Government and the mainstream media?

The Government has, over the last few years in particular, referred to the new media in largely pejorative terms. The Prime Minister has referred to it as the "wild west" and more recently, as a "cowboy town". But the reality is this – the new media is here to stay, and it will continue to eat into the mindshare of the mainstream media, no matter what the Government chooses to call it. Temasek Review may have gone offline, but it is not going to be too difficult or technically challenging to bring in 10 new incarnations of Temasek Review online overnight.

Rather than fear or castigate the new media, Members need to consider how far the explosive popularity of the new media is partly a function of the PAP Government's politics of indirect control, and the boundaries successive PAP Governments have placed upon the mainstream media.

In 2010, former MICA Minister, Mr Liu Tuck Yew, stated: "we want to make sure that the Press is, and is seen as, independent of the influence of Government". This House would know, through conversations many must have had with their friends, that many self-respecting Singaporeans have well-founded doubts, perceptions though they may be, that the mainstream media operates with the long shadow of the Government firmly cast upon it.

The perceptions of ordinary Singaporeans were somewhat confirmed when the Chief Editor of The Straits Times last year was quoted as saying, "We're aware people say we are a government mouthpiece or that we are biased." For me personally, this perception was somewhat crystalised when I recently read a chapter in former President S R Nathan's memoirs titled "Entering the newspaper world".

Page: 365

On page 459, President Nathan was quoted as saying – and this was shortly after the corporate restructuring of SPH and just prior to the launch of T he New Paper – "privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits Times could well result in demands for heads to roll and a return to the old idea of putting in a government team".

Some members may feel that President Nathan's views are nothing more than reflections from a bygone era. But in 2003, another episode occurred, euphemistically referred as the "Val Chua affair", this time with TODAY , the MediaCorp publication. The precise details of what happened, and why it happened are hazy, but what did happen is that the newspaper's editor left his job shortly after the episode.

Little wonder why some Singaporeans, particularly those in the post-65 generation, have more faith and confidence in the new media, and why some may even tolerate misinformation online or get taken in by disinformation to varying degrees.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Government is not in a position to change perceptions of the mainstream media unless a fundamental rethink about elements of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) is considered and opening the mainstream media market to genuine competition is also considered.

These are issues that are far beyond the scope of my speech today. But that should not stop this Government from thinking about how it can prepare Singaporeans for a future – if it is not here already – where information will increasingly be at everyone's fingertips, whether you are 9 or 90 years of age.

How do we make sure that the overwhelming majority of our citizenry are readily able to seek reliable sources of information, be it online or in the mainstream media? How do we convince our citizens that there can be various perspectives to an issue and to respect these various perspectives and narratives, even if we may disagree with them or if they differ from our own? Once more, the answers to these questions do not lie in the online world, but in the real world.

To improve communication with Singaporeans, this PAP Government has to work hard to change the perception of its philosophy of indirect control of the mainstream media, and deliberately move towards a politics of empowerment when dealing with Singaporeans. The Government should commit to share more information and, in doing so, exorcise itself from its insecurity and paranoia, which makes less sense in view of the borderless nature of the Internet and the speed at which information is exchanged and perceptions formed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with Dr Lam Pin Min's views that active citizenry in the real and virtual worlds are good for Singapore, and that good digital literacy and judgment are needed in future. I also support Mr Edwin Tong when he said Government engagement with Singaporeans can build a new social compact and that what is required is trust and not blind faith. Ms Sim Ann alluded to the "new normal" and said that voters must be active participants so that rationality has the upper hand. Mr Baey Yam Keng spoke of an emphasis in research and the interpretation of information. Mr Cedric Foo arguably went the furthest when he highlighted the existence of information asymmetries in Singapore, suggesting that voters had no benefit of decisions made in the highest echelons of Government. He also said that the Government's default mode should be to share more information to secure greater buy-in from the public, so that there is less room for the truth to be distorted. And Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef noted that government communication had to be enhanced and it was the weakest aspect of this Government.

Page: 366

Mr Speaker, Sir, with these words from PAP backbenchers which I support, I will now move into the second section of my speech that envisages specific legislation that can protect Singaporeans from lies, misinformation and open up new avenues for the new media and the mainstream media to promote a more informed citizenry.

I make four proposals, all of which call for more than the digital education suggested by Dr Lam. Critically, my proposals seek to signpost the Government to move beyond slogans, such as "new normal", to substantive change with a view to promote active citizenry.

Firstly – a Freedom of Information legislation – an idea that has been repeated in WP's 2006 and 2011 manifestos. Mr Speaker, Sir, a prospective Freedom of Information Act will allow any Singaporean citizen to make enquiries with any public body for statistics and information at a reasonable price. While I commend the Government for the recently launched website data.gov.sg and the regular public release of information by the Department of Statistics, these examples amplify the fact that it is the Government that decides what it wants to put out.

What a Freedom of Information Act would do is to allow ordinary citizens to pull information from public bodies that have not put the information sought in the public realm. A Freedom of Information legislation is not meant to oblige the Government to release sensitive data such as defence deployments and procurements. Exceptions are routinely scheduled in Freedom of Information legislation elsewhere, which prohibit Government release of sensitive information. It is useful to note that Freedom of Information legislation is very much the norm in countries which host a diverse and plural polity.

And in case some Members feel that such open-Government legislation only originates in Western countries and that we Asians do it differently, the multi-racial Malaysian states of Penang and Selangor have opened a dialogue on the induction of such legislation. India passed the Right to Information Act in 2005, a high-water mark of the previous UPA government.

Let us try to envisage a Freedom of Information Act in practice in Singapore. In the event some misinformation is being peddled on the Internet or the mainstream media, even ordinary citizens and journalists can walk into any Ministry, go to the designated information officer and seek official statistics on the matter. With this information in hand, the peddler of misinformation, either online or in the mainstream media, would be found out, and the webpage or newspaper which hosted the misinformation would lose credibility. No Singaporean will be able to accuse the Government of selectively putting out information it wants to, since ordinary Singaporeans will be empowered to seek the information they require.

A Freedom of Information Act hosts other benefits too. Only a few weeks ago, MCYS launched "Be the Change", an initiative, which invites "young Singaporeans to step forward, share their ideas, and take the lead in turning their ideas into reality." Such projects are likely to be far more successful, popular and broad-based if youth can make enquiries of Government on data and statistics to ensure their ideas are workable and practical.

Page: 367

A second arrow in the politics of empowerment is an obligation by the Government of the day to order the automatic release and disclosure of official information at fixed intervals of 30 years or so. In the United Kingdom, the Public Records Office manages this process. The disclosure of official information and documents, apart from introducing substantive accountability and transparency in Government-decision making processes, will likely provide Singaporeans with valuable insights on why decisions were made the way they were by political leaders in the past. Such a repository of information is extremely helpful to ensure succeeding generations of Singaporeans understand the circumstances behind the success of their predecessors while avoiding the very same mistakes and missteps.

Automating the periodic disclosure of official documents may necessitate a review of certain sections of the National Heritage Board Act. The Government should not see such changes as an attempt to criticise and expose previous governments. But no politician should be beyond reproach and a commitment to open government for historical scrutiny is an important feature of a politically mature society.

Thirdly, President Tony Tan, during his Presidential campaign revived interest in the office of the Ombudsman, a proposal first made to the PAP Government by the 1966 Wee Chong Jin Commission almost 50 years ago. The PAP Government of the day rejected the Wee Commission's proposal. The current Law Minister reiterated the call for an Ombudsman when he was a backbencher less than 20 years ago in 1994. The office of the Ombudsman protects the interests of citizens aggrieved by official decisions. Currently, while the courts are available for this purpose, it is important to remember that judicial review, as far as Singapore law is concerned, only allows the court to adjudicate upon the process by which a Government decision was made, not the decision itself.

The office of the Ombudsman reflected an important philosophy of Government the 1966 Wee Commission recognised – that all political power has its limits, and people have rights against Government too, and the very individuals they voted into office.

More than just an institution, the office of the Ombudsman symbolises a certain confidence and trust a government has in its people and vice versa. Establishing such an office today is likely to go some way to opening new channels of communication between citizen and State, regardless of which government is in charge in Singapore. And it is a proposal this Government would do well to re-consider.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, in 2005, a Business Times article reported that speaker after speaker at a local conference called for Singapore companies to encourage whistle-blowing, to help ensure good governance. These speakers included Mr Hsieh Fu Hua, special adviser to Temasek Holdings, former Senior Minister of State Mr Ho Peng Kee and former PAP MP Mr Davinder Singh. Unfortunately, on 18 May 2011, a week or so after the 2011 General Elections, a Government spokesman with the Ministry of Finance announced that the Ministry had considered and decided not to pursue a whistle-blowing law to protect corporate whistleblowers. This was in spite of strong calls by Singaporeans for whistle-blower legislation, partly because of the banking disasters that came to light in 2008, but more because of Singapore's acutely important role as a financial and economic hub.

Page: 368

Singapore remains a prime target for economic crimes as much commerce passes through our shores. Whistleblower and whistleblower protection legislation makes ordinary Singaporeans part of the good governance process, not just the Government and law enforcement agencies. It also protects ordinary businessmen from rogue directors and employees.

Australia, for example, has included whistleblower provisions in their Corporations Act. In view of the comprehensive review of our Companies Act currently underway, which is coincidentally modelled on the Australian legislation, it may be apposite for this Government to re-consider including whistleblower provisions in our statute books.

In case Members think such legislation would stymie business and cause the wheels of commerce to cease, whistle-blower legislation makes allowance for the prosecution of whistleblowers should their complaints be found to be vexatious or without basis.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a lot of scope for this Government to take good governance to the next level and divert the focus from misinformation and disinformation online towards building institutions that promote communication, transparency and accountability between the State and all Singaporeans. Any sincere effort by the Government is likely to have significant consequences online – positive consequences. Each of these proposals, a Freedom of Information Act, the public release of official information, the office of the Ombudsman and whistleblower protection are key nodes in a system of trust that would give Singaporeans the tools necessary to rely less on the Government for solutions and play their part in active citizenship.

In the early 1990s, before the advent of the new normal, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong sought to usher in participatory democracy in Singapore. This slogan did not last very long, and many Singaporeans do not remember the Goh Chok Tong era as opening the door to participatory democracy. In the course of this debate, close to 10 PAP Members have called for the Government to improve communication with ordinary Singaporeans. Without doubt, the time has come for the Government to move decisively in this direction, not in words but in deeds. Mr Speaker, I support the motion.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Sir, may I seek a point of clarification from the Member for Aljunied. First, I am glad that the Member found some basis to agree with me, but what I was saying is that we should be building a social compact built on trust and I called for a greater sharing of information from the Government in relation to fulfilling the trust. But that is a far cry from saying that the Government is indirectly controlling the mainstream media which is replete with misinformation and lies. So, I would like the Member to please clarify, first, is he saying that the mainstream media is replete with misinformation and lies, and if so, what is the basis.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, in response, I think the Member Mr Edwin Tong has completely misread my speech, I would be happy to give him a copy after this.

Page: 369

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Minister for Law (Ms Sim Ann): The hon. Member Mr Pritam Singh has quoted me as talking about the importance of participation of voters and rationality having the upper hand. I wish I could take credit for that statement but, in fact, I was quoting Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former MP and commentator whom I respect very much. I think credit has to go where it is due. And having made such a passionate speech about combating misinformation, I am sure the Member will agree with me.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Sir, I am not sure the Member has answered the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, the main reason why I suggested to the Member that I will be happy to give him my speech is because when he reads my speech, he will understand that I am arguing, I am talking about perceptions. At no point did I say the mainstream media peddles lies, so I think the Member should just see me later and take my speech.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seng Han Thong.

3.40 pm

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 426-429 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, Sir, in Mandarin, please.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong issued a statement one week after the watershed General Elections, to announce that they would leave the Cabinet. In their short statement, what touched me most was that they reminded the younger ministers, not to forget the older generation of Singaporeans, and that this generation who has contributed to Singapore must be well looked-after.

When the two ex-prime ministers talked about the older generation of Singaporeans, they were probably referring to Singaporeans aged 60 or above. According to the 2010 Population Census, there are 508,850 Singaporeans aged 60 or above. They make up 16% of the total number of Singapore citizens.

Singaporeans who turned 60 years old this year were still high school students (14 years old) when Singapore was forced to separate from Malaysia 46 years ago. Singaporeans who are older have weathered the storms together with us, endured many hardships and overcome many crises. Currently, many of them have retired from work and are enjoying their golden years, some are still working, while a minority of them are struggling in life. Hence, when we talk about looking after older Singaporeans, we should not limit this to familiar terms like "rebate", "concessions" and "assistance".

I would like to invite all MPs present, including Opposition party MPs, to take a look at your communities, community groups, temples, churches, community clubs, and see if you have noticed the emergence of a new group of elderly folks. I call this group of old folks "the happily retired old folks".

After their retirement, they are healthy, they have savings and a good family. More importantly, they have the time, space and they enjoy life.

Page: 370

They have time, but they do not waste time. So, they use their time to exercise, to do volunteer work and to take care of their grandchildren at home. These old folks not only volunteer, but they also contribute money. During Hungry Ghost Festivals, they contribute by bidding for auction items. They can also be seen at fund-raising activities at community clubs, temple and church celebrations, singing and dancing. By taking part in various activities, they directly €˜open up' their own space.

In recent years, the Government has implemented the Lift Upgrading Programme and Barrier-free Access Programme, these are very popular with the elderly. Why? Because they can now move around easily and safely, without fear of falling down. Because of this, they are able to get out of their flat and go downstairs often. The opening of the MRT Circle Line further opened up their space. The emergence of budget airlines also expanded their "space" to overseas. The other day, at the opening of the Parliament session, I witnessed a filial son pushing his mother in a wheelchair to Parliament, and he turned out to be the MP for Hougang, Mr Yaw Shin Leong. I asked him where he lives, and if there are lifts and barrier-free access in his neighbourhood. He said, yes, if not, his mother would not have been able to go to Parliament.

If MP Ms Sylvia Lim sent young people to interview these old folks at the void decks, and ask them if they feel happy and fortunate, they will say, "You will be happy if you are contented with what you have."

On another day, I met a few old folks outside a TCM medical hall, they were going for a tour abroad, to enjoy life. They jokingly told me, "When we were young, we drank soft drinks together; when we grew up, we apply perfume together; when we are old, we buy medicine together."As you grow old, it is unavoidable to have some aches and pains, applying some ointment will help.

These old folks know how to take care of themselves, exchange health tips. They exchange experiences, take care of each other, do not and need not trouble the government and their families. They do not grumble about life, but they hope that younger ministers will apply a human touch when executing policies.

They have time, space and enjoy life. They are also sentimental. When the younger ministers implement policies, they should consider giving them more space. For example, when the MRT Circle Line opened, the old folks were very happy, but some complained that the words on signages were too small.

Also, new media is not exclusively enjoyed by youngsters, these old folks also know how to use iPhone and iPad. In fact, they have more time to spend in the virtual world. I am happy to know that IDA has launched the Silver Infocomm Initiative. This will allow more old folks who are unfamiliar with new media, to access new media and expand their horizon.

Of course, not all old folks are so fortunate. Another category of old folks are the salaried elderly, those who have a job and receive wages. These old folks are not as happy. They suffer from "the three cuts".

We know that currently, there are 268,000 workers aged 50 and above working in various industries and occupations. When the Re-employment Act comes into effect next year, more elderly folks will join this segment of the workforce. However, when salaried old folks talk about jobs, they will mention €˜the three cuts'. This is because, once they reach the age of 50, their CPF employer's contribution rate will be reduced from 16% to 12%, a decrease of 4%. When they reach 60, their wages will be reduced by 10%. When they reach 62 and are re-employed, they will suffer another cut, this time in medical benefits.

Page: 371

NTUC has urged the Government to review the CPF contribution rate of older workers, and employers and the Government have responded positively. At the moment, the tripartite partners have started discussions on this issue, with the hope that older workers will have enough CPF savings, whilst not affecting the competitiveness of companies. At the same time, it is heartening to know that some enlightened employers, especially those who are unionised, have not reduced the wage of workers above the age of 60. In fact, almost 1,000 companies have re-employed older workers even before the Re-employment Act comes into effect next year, the total number of employees re-employed exceed 9,000.

The Government is the largest employer. In addition, there are many statutory boards with many employees. Many of these will be re-employed when they reach a certain age. I hope that the Government ministries and statutory boards will take the lead, such that when they adjust the job scope, responsibilities and wages of older workers, they will be reasonable. If the worker's responsibility is the same, and the workload is the same, they should be paid the same salary as before. Of course, many older workers hope that they can retreat from the frontline, they hope that the workload will be less and they know that their salary will be reduced. But so long as the adjustments are reasonable, they will accept it. To a large extent, the officers in charge of human resources at Government ministries and statutory boards should communicate better with the workers and their unions.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a third category of old folks, they are really having a difficult time, I call them €˜the miserable old folks'. There are three things that they fear most. Firstly, they fear loneliness. Secondly, they fear illness. Thirdly, they fear letters from the Government.

These old folks do not have a good family environment because their children have either left them, are not taking care of them or do not have the means to take care of them. These old couples depend on each other, and when one of them dies, the one left behind will feel very lonely. In Parliament, we hear from MPs stories about old folks who have to sell tissue paper, be a karang guni , sell ice-cream, or work in low-wage jobs. This is the group that I am referring to.

Although currently we have a lot of assistance schemes to help them, and I am happy to hear from Acting Minister for MCYS, Mr Chan Chun Sing, that the Government will be enhancing assistance, I would like to add on by suggesting that the Government exercise greater flexibility during implementation, with a greater human touch.

I believe that Minister Chan, who comes from a poor family, will be able to empathise with the situation of these old folks. Yesterday, I was also glad to hear from Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Sam Tan that there are plans to set up more Senior Citizens Activity Centres, to bring lonely old folks from their tiny living space to bigger spaces.

Page: 372

The second fear among these "miserable old folks" is illness. They are afraid to see the doctor, they are afraid that the doctor will tell them they have illnesses. They are also worried that the medical costs are too high, that they cannot afford it. I believe that the committee headed by Minister Gan Kim Yong, who is looking into problems of the elderly, will take note of this issue.

And thirdly, they are afraid of receiving letters from the Government. This group of old folks are afraid to receive letters from the Government because they cannot understand what is written in the letters. Secondly, they are worried that their water and electricity supply will be cut off. When they receive the letters, they will be so worried that they lose sleep. Only when they see their MPs and grassroots leaders, realise that we can actually help them, then they will feel assured. Hence, I suggest that, when the Government is communicating with these old folks, they should use more verbal communication and less English letters. The activity centres for old folks can play an important role in this aspect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the old folks of today were the youth of yesterday, the youth of today will be the elderly of tomorrow. When the Government draws up various measures, they should look after the elderly, especially the salaried old folks and the €˜miserable old folks'.

I mentioned that the Government needs to have a human touch when they implement their policies. The Government has always emphasised consultation with the people when they are drawing up major policies. But during implementation, they should focus on applying human touch.

To many ministers and civil servants who draft the measures, the measures will be effective when implemented. But from the viewpoint of the common folks, they sometimes lack the human touch, and this may result in dissatisfaction amongst the people. For example, why do Singaporeans like to eat bak kut teh ? Laksa ? Mee siam ? Because these dishes not only look good, but also smell good and taste good.

Many of our policies are beneficial to the people and effective, but if we can add a bit of human touch, it will be even better. For example, the ERP system. Previously, the ERP hours along CTE in the evening lasts till 10.30pm, yesterday, when we drove home, the IU does not beep twice anymore. This is what I mean by human touch. My residents told me they feel happy too, so thank you, Minister Lui Tuck Yew.

It is the same in Chinatown. In the past, I used to go there to eat dinner but not any more, because many friends whom I dine with said they do not want to go, because they are not happy. The special part about Chinatown is that there has to be many people, many cars, although we do not want a lot of water. Chinatown does not need buffaloes or water, but there has to be cars. Now that ERP hours are shortened, cars will rush in to jam up the roads, then we can see the real flavour of Chinatown.

And also, on the immigration policy, although we have now tightened the immigration policy, we should consider cases whereby Singaporeans marry foreigners. When the non-Singaporean spouse gives birth and her relatives from another country come to visit during the confinement period, we should also relax the regulations. Here, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs. I had a special case, her application was not approved repeatedly. After I wrote in on her behalf, the authorities finally allowed her relatives to come to visit her. Imagine, if we have a daughter who is married overseas and is pregnant, and we want to visit her, the government of the foreign country should be humane too.

Page: 373

Yesterday, the housing policies announced by Minister Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament also demonstrated that the Government is humane. We strive to be a liveable city, and a liveable city cannot be without human touch, that is the kind of home that we aspire to. If the liveable city is lacking in human touch, we will not have the feeling of "Home sweet home".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would also like to comment on the speech by the MP for Aljunied GRC, Mr Chen Show Mao, although many MPs have spoken about it before. One main point he talked about is the peaceful and prosperous era of Zhenguan. It is an era from history long time ago. When I went home and did a search on Google, I found that there was a point of doubt. The Member of Parliament Mr Chen hoped the Government would be like Emperor Tang Taizong, but the PAP Government never wanted to be emperor. On the other hand, according to Google search results, Wei Zheng was originally with the camp that opposed Tang Taizong and it was Tang Taizong who invited Wei Zheng to join him, as he treasured good talents. So I wonder if MP Chen is saying that he wants to join us from the other camp, I believe that is not the case.

Coming back to modern society, all of us in Parliament place national interest as priority. Just as President Tony Tan said at the opening of the new session of Parliament, we must collectively lead Singaporeans, look at the challenges posed by the less than optimistic external economic conditions, avoid creating divisions in the society due to increasing polarisation, so as to achieve the vision that the Government has been promoting in recent years, that is, the vision of an inclusive society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

( English ): Sir, though the CPF scheme has worked well with the employer and employee relationship, there is a big group of people, the self-employed workers, who are not so well covered by our CPF scheme. So, the challenge, it means – how can we get self-employed persons to include the cost of building up their social safety net in a sustainable way so that they will also have a safety net when they grow old and get sick?

Last year, NTUC, together with MOM and the taxi companies, pioneered the drive and safety scheme for the taxi drivers who are self-employed persons. This is a tripartite effort and I must thank Mr Gan Kim Yong for his strong support of this concept when he was the Minister for MOM. It is a voluntary scheme. We want the taxi drivers to have a social safety net when they grow old and sick.

The idea behind the scheme is to get both the drivers and the taxi companies to regularly contribute to the drivers' CPF Medisave account. So, we championed that as a cause for taxi drivers. Social safety net should be included in the price of taxi service provided by the taxi companies, just like any mode of public transport, such as bus and rail.

Sir, similar concepts or principles should be adopted to create a national CPF framework for all self-employed persons in Singapore. We should act now and address these potential social problems of an inadequate social safety net for self-employed persons. Sir, currently there are about 133,700 self-employed persons who have trade net income below $6,000. They are mandated to contribute to their Medisave which can be used to pay for their medical insurance to cover their medical expenses should they fall ill.

Page: 374

This big group of self-employed persons is inadequately insured against unforeseen events, such as theft, permanent disability, critical or chronic illness. Unlike employees, when such unfortunate things happen to him or her, the whole family will fall into financial difficulties and experience great distress because he does not enjoy paid leave for medical or hospitalisation and cost of medical treatment. So, just like the CPF Dependant Insurance Scheme, we should set up an automatic opt-in for a basic Life Insurance scheme, which can be paid by the CPF savings. This will further strengthen the social safety net of the inadequately insured self-employed persons or, for the matter, all Singapore citizens under the CPF scheme.

Sir, where we can put our CPF savings to benefit all Singaporeans, including the self-employed, it would also make it a stronger case for the Government to give more generous CPF top-ups during the years with surpluses.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[ Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, "There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, and we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." Written hundreds of years ago by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar, this quote is remarkably apposite today. Every once in a while, countries and nations come to a critical crossroads and the choices that we make will change our futures irrevocably.

Singapore is at such a crossroads today in terms of Singapore's future and the relationship between Singaporeans and the Government. We may not have fully appreciated it but the debates of the last few days had actually caused a much bigger, global phenomenon. There is a tide that is sweeping the world. We are riding this tide better than most but it has not left us untouched and we have yet to plumb its depths for its true lessons.

It began in spring, the Arab Spring to be precise. The events in Tunisia which spread to Egypt, Libya and Yemen, followed by the protests and demonstrations in Israel, the Anna Hazare protests in India, the Indignants in Spain, the riots in South London, and now the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York which has spread to the rest of the US, Europe and Australia.

Page: 375

For those of us who are old enough, there is a distinct sense of déjà vu . It resonates of Woodstock in the 1960s' hippie revolution, a movement which eventually died out but which changed the world and left a lasting legacy in its wake.

What is this global phenomenon about? It is, in essence, a collective outcry by the middle classes and the poor about economic inequality. The sense that the things they want are getting further and further out of reach, that wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few − the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and wage disparity is increasing.

In the US, there is anger over income inequality, high employment, cuts in social spending, stagnant economy and lack of economic growth. The post-mortems of the UK riots show that the rioters did so because they lacked the belief that the political system represented their interests. They lacked hope and they did not feel that they have a future to risk. The Times of India article reported that those who hit the streets in India did so because of a sense of inchoate rage they felt that the political system which displayed contempt for their priorities. And in Israel, the sentiment was captured in a slogan which said, "We are fighting for an accessible future."

So what lessons does this hold for us, especially in the wake of the recent GE? Well, the first thing, if one considers our situation against the wider backdrop of what is happening, is that all things considered, our Government did well. The anger and disillusionment in other countries are accompanied by a sense that their institutions and political systems have failed them.

When you consider our GE results against the backdrop of what is now happening in the rest of the world, then one would realise that 60.1% vote share is actually a testimony that our Government did in fact get many things right and that, unlike the other countries, our institutions have not failed.

It is, I believe, for these same reasons that there has not been a desire to occupy Raffles Place. However, at the same time, there are many reverberating echoes of the global phenomenon in our last GE, in particular the concerns of middle-class and poorer Singaporeans that things are slipping out of reach and becoming inaccessible to them. It has manifested itself in concerns over shortage of affordable housing, inability to get places in local universities and rising costs of living. And this was despite the fact that we had record economic growth of 14.5% last year.

So, in the US, there is unhappiness because there is no economic growth. In Singapore, we have unhappiness despite economic growth. And what are we to make of this? The reason for the unhappiness in Singapore was that many Singaporeans felt that despite the 14.5% economic growth in 2010, the fruits of that economic growth did not reach the ground and was not spread out equitably. So the real lesson of the global events and our GE is that we must continue to pursue economic growth but we must also at the same time ensure that it is spread out and shared equitably amongst all Singaporeans.

The question of economic growth has occupied the House over the last few days and the debate has been positioned as economic growth versus happiness. That is not quite correct. The truth is that the two go hand in hand. One cannot just "don't worry, be happy". The world does not work like that. If we want more things for ourselves, if we want the Government to give more things, such as transport subsidies and healthcare subsidies, that needs money. The money must come from somewhere and, to get that money, we need economic growth.

Page: 376

We have to strike a happy medium between Abba's "Money, Money, Money" and Jessie J's "Price Tag". The Abba song is about girls looking for rich men. The underlying assumption is that having money will buy everything she wants and bring her happiness. The Jessie J's song, on the other hand, says that "it is not about the money. We don't need the money. Forget about the price tag. Money can't buy you happiness". I notice that everybody seems to recognise Abba but there was a slight look of puzzlement when I mentioned Jessie J, UK singer, list of top 10.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I suppose that contains another lesson for this Chamber, which is that the MPs wish to be in sync with the broad spectrum of the Singapore population, they have to tune in literally and metaphorically not just to go 90.5 FM but also tonight's 100.3 FM.

But the challenge for Singapore and the Singapore Government is how to calibrate growth and social spending and to get the balance just right. In the last GE, the sense was that the balance was not right and now we need to correct this. If not, then the result will be what we see playing out in other parts of the world right now. In calibrating this balance, I would urge the Government to look more at healthcare subsidies and, in particular, education assistance for disabled as well as for special children.

Another issue surfaced in the last GE, which was the relationship between Government and Singaporeans. The relationship between Government and people in Singapore is not like that in other countries. The relationship between the Government and people in Singapore is a special one. It is founded on trust and confidence, of promises made and the sense of a shared destiny.

However, in the last GE, it is clear that this relationship was strained and there was a sense of disconnect and that the Government did not care. I do not actually think the Government does not care. Why does the Government pay so much attention to the economy? To ensure that Singaporeans have jobs. Why do you do that? Obviously, because you care. Why have Workfare? Why have Jobs Credit? Why have ComCare? Why have the Seniors Mobility Fund? Why have all these things if the Government does not care?

Sir, I think it does, but why is it that, despite all these things and these measures, there is this persistent feeling that the Government does not care? Well, in some areas, it really was the case that the Government did not act or act fast enough on feedback from the ground, leading people to think that the Government was not listening to what the ground was saying.

However, I think there is another reason and that is communications. That actually brings me to this point about communications, the point that the hon. Member for Aljunied GRC, Mr Pritam Singh, raised. The point that he made was that, well, people turned to new media because they felt that questions were side-stepped, because there is a sense of the politics of indirect control over the mainstream media. And I think when he was asked by the hon. Member, Mr Edwin Tong, he said that this sense of perception was real or perceived, and he had set out certain suggestions on how this could be redressed.

Page: 377

I have a slightly different view on how these issues can be addressed. But before that, I suppose I wanted to ask the Member, Mr Pritam Singh, to clarify because he has put forth proposals on Information Act, release of information, and these are based on the statement that there are perceptions out there, that there is indirect Government control of the media. I seek the learned Member's clarification whether he believes that there is indirect control of the mainstream media and perhaps that can be addressed after my speech.

But moving back on to the point that I wanted to make about communications, it is this. We have a well educated and thinking population and that is thanks to the PAP Government's education policy of the last 50 years. But the consequence is that Singaporeans no longer simply accept something blindly or uncritically. It is no longer enough for the Government to state its direction. What is imperative is the conversation that the Government has with people so that the majority understands and accepts that this is the direction that we must go. And if in the course of the conversation, the sense is that the majority of Singaporeans do not wish to go in that direction, then there must be a re-evaluation of that direction.

There is also a question of the tone of the conversation between government and people. In its desire to present substantive arguments, the Government has, over the last few decades, managed to leech out all emotion from its public communications. It is very often about facts, figures, statistics. And official replies sometimes have a rigid pomposity about them that immediately sets backs up. This has led to allegations of arrogance and allowed detractors to paint the Government as uncaring when this is, in fact, not the case.

It is just not about the end result but the conversation that takes place between Government and people and the tone of that conversation. It is not only what you say but how you say it. That is why I think that there is a lot of information out there, I am not sure we need another Act for that. But I think that part of the issue thrown up by new media is how Government communicates. And I believe that if the Government communicates effectively, clearly and in an inspiring way, then that will in effect address many of the concerns that Singaporeans have.

We should also make for policies that fit people and not make people fit the policies. There are many examples of these but just one which I would like to ask HDB to review is this policy of having co-tenancy of rental flats, especially when you have the elderly. When rental flats were first offered, the co-tenant policy made sense as people rented with their friends or relatives. However, as they have grown older, many of the co-tenants have passed on and now they are being asked to live with strangers. If we can change this policy and have maybe rental flats for one occupant, some for two occupants, some for families and have some flexibility there, then we will fit our policies around what people need.

I would also ask the Government to look into creative solutions to offset rising costs of living. One suggestion which I wish to put forward, far-fetched as it may seem, is: Can we explore solar power for HDB flats? This is not so far-fetched actually because the idea of the Marina Barrage was conceived 20 years ago. NeWater technology was not available then and the idea of turning the whole island into a reservoir to capture recyclable water at that time seemed like an impossible dream. But, today, it is a reality. I would ask the Government to look at the possibility of solar power for HDB flats because if you think about it, how much we would be able to save in terms of cost and how much we could add to the average family's disposable income.

Page: 378

I do understand that at the present time it is not an economically viable solution. All I ask is that it be studied so that going forward in the future, if it is something that becomes economically and technologically viable, this is something we should do for Singaporeans.

These are just some suggestions. Obviously, there have been many things that have been discussed in the House in the past few days, but these are some of the things that we should look at to make the future accessible for Singaporeans, young and old. It is not an easy task. It requires hard work, fiscal prudence yet creative spending. It requires Government and people to work together in tandem and hand-in-hand. It requires the concerted energy of a nation galvanised in a common goal.

Why is the situation in the US so bad today? Why has it come to the stage of "Occupy Wall Street"? Just three years ago, President Obama swept into Capitol Hill on the ringing cry of "Change!" and "Yes, we can!" Three years later, it is apparent "No! The US couldn't". Or at least to-date, it cannot. The US is experiencing firsthand the words of Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

But that is not the case in Singapore. For us, it is not a matter of "we can" but "we can and we will". When the PAP Government pledges change, the change is real. Remember the Re-making Singapore Committee ten years ago? At that time, Singapore was criticised for not being a happening place. We were compared unfavorably to Lan Kwai Fong. Madonna could not have a concept here because there was too much red tape. Pubs and nightclubs complained that they could not open past midnight. In response to that feedback, we implemented change, so much so that the pendulum has now swung the other way and I have to ask the Minister for Home Affairs to do something about the side effects of excessive partying at Roberston Quay.

So, what we must understand is what this GE is truly about. What this GE is truly about is that we are at a crossroads. There are challenges for us and big challenges: How to do what other countries have not been able to do, which is to give Singapore an accessible future and to have a relationship between Government and the people, not just of trust and confidence but also of affection. If we can get this right, we will ride the tide of fortune. If we do not, then we lose all our ventures.

So far, the rest of the world has not been able to get it right. The challenge for us is how to succeed against all odds, to do what the others cannot do, to not only dream that impossible dream but to make the impossible dream come true for all Singaporeans. In the words of Billie Holiday, and these are words of encouragement for the Minister for National Development, in particular, and for the Minister for Transport and the rest of Ministers, "The difficult, we will do right now; the impossible takes a little while". But either way – and these are not Billy Holiday's words, these are mine – either way, we will do it because we are Singaporeans. Sir, I support the motion.

Page: 379

4:37 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I refer to the hon. Member Ms Indranee Rajah's request for me to clarify. I beg your pardon, it was not a clarification. She wanted to know my opinion, how I felt, whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Now, I wish the Member had stuck to some of the points that I made in the speech about my proposals for this Government to improve communication with Singaporeans, rather than ask me what my view was as to whether the mainstream media was biased or not. Be that as it may, let me just go through two points that I made in the speech again for the sake of clarification, nothing more.

I refer to the comments of the chief editor of The Straits' Times last year again, and this is what he said: "We are aware. People say we are a Government mouthpiece or that we are biased." First point. Second point. The remarks of former President Nathan in his memoirs, page 459, "Privately, I was conscious that another outbreak of serious displeasure with The Straits' Times could well result in demands for heads to roll or a return to the old idea of putting in a Government team."

Now, never mind what Pritam Singh thinks. What do we say about the comments made by the chief editor of The Straits' Times and our former President? The fact of the matter is, there are Singaporeans – and I am sure Members in their heart of hearts will know that – many Singaporeans are concerned that because issues are not addressed in the mainstream media across the political spectrum, you have popularity gaining online and the biggest loser in all of these is the Government, not Pritam Singh, not the Opposition, but ordinary Singaporeans who actually want to hear diverse perspectives, diverse views.

So, I hope the Member, instead of asking me for my opinion on things, can suggest to the Government what it can do to improve communication between itself and ordinary Singaporeans. Thank you.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Sir, a point of clarification. The hon. Member for Aljunied had put forward a proposal. The proposal was to address a particular concern. The concern was that there is a perception, or he said there is a perception that the mainstream media is controlled. He has cited two examples, the chief editor of SPH, being aware that people say, meaning that is what is people think; President Nathan's quote – that is what people think.

But the Member of Parliament is putting forward a proposal to have certain Acts which have extremely important provisions. So, all I was seeking was clarification whether that Member believes the reason for these Acts, in other words, does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled and is that why you are putting forward the proposal for these Acts?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have to repeat what the focus of my speech was when I made it just now –

Mr Speaker: I suggest you keep it short.

Page: 380

Mr Pritam Singh: Yes, Sir. I basically suggested ways in which the Government can foster an informed and engaged citizenry. And I divided the speech into two parts: I first assessed the mainstream media landscape which directly affects the online world. Now, that is my contention. Now, if the Member does not believe that what occurs in the mainstream media has no effect on the online media, then I am not sure how far I can take this argument.

Secondly, I very clearly informed this House that there are a number of legislation that the Government can consider to actually improve the situation insofar as lies and misinformation occur and this really is a reflection of the President's Address and MICA's Addendum to that Address. They are not referring to the mainstream media. They are referring to the nexus – They are referring, I beg your pardon, to the online media. I am suggesting that there is a connection and the Government would do well to pay heed to that connection. This is not about Pritam Singh's views on the mainstream media.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, thank you for allowing me to seek a clarification. Mr Singh is putting forward a position about perceptions on mainstream media. There are many ways of avoiding an answer to the question and Mr Singh has tried a number of them. The question is a simple one. It is very important to know what Mr Singh thinks because a whole series of proposals are being put forward as to how the Government should deal with these perceptions. A Member of Parliament, when asked a direct question as to what he believes in, should either say he is prepared to answer or should simply tell the truth, which is that, "I am not prepared to answer the question".

Mr Pritam Singh: I think the Law Minister would know better than I how to answer a question in Parliament because he has been around here longer than I have. But I can only answer a question with my hand on my heart. I am not here to score a political point. I am not here to suggest that the Government is doing something wrong. But what I am saying is that there is scope for this Government to reflect and, more importantly, reflect on the words of the former Foreign Minister, the man who occupied this seat that this Member currently occupies. And he said that "the PAP needs to transform itself" and here you have a backbencher who has stood up and suggested to the Government in all sincerity not to score political points but just to suggest to the Government that there is scope for improvement. And if they need any advice or any suggestions, anything of that sort, I am sure I will be happy to provide them. But I am not here to score a political point or to teach someone how a question ought to be answered or not. This is not my intention. And if the Member thinks that answer is so important that it will have some effect on the real Singapore society, then I think he is mistaken.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, the point is a very simple one and it is this. Does the Member believe that the mainstream media is controlled, purveys lies and dishonest opinions? Why is it important to know that? When Members speak here, their personal views and their integrity to speak their personal views and speak from the heart, there are no games that need to be played. The question is not about other people's perceptions only. It is a very simple question capable of a simple answer. What do you believe in? Then, we have a basis to move forward. Why is it important to say what you believe in? As an elected Member of Parliament, you come here and express your views, you got to put your hand on your heart and say, "This is what I believe in". That does not require years of experience as a parliamentarian. That simply requires telling the truth.

Page: 381

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, will you state your belief, otherwise we will move on?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, can I first make a clarification? Is the Minister suggesting I am lying?

Mr K Shanmugam: I am simply saying that Mr Singh does not want to answer the question.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, I think I will be running over ground that I have already gone over. I essentially am saying that this Government can do better. Now, I am saying that with my hand on my heart.

Mr Speaker: Gentlemen, we will move on. Dr Ng Eng Hen.