Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

4.46 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, this is the start of a new term of Parliament that people have chosen us to be their representatives and it is our duty to fulfil the trust that they have vested upon us. We have debated the Government's programme for the next five years. MPs have also raised many issues which affect Singaporeans, affect their voters. But let us take a step back from all these detailed items and to-ings and fro-ings to address how they all fit into a larger picture.

We all know the Singapore Story. A dramatic transformation from Third World to First, apparently effortless and inevitable but it was not just by luck, it was not just by mere passage of time that this happened. It was the result of hard work, strong determination from all parties and concerted sustained performance over many years. As we look to the future, we have to ask ourselves, it is a new environment as Ms Indranee said, we are at a crossroads, and the tide is in full flood.

Page: 382

Can Singapore thrive in this new environment? Can we build a stronger society, a more inclusive nation, a better home? Can we achieve what President Tan said in his speech: the vision of providing a better life for all? As the President's Address put it: we want every Singaporean worker to hold a skilled well-paid job, every family to live in an affordable, comfortable home, every young person to develop himself fully and pursue his dreams, every senior citizen to stay active and to live with dignity. And my answer is, yes. We can do it. But to achieve this, we need an inclusive society that leaves no one behind. We need a vibrant economy that improves all our lives. And we need a constructive politics that put Singapore first.

Let us take them one by one. What is an inclusive society? It is one where everybody benefits from the progress of the nation; it is one where everyone has a say, a stake and a sense of belonging; and it is one where everyone aspires to do better through their own efforts and feels that he or she has a real chance to move up. Why is this important? Well, firstly and most fundamentally, because we are one family, one Singapore family. Then, it is because it is a reflection of what we are, our values, what we stand for when we look at the mirror in the morning – how we see ourselves, how we want others to see us. And it is also a practical matter because if we are inclusive, if we work together, we stand together and succeed. But if not, we fall apart and we fail.

Our society is changing. New challenges have emerged to creating an inclusive society. There are more different groups with sharper different interests and concerns: the young, the old; the special interest groups; different socio-economic groups: the professionals, the middle-class, those who think of themselves as in the middle of the sandwiched, those who feel that life has not quite been fair to them.

Income inequality is starker than before. The most successful Singaporeans will continue to do very well. The average Singaporeans will be able to make improvements in their lives and are much better off than people in most other countries. But at the lower end, incomes have risen too slowly, far too slowly, especially in real terms. We are seeing our society stratifying which means the children of successful people are doing better, the children of less successful people are doing less well. And fewer children from lower income families are rising and coming up to the top of the heap. We are seeing ageing, visible all over Singapore. We see this in our daily lives, we watch out for it because we are shepherds and responsible for Singaporeans, but I think Singaporeans must see it too.

I visit schools, I see the bright kids, the sparkle in their eyes, the excitement of their projects, of the things they are planning to do, the places they are going to. I do Meet-the-People sessions. We see families come, desperate, anxious, worried about themselves but we worry more for their children because when they have no home, no place to go, studying in the void deck, how do you go from that to the kid dreaming in a laboratory to be the next Nobel Prize winner?

It is a big gap. It exists in Singapore, sharper than before. It exists in many other societies, but it is something which we worry a lot about. Stratification is an issue too because a generation ago, everybody was poor. Many of the kids went on to school, university, become professionals. One couple, one rental flat, seven kids, five graduates. Many such stories. Today, not so common because the kids are graduates already, they are not living in rental flats anymore and their parents probably not living in rental flats either. So, those who are left behind are finding it harder.

Page: 383

Ageing – happening almost before our eyes. I do not just mean when we look into the mirror. Five years ago, I was preparing for a National Day Rally speech, talking about ageing and I made a special effort to visit Radin Mas, Mr Sam Tan's ground because Radin Mas had a more advanced stage of ageing amongst its residents than the rest of us. But today, when I come to Ang Mo Kio or many other estates, I do not have to go to Radin Mas anymore. I look at the residents, you watch them, they are active, they are happy, but visibly greyer than five years ago. Just ask yourself: 10 years from now, where will we be?

By the 2030s, the statisticians tell me through freedom of information, one in five Singaporeans will be about 65. Today, it is only one in 10. In 2030 – that means 18 years' time – one in five. It is an abstract statistic, but what you see is what you can sense in every housing estate, in many hawker centres when you walk around the streets and especially on Polling Days when all the old folks come out, either with their walking sticks or their wheelchairs, to vote.

We are not alone so there is some solace, but we still are faced with the problem and the question is how do we respond to this? After the General Election, I asked Deputy Prime Minister Tharman to review social policies comprehensively – set up a committee, oversee a comprehensive whole-of-Government exercise, because this is not an issue just for MCYS, but many Ministries are involved and, indeed, it is not just a multi-Ministry issue on some of the major things. You need a national mobilisation for it to come before a national consciousness as a priority which we have to deal with. So, Manpower, Education, National Development, Health, MCYS, even Home Affairs, because if we are talking about kids with problems, MHA has a vested interest. And they have meeting, discussing, tossing out ideas, getting a grip on the problem and a sense of how we want to approach these problems. Today, I just want to share some of their thinking with you which we have discussed amongst all the Ministers.

I think the first priority we would have dealing with these is to strive to maintain social mobility, to create the best opportunities for our people to progress and to encourage people to make maximum efforts for themselves. That is how we have built our prosperity based on self-reliance, based on personal endeavour. And I think that is still a right direction. Because if you want a resilient Singapore, if you want a prosperous Singapore, if you want a Singapore where everybody is doing well, we cannot have passengers. Some will be the strobe setting the pace, some will be the main might of the crew rowing hard. Others, even if you are not able to pull your full weight, do what you can so that nobody is just a passenger.

So, therefore, we have put a major emphasis on education and training, on the Ministry of Education, on the Continuing Education and Training which MOM is overseeing. And that is one of the reasons why we have put a very strong team into the Ministry of Education. When Ng Eng Hen moved to MINDEF, I thought carefully. We put Heng Swee Keat into MOE who has been there before, who understands education and has experience in the Government at very senior levels and will be able to get going, hit the ground running. And I supported him with a strong team -- Mr Lawrence Wong, Mr Hawazi Daipi and Ms Sim Ann so that education is right up there on the front burner. And education, not just doing well what we have already done but taking new initiatives, moving into new areas and starting early in life so that children can get ahead and do better than their parents.

Page: 384

So, we are focusing on good quality, affordable preschool education: how to support that, how to make sure that all Singaporeans can get there. We are making sure that every neighbourhood school is a good school. It is not a slogan. It is a slogan but it is a reality and we make sure that every neighbourhood school is a good school and any MP who feels that his school is not quite up there, please let us know and we will do something about it.

We are putting in Learning Support programmes at Primary 1 and Primary 2 because when the kids start with a deficit, we want to close that deficit. We do not want the gaps to widen and have them falling further and further behind. We are helping children with special needs – specialised learning and therapy, expanded capacity and higher quality in their special education schools. I think it is the right thing to do. I heard Ms Denise Phua speaking earlier in the week with great passion. I agree with her. We need to do more. I do not agree with her that it should all come unto the Government's plate. But we will do more and, with people like her, I think we will achieve more.

Ms Low Yen Ling also spoke about this and how there are children when in pre-primary or preschool who have learning difficulties that need to be diagnosed and then identified and helped early. These are all very sensible, very practical approaches which we will pursue and pursue aggressively.

Even then, some kids will get into trouble. It is in the nature of kids, especially boys, and we have to tackle these youth problems early because we want to nip the problem in the bud before they get into the first brush with the law, second brush with the law, exposed to hardcore drugs or criminals, and then you are on a lifetime of crime. Wasted. And that, again, is multi-ministry because it cannot just be done by good intentions in MCYS.

So, we must get people to move, we must start early in life and we must keep the avenues open so that it is free for people to move up. If you are talented, hardworking, have drive and determination, however poor your background, there must be no financial or social impediment for you to move. And I think we can say that, institutionally, we have that: schools, bursaries, fee remissions, universities. If you are able, you are willing to study and you show the performance, the door is open.

We are widening access to higher education, particularly university places where there are 25% going on to 30%, and we have Mr Lawrence Wong with his Committee studying how we can widen access further in one form or another, so that more students can make it to tertiary education. More bursaries and scholarships will be given and, beyond the university, better facilities in the polytechnics and in the ITEs at every level to let students move up and achieve their best.

The principle is meritocracy. The most capable, most reliable, the one with the most potential to go into the most crucial job because we want to put the person who is going to do it best so that the rest of us can be assured that nothing will go wrong. But we have to see meritocracy widely, not as a narrow one-dimensional definition of success as in examination and results, but a broader range of abilities; many models of achievement, many ways to make your mark. Whether it is arts, sports, science, as a businessman, an entrepreneur or in the public sector, whether as a leader or a specialist. Many ways to do well, and society to recognise and celebrate all the different people who do well.

Page: 385

We also have to set the tone for our society if we want to keep our system open. Because the rules may be there, the scholarships may be there, but if between the lower end and the higher end, there is a social gap – you are not accepted, you do not feel comfortable, you are awkward or a magic circle forms and you cannot get into the magic circle – I think that is very damaging. So, we must keep our society open, egalitarian, informal: people socialise together, people mix freely together, people get to know one another in our State schools, in our National Service, in life, in our hawker centres, able to mix comfortably, able to integrate into one Singapore team.

We have done this so far and there are many examples of students who have come up from poor homes who have excelled. We have kids who took part in theatre for the first time, discovered an aptitude, talent spotted, going into SOTA next year. We have a badminton player who developed his academic and athletic potential in the Sports School and will be representing Singapore at the upcoming SEA Games. We have got budding talents in the NUS Math and Science School excelling in Mathematics or Bio-medical Olympiads, flying the flag for Singapore. We have sons of taxi drivers winning a SAF scholarship to study in Imperial College in London. There many more such stories and we must make sure that every time there is a young boy or girl with potential who is from a poor home, we identify him and we smooth the path for him and we help him to make it.

So, the first approach towards dealing with our social problems is to strengthen the ability for people to succeed. But the second approach, which must complement the first one, is to strengthen our social safety nets, because there is a " yin " and a " yang ". The " yang " is what you try to do for yourself, to compete, to achieve, to thrust forward. The " yin " – you are looking out for one another, giving your peer a helping hand, helping the person who cannot quite make it, "Welcome. Come along. I will help you take the next step."

Especially for the low income and the disadvantaged families, we have been doing this and we will be doing more of this. In the last five years, we created Workfare, we created ComCare during the economic crisis. We implemented a Jobs Credit programme aimed mainly at the lower end. And with Workfare, the Government is providing significant wage top ups. Every year, 400,000 workers benefit. Every year, they receive more than $400 million, all in. This means that it is about $1,000 per worker; $400 million of benefits to the lower end. It goes into their Medisave, goes into their CPF, goes to them in cash payments. A very substantial measure. Not a minimum wage, but better than a minimum wage. And something which we will enhance, as we gain experience, as we understand how it works, as we see where we need to do more, just as we are enhancing ComCare, as Mdm Halimah informed Members a couple of days ago.

We will also want to encourage employers to help low-end workers to upgrade, to be able to earn more. And that means what NTUC's Mr Lim Swee Say calls "best sourcing". It is jargon. It means that when you outsource and you award a contract to a firm to do work – cleaning, maintenance or security – you want a firm which will have workers who are properly trained, properly equipped and properly paid, not just a firm which will give you the lowest tender and then, having made the lowest tender, who will offer the lowest possible wage to the workers and then do as little as he can without getting into trouble on the contract.

Page: 386

This is something which the unions are very focused on. Mr Zainal Sapari spoke at length on this a couple of days ago and the Government supports this. And I think the Government itself, as an employer, will have to see how we will do this. I think we will have a problem with the lower end workers because in the olden days, the lower end workers were unionised. We had daily-rated employees, they worked for the PUB, they worked for the Government, Environment Ministry or NEA. But progressively, this unionised generation is not there anymore. The daily-rated employees are not there anymore. And the low-end workers today, the " sua kang ", the people who are the cleaners, they are not unionised. So, there is nobody to speak for them, there is nobody to fight for their rights, nobody to argue, advocate on their behalf. It is not easy to organise them but I think it is a problem we have which we have to find some way to solve. We owe it to these low-end workers to make sure that they too can earn a decent living in Singapore.

Our focus is on the low end but we will extend the support beyond the low end selectively, where it is deserved and justified, also to the not-so-poor – the lower- middle-income, the middle-income workers. People who are not so poor that they need help every month, but from time to time run into difficulty and then they need some assistance to tide over that period. And that is why we are paying attention to long-term care for chronic sick and elderly, because I think many of the families in the middle, they have elderly parents. If they are working, and their parents are well, that is fine. If they are working, their parents get ill, that can be quite a burden. And if the illness is catastrophic – they have cancer – that is even more difficult. Drugs are expensive and it can carry on for many years.

So, these are problems we have, we are focusing on and I think we understand that in an environment where incomes are stretching out, where the middle-income sometimes are having to struggle to make ends meet, some helping hand will become necessary.

The most important thing we do for Singaporeans, of course, is to help every family to own a home – the HDB flat. Mr Khaw Boon Wan spoke at length about it yesterday and I am sure that would not be his last speech in this House on this subject. I would just like to add a few words that the house is much more than a secure roof over their heads. The house in Singapore is also a major way for us to level up the less successful and to give them a valuable asset and a retirement nest egg. We are using the HDB flat as a means to give every Singaporean household a stake: this belongs to me, this is what I am going to work for and help pay for, this is what I am proud of, this is what I will defend, and this is what I really should keep until retirement.

So, that is why we are making sure that HDB flats are affordable even to lower income households. If you earn $2,000, you can buy a flat. If you earn more than $1,500, maybe a bit harder but we will help you to do that. Already we are giving the poorer households more support when they buy flats. The new Members of Parliament who may not have heard all the jargons should know that there are Additional Housing Grants if your income is not so high, and if your income is quite low, there are Special Housing Grants on top of the Additional Housing Grant. And maybe one day we will have an "Extra Special Housing Grant"! But the purpose of this is to target the subsidies, the assistance, the Government support, so that we give the lower end an extra helping handout: "Here, this is yours. Please take good care of it."

Page: 387

We do have a problem because a minority are not always taking good care of it. Some of them, having bought the flat, are getting into debt. The flat is protected. In fact, the creditor cannot foreclose and take the flat away from you. But the creditor can put enough pressure on you that you feel that you have no choice but to sell the flat and clear the debts and go and see your MP and ask for another one. That is a very serious problem, and that is one of the important reasons why we have a long queue for rental flats, not because they did not have a house in the first place but because they have lost the house which was theirs. The money is gone and now they are homeless and it has become the Government's problem again.

We must find some ways to address this problem. It is not easy but, to be honest, I think we have to acknowledge that there is a difficulty here which has to be tackled.

The third aspect of making an inclusive society is to enable Singaporeans to age with dignity and grace. We are going to have a silver tsunami coming and we need a national effort to plan ahead, to be ready for it so that it does not wash us away.

We need elderly people to be able to work longer, to help them to work longer, to help employers to keep them at work productively. And I think if you look at the numbers – the proportion of elderly working longer is going up and will continue to go up, but most importantly mindsets are changing. People are beginning to understand that it is good to work and employers are beginning to understand that older workers have their advantages. They are steadier, they may not be quite so strong and resilient but they are reliable and, if you can keep them for a long time, they can be productive for a very long time.

To prepare for the silver tsunami, we need to contain and to share healthcare costs. This, also, Ministry of Health is doing. Mr Gan Kim Yong has been focusing on that. We need to build up care services so that there will be more hospitals, many more nursing homes. But beyond hospitals and nursing homes, also community facilities and homecare because, for old folks, if you can stay at home, it is always much better than if you have to go into a nursing home or have to be in a hospital. You want the elderly to enjoy the care and the love of a family and to be near friends and the community.

So, these are major national initiatives which will be necessary over the next 10 years. I said "national" because it cannot be done just by the Government. You need VWOs, you need community groups, you need households – parents, families -- all to participate and do their part to do this. We can help to orchestrate this but it is something which has to be a national effort.

All these measures are essential if we are going to help the lower income Singaporeans earn more, if we are going to enable more of their children to do well, if we are going to prepare for an ageing society. The trends themselves will be hard to reverse but what we do will make a major difference and will help to ensure that nobody is left behind. The social spending by the State will grow. The items are good, as Ms Indranee Rajah reminded us – they all cost money, and some of these money will have to come from the State. And the Government is prepared for this. We have made major revisions to our revenue streams in the last term of this Government and I think we will be okay for this term of the Government.

Page: 388

But it is not just having enough money. You must have programmes which are properly designed and must yield results. I wanted to say the programmes need to be cost-effective – I was told that shows inadequate warmth – but the programmes have to be effective. We have to worry about the cost, the programmes have to work and, at the very least, they must not make things worse. In social spending, it is quite possible for more money to make things worse. If we look at the way families have completely broken down in the West, it has a lot to do with the way the welfare state was implemented and the money which was spent supporting single mothers. So, we must make sure that we spend the money well and the money goes to effective projects and they really are investments in our people. We like to think so. We would like to try our best to make it so but if we look at the US healthcare system, if we look at the problems which the Europeans have with their welfare state – the Greeks are the worst, but so too are many other European countries – you know that more spending is not always better, and just calling it investment does not mean it is going to yield you a positive return.

So, we have to make sure that somebody is keeping our system straight and sustainable. The next five years, I am quite confident, we have adequate resources, we can do what is necessary. Beyond that, it will depend on how much our needs and our programmes go. But I can tell you that if we do all the things which have been mooted over the last few days in this Chamber, we will not have to wait five years before you think about raising taxes. We will have to think now where the money is going to come from. And so, I think we move, but have a care and make sure that we get results.

By building an inclusive society, we will strengthen our social compact and we will build a Singapore where we care for one another, where we can treat one another with grace, courtesy and respect, where we understand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and a society which represents the best of Singapore and the best of Singaporeans.

Social cohesion and intangible aspirations are important but so, too, is a vibrant economy. You need a vibrant economy if you are going to create jobs, if you are going to raise wages, if you are going to generate confidence in a brighter future. Because if the economy is slow, if nothing is happening, it is very hard to be optimistic to find new opportunities and to have a zest for tomorrow. If we look at Japan: high level of income, high technology, very disciplined, very well-educated people – what is missing? A certain zest because the optimism is not there, that they can grow, that tomorrow will be better. It is an exciting journey that we are on and I think that is why growth is important to us. Besides, without growth, as many Members have pointed out, including Dr Amy Khor, it is the poor who are going to be worst hit. So, when Members say we have over-emphasised growth, I would say have a care. Focus on social issues. I have spent a lot of time talking about them, focus on intangibles, focus on emotional connection, but do not forget, we need to feed our people and we need to grow our economy.

We aim for high quality and inclusive growth but we must also recognise that competition is fiercer than ever. Every year, the Chinese produce seven million graduates, the Indians produce another three million. That is 10 million in total, equal to two Singapores. They are going to have an impact in the world, not just at the lower end blue collar, but middle-income, white collar professionals everywhere in the world. It is a tide and we have to ride it.

Page: 389

The way the competition is coming is threatening entire industries and jobs. We call it hyper-competition. With the Internet, it pervades every nook and cranny and it is reaching out to the world of what are called "PhDs" – poor, hungry and driven people – everywhere. And there are many "PhDs" in the world like that – poor, hungry, driven. We are not poor, we are not hungry but I think we have to be driven. It used to be called "outsourcing'. You find a company in India, you give him the job, he does it for you, or China. Now, they call it "crowdsourcing". I put it on the Internet, whoever can do the job, come, you take the contract, you do the work.

Some are simple jobs like webpage design, writing a review. You can go to freelancer.com or crowd-sourcing.org. If you have spare time and want some pocket money, you can just take a job like that and do it. Others are complex projects. The US Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has got a website which is devoted to crowdsourcing that designed an UAV, an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. They did not give the contract to Boeing, Lockheed or Airbus. They put it up on the web and you form your own teams and you post your design and people will vote on it. The best design will get a prize and there is a chance they will build the thing.

So, it is a different kind of world. We would like to keep the competition away. Let us not have so many foreigners here because they compete against us. Let us give ourselves a bit more pay because the cost of living is high. We would like to improve our lives but we cannot wish away the competition just by doing that. It is there. And "there" is not across the ocean. "There" is one mouse click away and that is the world which we live in, whether you vote for the PAP or the Opposition. That is the world that we live in.

So, we have to recognise that and if we look within Singapore, you have to recognise another very important fact and that is that our growth is likely to slow down. Our economy is more developed. It cannot expand in the same adolescent way as it used to, 7%-8% a year, effortlessly year after year. We have domestic constraints of population and space. Population growing, Singapore getting crowded, space being allocated. We have to scramble to find space for new workers' dormitories, new factory land, new space for highways, for parks. Everything which you put in, something else has to be displaced. We are slowing down the inflow of foreign workers and immigrants, but that means squeezing out more businesses and reducing more growth. That is a very high opportunity cost. There is a trade-off. Already, many employers are feeling it, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and especially those which are run by Singaporeans because they tend to be the less generous pay masters and the first ones to run into difficulties, not able to get workers.

But it is not just the SMEs. It is also in industries staffed mainly by foreigners serving Singaporeans, like nursing homes. If you cannot find staff from the Philippines or from Indonesia or wherever the nurses come from, you will not find enough Singaporeans to do this. So, we are going to face slower growth over the next 10 years. We have made 5.5% growth over the last decade. Over the next 10 years, we have set a target of 3%-5% growth, but I would say that we can make 3-plus % consistently over the next 10 years if we have a good decade. We have to moderate, adjust our expectations, understand what is possible within those parameters, do the best that we can and do it as intelligently as possible.

Page: 390

So, how can we grow in this environment? MTI has been pursuing this strategy for some time now. Restructure the economy. What does that mean? Turn over the industries, phase out those which are lower value-added, phase out those which are low margin, not profitable, without a bright future. Phase in new industries, new technology, new know-how, new skills, new trained workers and therefore raise productivity in every sector and therefore, we can share the benefits amongst all Singaporeans who have good jobs.

What is the magic bullet to do this? There is not one. By hard work, you can do it. Hard work – educating our young, upskilling our workers. Therefore, raising our level and raising above the competition, not meeting them head-on, trying to be cheaper than them, but rising above them to be better than them. And, at the same time, making a special effort to help the older workers and the PMETs because I think we are going to see more problems with them in the next 10 years, as Ms Low Yen Ling and Mr Patrick Tay reminded us yesterday.

With the good workers, you can get investments, you can get good productive jobs and then, you can have the wealth, you can have social measures which will help the yin part to complement the yang part. And we can get through and succeed economically. One advantage that we do have when it comes to economics which is unique to us and very valuable – and I am afraid often under-appreciated by Singaporeans – is that in Singapore, we can make our whole system work well. Not just individual pieces work, but the whole system works well. Our unions work with our employers and the Government, we have tripartism. Our business environment – everything clicks. You can register your company for $2 and, in 20 minutes, it is done. You want telecommunications, you can have it. If you want an SIA flight, you can have it. If you want utilities, it is there. It is a tight, high-functioning system where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. And this is not just bragging rights. It is because of this, therefore, Singaporeans enjoy wages beyond what they would earn if the same person, the same skill goes to work somewhere else. If you cross the Causeway, you work somewhere, or just go overseas, work somewhere, one of our neighbouring countries, any of our neighbouring countries, you would not get the same wage. In fact, many people come here to work from those neighbouring countries because they are taking advantage of our whole system performance, our entire system excellence and we are taking advantage of them because they add to our numbers. So, we have to keep that and, through that, I think our Singaporeans can have a premium. And if they can strengthen that advantage, that premium can go up.

Many business leaders recognise that there is this special Singapore premium. It is not just a figment of our imagination. Therefore, they put major projects in Singapore even though we are not always the lowest cost location or even the biggest market or their home country. But they see us, they decide they have confidence in us, they explain to their Boards the Singapore performance and track record. Even though yesterday somebody said past record is not a promise of future performance, in Singapore, they say, "you have this past record, I think we will bet on them. We have confidence that they will make the future work". They come here and that is why now we have high quality investments even in a quite difficult global environment. And, when they meet me which they often do – I have met quite a number of them recently – they strongly advised me to uphold the fundamentals, stay the course and never lose this advantage. And what they do not tell me, but which I know, is that of all the economic factors, this entire system performance is the one which most depends on our getting our politics right.

Page: 391

So, underpinning a harmonious society, an inclusive society, a vibrant economy, we must have a constructive politics which puts Singapore first. Our politics are not constant. It is evolving. It happens in every country. It is happening in Singapore. Nothing is permanent – no situation is forever, no solution works indefinitely. Our politics is evolving in response to new economic and social realities because our economy is facing challenges for the future, because our society is ageing, is having greater income gaps, and is becoming more diverse. Therefore, our politics is reflecting these social and economic conditions.

There are more diverse interests and perspectives among different segments of the population. We have a better educated population. They want to hear more alternative voices, they like closer engagement, and they believe in a different relationship with the Government. As one of them said, "In the old days, we were here, the Government is here. Now we are here, the Government is here, the gap is not so big, so therefore the relationship has changed." I think that is correct, and the relationship ought to change.

The Internet is playing a role. It is not just a passive medium but it also shapes our interactions. And it redefines our sense of belonging and affinity, because on the Internet, you are not necessarily interacting with your neighbour or your fellow Singaporean or even your classmate in school. It could be your special interest group who may live in California or Australia. It could be a world of war craft opponent who might be in Eastern Europe or Russia or China farming for money. It could be a tiny little interest group collecting stamps or building model aeroplanes but each person, each group fragmented into your little narrowcasted sub, sub society, not one inclusive, cohesive Singapore society. And that makes for different politics. We saw the effects this year in two elections ‒ in May, the General Election; and, in August, the Presidential Election. I think it is necessary and healthy for our politics to adapt to changes in our society and to be up to date and in sync with the times because, if we do not adapt as the society goes, it is brittle and, one day, it will break. But we cannot assume that just because you are changing, you are moving forward. You could be going the wrong way, you could get into a dead end. We have consciously to find the right way forward so as to avoid problems which other countries have run into.

Singapore is not quite the same as other countries. Many things have changed, but one thing has not changed,, and we still need a capable and an effective Government. We are always a small country. We are successful, but our success is always an act of will. Levitate, stay there, do not fall down, do not lose that determination to keep levitating and keep performing and rise higher. And if we have bad leadership, if we make the wrong policies or do the wrong things, it can easily fail. Therefore, we are different from other countries.

We cannot have a low key Government, unlike, say, Switzerland where you just have a Council of Ministers and the Ministers take turns to be the Prime Minister. Or like the Scandinavian countries where it is a very homogeneous society, your neighbours are so successful societies, homogeneous, similar to yours and the society can run itself, civil servants can run it and the politicians, well, you add to the system, but life can go on. Least of all, can we afford in Singapore gridlock or malfunction, which happens in many First World Parliaments? Belgium is a very interesting case. In 67 years, they have had 45 governments, so about once every year-plus. And for the last 500 days, since the last election, they have had no government at all because they have not been able to form a coalition. There is no vote of confidence, so there is no government. But the old Prime Minister is still there and he is still conducting the business, and life goes on. Japan, a much more established society than us, has had six Prime Ministers in five years. I think if that happens in Singapore, we are in serious trouble.

Page: 392

So how do we respond to this new political situation? First of all, we have to take a much more open approach to Government and to governance − the way we organise ourselves; the way we conduct our affairs; welcome different views; reach out to diverse groups, including critics – hear them, exchange with them, pick up ideas from them, persuade them; share more information with the public, whether it is information on population trends or information on employment figures, or foreign workers, even GIC investments. We are publishing more information now than we used to do, whatever we can. Not everything can be disclosed. We do not want to tell the world the overall size of our reserves, we cannot publish our defence plans. But wherever possible, we will disclose more rather than less and, as we go forward, we will review the rules and what we are putting out, and I am sure, over time, we will do progressively more.

We need to engage citizens more in the decisions affecting them, across a wide range − from special narrow groups like VWOS helping special needs children, nature or animal welfare groups. Specific issues which are important but where there are specific groups which are concerned, like looking at the CPF concerning workers, employers, and the older workers, and they want their CPF rates revised. The Government is working with NTUC and with employers to review the question. But even on broader issues, like population and immigration, I think it is constructive for us to have a discussion, to debate, to examine the facts, to understand what the trade-offs are, to focus minds. A month or two ago, the Institute of Policy Studies put up a paper showing various projections of how Singapore's population will grow or shrink over the next decade on certain different assumptions. It is not a conclusive last word, but it was a very helpful contribution to the public debate. I think it helped to educate people and make them understand what this is about. I think over the next year, we will put up more papers, we will discuss them, get people to focus their minds and to understand that we actually face very serious trade-offs. There is no free lunch. You can say you want to have fewer but, if you have fewer, there are serious consequences.

But the public debate is not a free-for-all and there are risks. The French tried this. They had a debate on what it meant to be French because they wanted to close over some of the fault lines in their society between the immigrants, the Muslims and the non-Muslims in France. The immigrants were mainly Muslims. But it took a nasty turn. It became a xenophobic discussion. The government had to try and smooth things down and distance themselves from the debate. So while we debate sensitive things, we have to be very careful not to let sensible, moderate, thoughtful views be drowned out by unthinking xenophobia. So that is the first thing we do – take a more open approach to Government.

The second thing we must do is to have more space for civic society and for the Government to pull back wherever possible, so as to have more Singaporeans take the lead and act on their own. I spoke about this at the National Day Rally. I described the Yellow Ribbon programme and how volunteers are doing a lot of good work, helping prisoners rehabilitate themselves. But there are many other examples. When we are talking about ageing, an ageing society and preparing for that, there, of all places, we will need lots and lots of civic society to be involved, and some of them are already active, doing good things. For example, there is a Young At Heart Community College. Some of you may have heard of it. It is in Marine Parade, started by the Marine Parade Family Service Centre and Southeast CDC. They call it YAH! Although it has to deal with ageing, they are young at heart. And the idea is to help the elderly to learn more about being self-reliant and leading an active lifestyle. The people who come for the courses are trained as Community Education Ambassadors and they go out and promote awareness of wider issues. So they are bringing in old people, giving them some useful knowledge and skills, and then they can go out and they can be active in their community and do good and feel useful, and I think probably improve their mindset and their health. So we need many more of these, one in every constituency, times 88 constituencies, and even more.

Page: 393

Thirdly, we need to emphasise how our policies impact Singaporeans and are seen by Singaporeans. Government is not only about doing things. Government is also about making people understand what we are doing, getting people to support what we are doing and knowing what people would like us to do, so that we can do the right thing for them. Everything the Government does is to benefit citizens. Why on earth do we want to do that? We are voted by citizens. Our responsibility is to them. What we do must be for them. But Government is complicated and, very often, the link from the measures to the benefits are indirect and not obvious. So the result is anxiety, sometimes opposition, sometimes a lot of angst. We try hard to communicate. We make speeches. We have dialogues. We listen. We talk. But as Members have not tired of telling us, and I hasten to tell Members that I have heard you, we do not always do it as well as we could. And we need to communicate better – to listen, to engage, to explain, to be close and sense one another better. If the policies are wrong or circumstances have changed, then say so. And change the policies. We are on a new tack. But if the policies are not wrong and we have to persevere, and it is the perceptions which are mistaken, then I think we have to have the courage of our convictions, preserve the core principles. We can be flexible on the implementation. We can be flexible on the details. But we have to work hard to persuade Singaporeans that we are doing the right thing.

Take the ERP, for example. I believe it is the right thing. I think the Minister for Transport believes it is the right thing. I think some Members of the House believe it is the right thing and more Members understand that it is, although they wished it were not so. But it is something which we cannot avoid doing. At the margins, we can adjust. Chinatown: in the evening, if I can stop earlier, and the shops feel that maybe their customers are less deterred, why not? Let us do that. Central Expressway: people are going home, they are prepared to be stuck in the traffic jam a little bit longer, all right, we can compromise at the edges; let us turn it off at eight o'clock. I am not sure that it will solve the problem but if people feel less angst, and makes the policy more acceptable, I think it is the right thing to do. Preserve the principles, adjust the details, politics is the art of the possible.

Finally, we need to harness the power of the new media, to use it better to engage and connect with citizens, to manage it better to encourage responsible and constructive behaviour. We need to strengthen what is called "digital judgment" and we need to set new norms and rules. What is "digital judgment"? That means the good sense to know that what you saw on the website does not mean it is real, just because it is on the website, and just because it is a Wikipedia does not mean it is true. Ask, find out, verify. We did not invent the term "digital judgment". The British talked about it because they did surveys and had found that actually people do not have digital judgment. When they see something on the web, they tend to believe it. If they hear it from the Government, they tend to disbelieve it. They do not have control over media, neither do we. But they have a problem, so do we.

Page: 394

And we have to get people to be more sophisticated – to understand the Internet is very good, the Internet is very interesting, many good things there – quite a number of lemons. And we would need norms and rules to deal with a new situation not envisaged in the norms and rules which had to do with print media, with speeches in person, when now you have anonymous stuff going around, when now you have instant stuff which can proliferate and go viral. So the British and other countries, and the Americans, too, have laws on cyber terrorism, cyber bullying. They have laws to prevent people from misusing the Internet, to sometimes very dire purposes. You would have heard of one American woman who pretended to be a young girl and befriended another young girl and tormented this other person until she committed suicide. Why? Because there was some conflict between that girl and this woman's daughter. So the woman pretended to be a young girl and did this on the Internet. Are adequate laws existing? Not yet. Do we need something? I think we have to study how we can do this. It would not be 100% foolproof, but it will be necessary and is something which MICA is fully focused on.

Finally, we need to enlarge a common space shared by Singaporeans. This is a broad continuing effort. The Internet is pulling us in different directions, the world is pulling us in different directions – so many opportunities in so many countries, so many exciting possibilities for different people to pursue. How do we pull everybody together so that we feel Singaporean together, that we are anchored – this is home truly, as the song says?

We have to make maximum use of our schools, National Service experience, our HDB communities, our National Day parades, events and major developments which we share, things we go through together, whether it is SARS or economic crises, so that we have shared reference points, shared memories, and we feel one together. But it is a continuing effort and is something which we must pick up. Again, the Government cannot do this. Really, it is a national effort.

The Government, at the end of all these, in a "new normal", in a new environment, still has a duty to run Singapore. Having heard all views, it has to decide what are we going to do – this is the way we go. It is what we were elected for, it is what the electorate expects of us to produce results and to present our record to voters at the next election for them to judge whether they are satisfied or not satisfied.

The Government is one of our political institutions. Parliament is another, and the Presidency is another. And we need strong political institutions to have a good Government to work well. And it has to be strengthened and kept up-to-date. Several MPs have talked about this. Ms Denise Phua and Dr Janil Puthucheary suggested reviewing the NCMP scheme, the NMP scheme and the Elected Presidency scheme and asked whether they are still relevant to the new environment. We have amended these not long ago. We last amended the NCMP and NMP schemes in the last term. That is why there are nine NCMPs in this House. That is why we have NMPs permanent and we will be appointing NMPs so that there will be enough alternative voices in Parliament, and that is why we now have three NCMPs in this Parliament because it is our intent to make it so. And the NCMPs come from parties which say they do not believe in the system but clearly not believing in something does not stop them from benefiting from it. But we have just changed the rules in the last term, so we will see how it works out before deciding whether further changes are needed.

Page: 395

On the Elected Presidency, we have just held the first contested election in 18 years. It was hotly contested. After the election, there has been much thoughtful commentary which has been published on the Internet as well as in the print media. And the question is: how can we strengthen this important institution of Singapore's government? In fact, Mr Chen Show Mao interestingly argued the same a day before yesterday, which I note is a change from the Worker's Party's position that the Elected Presidency is wrong and should be abolished. But I take him seriously and this is something which we have to consider very carefully.

Parliament itself is a key institution. The Government is accountable to Parliament and we welcome vigorous questioning and debate in the House. So we look forward to joining issue with the Opposition – I am sure the Opposition looks forward to joining issue with us too. They declared that they will be responsible and constructive – we will hold them to their word. Do not just criticise what the Government does. Put up serious alternatives to be considered. Argue your case. Be scrutinised as you scrutinise us. And do not just support popular measures like increasing social spending or building more HDB flats or asking the Government to deliver more – anybody can do that. Also acknowledge that these measures cost money and explain how proposals will be funded. Speak up for measures which may be necessary but are unpopular, like immigration. Being principled does not mean not being afraid to offend the Government because the Government is not the Emperor and it does not chop heads off. Being principled means not being afraid to tell unpalatable truths to Singaporeans because voters are the sovereign and they can vote against you. But if you have conviction, if you believe in it and have passion, then persuade people to follow you. Do not lead from the rear. And that applies to PAP MPs too. Speak your minds – speak frankly, vigorously and passionately. We have heard many heartfelt views over the last few days. Many of them passionately argued, each in his/her own way. They have expressed their aspirations and concerns of their voters, but I also encourage the PAP MPs to keep close to other groups in society who will see you as their voice in Parliament, people for whom you are their natural conduit, whether it be the young, the old, community organisations, clans, sports groups, nature groups, etc. Each of us comes with our own interests, our own connections, our own constituencies outside of the people who voted for you. Nurture those links, broaden your contacts, cover their natural ground and, together, cover the whole ground comprehensively. But as I said, also stand up for your convictions; do what you believe will benefit your voters and what is right for Singapore.

Singaporeans themselves play a critical role in making our democracy work. They have to be active citizens, working for causes which they believe in, but united by a larger cause – share in common, which is to make Singapore grow and prosper. Interests will not always be aligned. It is not in the nature of human beings or human society that we are all clones of one another and all have exactly the same ideas and interests. Therefore, we need to work harder to build consensus, to compromise, to give and take for the common good. And I think as incomes go up, as people become more educated, this will take more work.

Page: 396

Take, for example, the recent story which many of you would have read about the nursing home which needs to be built in Bukit Batok. The residents are concerned and they would prefer not to have a nursing home next to where they live. And their concerns have some basis and their emotions are understandable. And, yet, if every neighbourhood in Singapore rejects having a nursing home nearby, then there will be no nursing home built in Singapore, and I think we will all be worse off. It is not just Singaporeans who have such a psychology. It happens in many countries. There is even a word for it. It is called NIMBY − not in my backyard. You have bought a house, the house is worth something, somebody puts a facility next to your house, property value may be affected, please put it elsewhere. Next block is all right – it is not too far for me to walk, but downstairs affect my amenities. And this will crop up repeatedly, especially in a crowded city like Singapore. Mr Zainudin has a similar problem in Bishan because Marymount Terrace homeowners are affected by the North-South Expressway acquisition, and it is not easy to resolve. Mr Zainudin, and I think Mr Hri Kumar also. We are discussing, and we are trying our best to help. We have to find fair and practical compromises. And if some groups have to give up something, then we try to help them in some other way where possible. To make every deal win-win-win, I think is very hard. But on each deal, you will win some, you will lose some – overall, taken it over the big picture, we all win – I think that is possible. And if we have good faith, if we trust one another and we work together with one another, I think we can make that possible. We cannot afford to let every local objection block important projects because otherwise, on healthcare, on transport, on housing, on many issues, we will be gridlocked, frozen, and we will be stuck, like some developed countries are stuck when they have no powers to do what is in the public interest. So we need the spirit of compromise and it is this sort of spirit which has to be part of our maturing democracy. So when we say a democracy is maturing, it is not just the Government taking an attitude or your institutions being right, it is also how the people relate to one another, relate to the Government, and relate to the community.

By building an inclusive society, a vibrant economy and constructive politics, we can face the future with confidence. The next decade, we must expect a challenging environment. Nobody can tell what the next 10 years will bring. It will be a more uncertain and volatile world. Look at the last decade. Ten years ago, in October, if you had looked forward for 10 years, would you have predicted 9/11 or SARS or the global economic crises? Nobody had heard of Osama Bin Laden; nobody had invented the term SARS, nobody knew what the sub-prime debt was. Had it not been invented? Probably. But in 10 years, three big surprises will change. What are the surprises we must expect over the next 10 years? Nobody can say. We can see certain serious problems in the world economy today – America, with its fiscal problems and political gridlocks, so they cannot decide whether they are going to raise taxes or cut social spending; the EU, with Greece in deep trouble; with Spain and Italy worrying whether they also may have a run and a crisis of confidence; and the Euro, not certain whether it goes forward to be more integrated or goes backward and comes unstuck. These are very deep and structural problems which are not going to be resolved soon and there is a real risk of a protracted global slowdown – stagnation – just like the Japanese, after 1990 was stagnant for now 20 years without being able to get the economy moving. Something like that could happen in Europe, something like that could happen in America. We hope not, but it is possible.

Page: 397

There are opportunities too. China and India are growing, not without problems and likely to be affected by the world but a bright spark of light. Southeast Asia – not doing badly. We are friends with our neighbours; our neighbours are prospering. We can work. There are opportunities. And when I receive western visitors and they ask me how things are, and I tell them some of our problems, they say, "But you all sound so optimistic, compared to where we come from". Because if you really were at ground zero in Washington discussing the budget or in Europe discussing the Euro, then you know what gloom is. So we have reason for hope and confidence.

Faced with such an uncertainty, I think our course is quite clear. We work to build a Singapore to create a better future for ourselves. We will not have 100% foresight – we will not get it right exactly every time, but we will move in the right direction and, if things turn out better, well, we seize the opportunities. If things turn out worse, we adjust course and we take it in our stride. But we stay nimble, flexible and resilient. And in such a future where not everything is always hunky-dory, we seek Singaporeans' understanding. Please fasten your seat belts, but we are flying safely, take the bumps, let us continue to try and climb higher.

In the President's Address, President Tan challenged us to "give all Singaporeans a better life and a brighter tomorrow". And I am confident that we can make this happen. Why? Because I believe in Singapore, I believe in Singaporeans. We have changed before. We have made it work before. We are better prepared now. We can make it work now. We have energy and spirit. We have courage and resolve. We have commitment to the country and to one another.

So, let us write this next chapter of the Singapore story together; ensure that every Singaporean lives a fulfilling life; give every child the chance to do better than his or her parents; build a caring and compassionate community where we all look out for one another, and work together to keep Singapore a special, warm and successful home for many more years to come. [ Applause .]

6.02 pm

Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposals contained in my address cost money, but I hope the Prime Minister will not raise taxes. Having only recently emerged from the worst global recession in decades, we are now staring at the possibility of more global economic uncertainty ahead. This could mean more pain for Singaporeans and test our social and economic resilience. I urge the Government to continually review and enhance the measures to uplift and upskill Singaporeans, and strengthen our ability to cope with the challenges that economic uncertainty brings.

This includes retraining older workers and incentivising companies to retain and not replace them. Just last Friday, a sprightly old lady sought my assistance to find work. She had been laid off from her job of over 20 years. Older workers on the same factory floor were similarly affected. They were told they were not able to see the small components that they were fitting as well as the younger foreign workers who replaced them. She asked despondently whether older workers were somehow less useful. Her situation is representative of a growing number of elderly who face difficulty finding dignity in work. This is a global problem. While the Government has put in many measures to help older workers, such as re-employment legislation and the Special Employment Credit, more can be done on this front, in line with the Government's focus on quality and inclusive growth.

Page: 398

At the same time, even as the Government moves to tighten foreign labour controls and push towards productivity, I hope it will proactively reach out to our small and medium enterprises to help them adapt and cope. Many small-time businesses find it difficult to get Singaporeans to take on jobs that foreign workers used to do. They find it a challenge to innovate, redesign or mechanise their work processes, unlike larger corporations or MNCs.

One case I encountered was an elderly couple who runs a vegetable wholesale business in Pasir Panjang market. They employ three other elderly Singaporeans but relied on the strength and stamina of one young foreign worker from China to do the heavy lifting. His work permit could not be renewed, and he went back. The livelihood of this elderly couple is suddenly at risk. Might our knife be cutting too deep?

Mr Speaker, Sir, against the backdrop of economic uncertainty, MCYS' plans to strengthen Singapore's social safety net is indeed timely and a number of Members have spoken passionately about this over the last few days. My focus, instead, Mr Speaker, will be on coordination and delivery of social assistance. Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing said on Tuesday that our effort to help the less fortunate is not just about doing more but also doing better with the resources we currently have. I fully subscribe to this. Partnering VWOs and other social service organisations to help them be more productive and effective will make a career in the social services sector more varied and appealing. It will also help them stretch existing resources. As Mr Willie Cheng, former Chairman of the NVPC, wrote in his book some years back, it is not just about doing good, but "Doing Good Well".

During our weekly house visits, my grassroots leaders and I encounter individuals or families in hardship. Recently, a senior grassroots leader alerted me that there was a particular family that, in his words, and I quote "they looked like they were in very bad shape". We paid a visit. The elderly head of the household and his wife had serious, chronic medical conditions. Both could not work. To pay for medication and treatment, they were relying on the wife's near-exhausted Medisave. One son was trying to find a job; another was still studying.

Yet in another visit, we came across a pair of brothers living with their widowed mother. She suffered stroke and was bed-bound. On their tight salaries, the two sons scrimped to hire a domestic worker to look after their mother. They had little left. Instead of weekly physiotherapy, they cut it down to once a month. And to bring her out of the flat for some sunshine and fresh air, they had to push her in a wheelchair down a flimsy, treacherous plank that doubled as a makeshift ramp for their door-step.

Both these families were for some reasons not aware that they were eligible for many forms of Government assistance. But as they had not come to the Meet-the-People Session, or gone to the CDC, or visited the nearest Family Service Centre, or been picked up by any VWO or Government agency, they went unnoticed for some time. We might be missing other families like these.

Page: 399

And so it is that our social support system is made up of many helping hands, from the public, private and people sectors. And we have an extensive array of schemes and programmes as well as the capacity and resources to give assistance. But we need to ensure that these hands interlock tightly to form a seamless social safety web so that cases do not fall through. For instance, social service agencies can further strengthen their outreach efforts, galvanise the extensive local grassroots network, and encourage active citizens in the community to help spot Singaporeans in distress. The grassroots movement can also form local communities of care within closely-knit communities and neighborhoods, such as within a precinct or even a single block, to provide support and care for the disadvantaged. This would be painstaking work but I believe it would make our social safety net that much more effective.

We should also streamline the way we assess cases and deliver social assistance. Many families we meet at MPS come with complex and difficult problems that require the compassionate ear and the active involvement of many organisations and agencies. But just like in the acute care environment, these "patients" have to see many specialist agencies, one after the other. For instance, Mr Speaker, Sir, if they have financial problems or need job placement, they might be interviewed by CDC. If family disputes are involved, they might be referred to a Family Service Centre. If housing problems are in the mix, they may be interviewed by HDB. If they have difficulty paying for treatment, they would see the hospital's Medical Social Worker. They repeatedly answer similar questions, and may often have to submit the same document to many organisations and agencies.

I accept, Mr Speaker, Sir, that some degree of specialisation is inevitable because each agency views each problem from a different angle. To be fair, our agencies and VWOs have gone a long way down the road of integration and data sharing. However, we should see if it is possible to create a "one-stop shop" at centralised networks and node points such as the CDC to consolidate basic information and documentation. We already have plans for one medical record for every Singaporean. Maybe we also see one case file for each needy applicant.

A related point is about the legal system's interface with the community, in particular low-income Singaporeans. These Singaporeans sometimes have difficulty applying for probate or letters of administration to deal with the assets of their loved ones who have passed away because of legal costs. These are people who might fall outside the Legal Aid Bureau's means-test ceiling. But these are the types of legal processes that the man in the street has to grapple with at some point or the other. I would therefore like to make three simple proposals for consideration:

Firstly, can we simplify these processes further so that people can navigate them easily without the need for expensive legal assistance? After all, there is no more estate duty involved in the process.

Second, can the Public Trustee help administer small estates even if there is a will involved? I understand that the Public Trustee can only assist where there is no will involved, that is, where a person dies intestate.

Third, can we allow lawyers to charge contingency fees, that is, to collect fees after the proceedings are over depending on the outcome, for selected types of legal proceedings? This could apply to non-contentious matters like probate or simple contentious cases involving simple disputes. To prevent abuse, the fees can be capped or mandatorily taxed by the Court.

Page: 400

I would also encourage Government agencies to continually review existing stable of social programme to see how these can be enhanced in light of experience. As far as possible, excessively tight restrictions should be relaxed. There should be greater discretion to apply such programmes in favor of the disadvantaged. One example is the Seniors' Mobility Fund. It assists the elderly in getting basic mobility devices to achieve greater independence in the community. I strongly support this initiative. Many Members support this initiative.

On Monday night, an elderly frail Singaporean sought help because his wife had suffered from a serious condition and could not walk. He had to carry her everywhere from bedroom to bathroom, from bathroom to living room, and was near the point of physical collapse. I asked him if a wheelchair might solve part of the problem. He said "yes", and so I quickly applied under the Fund for a wheelchair. Two days ago, I was advised that the Fund could not be utilised because it was restricted to Singaporeans only. You see, in this case, the man is a Singaporean but his wife had been a Permanent Resident for a long time. In the end, we found other sources of funding and support to help the family. But should it be this way? To be fair, this is a new scheme. I am confident that in light of experience on the ground, the relevant agencies will review and widen its criteria. But the broad point I am making, Sir, is that wherever there are rules and restrictions, there should also be "safety valves" of discretion that will allow flexibility in dealing with special circumstances.

While on the topic of mobility, I will make two small points on the implementation of "barrier-free access" in estates. A resident once remarked to me that while the estate in Jurong Spring is 100% barrier-free, one of the last obstacles for the elderly and disabled is actually right at their doorstep. In such older estates, unlike newer developments, there are steps leading up to the flats and while our residents had no trouble in their younger years, these have now become painful obstacles that they surmount every day. I know the Minister for National Development is extremely busy with many priorities but I hope HDB will find some time to study this to see if a scheme to build ramps for the elderly in older estates might be feasible in the future.

The other small point is the Transport Ministry's announcement in its Addendum that it will consider adding lifts in MRT stations and overhead bridges near stations to make our transport system more barrier-free and elderly-friendly. I wholeheartedly support this review and I hope the hon. Minister will remember the frequent and long-standing requests by residents in Jurong Spring for such an amenity at Lakeside MRT. This will benefit elderly residents tremendously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how society cares for its weak and vulnerable, is a good indicator of the resilience and strength of its community and the depth of its conscience and soul. But social policy, unlike other policy areas, cannot be meaningfully discussed or debated in abstract or purely on statistics. This is because the true measure of the effectiveness of a social safety net is qualitative, not statistical or quantitative. It is about people and their individual stories. It is about their trials and tribulations; and it is about how lives are rescued and transformed one by one. In short, it is about individual outcomes, for individual people, not about how many cases are processed, or how much money we indeed spent.

Page: 401

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has painted a broad vision for Singapore, founded on the basis of inclusivity, active citizenry, and the promise of quality growth. This will not be easy given the challenges we face, internally and externally. We can only achieve this if the Government and people work together as one. And on that note of unity between the Government and people, I move to my final, slightly disjointed point and that is in respect of the hon. Member for Aljunied Mr Pritam Singh's proposal for a Freedom of Information Bill, so that if lies are purveyed on the new media or elsewhere, any citizen or journalist can walk into the Government department, obtain the data and expose the lie. While this is not an appropriate venue for a thorough discussion on the benefits or disbenefits of the Freedom of Information Act, I just like to share my concern about the underlying premise of Freedom of Information legislation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, often such legislation is predicated on the fundamental distrust of government, of adversarial relationship between government and its people, on the assumption that government is often reluctant or even hiding things from its people. Is this the kind of relationship that we want between our Government and our people? Is this the structure we would like to have in the relationship moving forward? I prefer the Government and our people to be united and to have an open, frank and honest dialogue. I expect the Government to be transparent, to be accountable and to be responsive at all times. If lies are spread, I do not think we need citizens or journalists to go into a department to compel the Government on pain of the law to disclose information. I hope our Government would release information to shed light on half-truths and lies instead.

The mechanics of a Freedom of Information Act is not straightforward, Mr Speaker, Sir. Results in other countries where the Act exists are mixed. Indeed on the 20 September this year, an article appeared in The Guardian Online entitled, " Mixed Results since Blair's €˜dangerous' Freedom of Information Act launched ". In this article, it shows that while it has brought about some accountability of government, the converse has happened in terms of trust between government and its people. The article suggests that the Act may have perverse results in the way government operates and I think, as this point is being made, we ought to carefully consider it and ensure that all the merits and the disbenefits of this legislation are thoroughly debated. On this note, I support the motion.