Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

6.19 pm

Page: 402

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, may I make a clarification in response to the Prime Minister's reference to my speech? In my speech, I noted that President Tan had promised to strengthen our common bonds and our core values by working for the interests of all Singaporeans irrespective of their political views. He did not call for more powers that could curtail the sovereign powers of the Parliament in order for him to do that, but instead he said he will try to do so by acting as a resource and a symbol to the nation. I applaud his plans to do so, to strengthen his office and I note that this can be done equally well by a President whose functions are purely ceremonial.

6.20 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much. I make reference to Mr Desmond Lee's comments about the Freedom of Information Legislation. I do not for one minute suggest any law that the Government passes, does not have a flipside to it. I think it was a proposal that was put forward. The Government is free to investigate whether this can actually be effective for Singapore. The Member spoke of an article in The Guardian . I will just show him that there are other cases where FOI Legislation has been seen as a great benefit to the country, and unlike the way he represented the situation, it is not a case of people walking into Ministries demanding information, harassing officials. That is not the image of a Freedom of Information Legislation and I wanted to clarify that.

In response to the article in The Guardian, I would advise him to have a read of The Parliamentarian . It is a magazine which is found on the book trolley in the Parliament library. This is the second – not the latest edition, it was an edition before that – and there are interesting articles on the Freedom of Information Act. Now, I am not going to go into them but he will very quickly realise that there could be more benefits than disbenefits.

6.22 pm

The Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Sir, the President in his Address had touched on the need for the Government to engage Singaporeans more extensively in policymaking. Several Members of the House have also echoed this need in their speeches for the past few days and we have just heard the Prime Minister discussing the same point. For example, Mr Edwin Tong spoke of having deeper and broader engagement with Singaporeans and the need for the Government to connect with their hearts. Mr Cedric Foo called for an open sharing on information. Ms Sim Ann appealed for higher level of partnership within the people of Government. Mr Baey Yam Keng touched on how the Government can leverage on the social media more effectively.

Sir, I would like to assure the House that MICA will be working closely with fellow Ministries to ensure that the voices of citizens and the needs of our various segments of society are heard, understood and considered in policy formulation. And this includes greater sharing of the rationale, thinking, trade-offs and in some instances, information on any policy decision making process. The Government will make a concerted effort to communicate better and reach out to a more diverse populace. Our population today is more educated and vocal. Younger Singaporeans are also more adept in using social media and are receptive to all kinds of news and views. So, the Government must evolve its communication approach and style, openness, empathy, responsiveness, authenticity and transparency are key pillars in good public communications. Guided by these principles, we can go a long way to expand public spaces to deliberate issues objectively and constructively and more importantly, addrFess the challenges facing Singapore as one people, one nation.

Page: 403

MICA, Sir, will facilitate the whole-of-Government's efforts to leverage on multiple platforms to better inform, consult and engage the public in developing new initiatives and shaping policies. In particular, the Government recognises social media as a valuable platform that agencies can use to directly engage with individuals and interest groups and get more people connected on collaborative projects. Most Ministries already have some forms of social media presence, be it in Facebook, YouTube, blogs or Twitter. It is, however, not the number of social media platforms that matters but rather the quality of the engagement process. It goes beyond having fresh and updated content that is accessible and informative to engaging in a two-way conversation. Going forward, MICA is speeding up efforts to better equip public offices with greater awareness, knowledge and skills sets in social media engagement. In parallel, MICA will build a community of social media practitioners drawn from all Ministries to share widely on good online engagement practices for the public sector. The leveling up of online engagement will serve to complement existing efforts and broaden the communication outreach of the Government. We must also make known these channels widely so that more people can come on board. MICA recently launched the Government's social media directory to provide a one-stop repository of all the social media platforms that are run by our public sector agencies.

In a nutshell, Sir, we will raise the bar on online engagement. But having said that, I would like to emphasise that social media is to supplement existing outreach channels and not to replace them. Face-to-face dialogue sessions, townhall meetings and kopitiam chats are "high touch" interactive channels that we will continue to focus on. The Government is well aware that it does not have the monopoly of good ideas. Over the years, the Government has engaged the public in various public consultation efforts to improve policy robustness and developed consensus on policy options. These dialogues were useful, allowing for many good ideas to surface. Public inputs have been incorporated into numerous policies such as the Ministry of Health's means-testing framework, MOM tripartite efforts to overcome the downturn in 2008, and MOE's regulatory regime for the private education sector.

With issues becoming more multi-faceted, the need to tap on the broader community, including academia, independent think-tanks and various segments of society, is of greater imperative. MICA recently sought the views of the public, the arts community and the industry on the Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR). This approach was also taken for the proposed Data Protection Bill. I am heartened by the responses, and I would like to emphasise that the Government welcomes active contributions and suggestions from all segments of society. Our approach in public engagement also needs to be enhanced to be more inclusive and collaborative. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and each agency has to consider the scope of engagement and its stakeholder profile, public consultation must be considered as an essential component in policy formulation and in some cases implementation process. This means stepping up our efforts to tap on the people, private and public sectors (3P Model) to come together to define problems, develop possible solutions and co-create policies. The process of public consultation must also be made more visible – both through news media and social media – to encourage more people to come forward to contribute ideas. MICA will set out to share and spread best-in-class practices across Government agencies.

Page: 404

One key area is in closing the loop with the public after a public consultation exercise and making efforts to explain why a policy has been shaped in a particular way, why some suggestions can be incorporated, and why some cannot. So, to better support the whole-of-Government communications, MICA will expand its pool of Information Officers and enhance their skills to help deliver the desired outcomes.

Sir, several Members of the House, such as Dr Amy Khor and Mr Lawrence Wong, have shared their concerns on the Internet becoming a conduit for undesirable behaviour. The standards of behaviour on social media should be no different from the physical world. Social norms should be respected. While many netizens are respectful of their Internet-users, some, hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, have been less than considerate in their use of the Internet, posting comments that incite racial or religious animosity, spreading misinformation, and even cyber-stalking. This can sometimes lead to dire consequences. For instance, earlier this year it was reported that a Myanmar girl studying in Singapore committed suicide after her ex-boyfriend posted "bad comments" on her Facebook page, accusing her of being a "loose woman". In another instance, two Singaporean youths traded racially insensitive remarks on a Facebook page, making vulgar comments about each other's religions.

There is a need to promote the responsible and discerning use of the Internet, or as how Dr Lam Pin Min puts it, as enhancing the "digital quotient" among Singaporeans. As part of our efforts to foster cyber-wellness, MICA has been working with partners from the public, people and private sectors to implement information literacy, or what the Prime Minister calls digital judgment, and cyber-wellness outreach programmes. The Inter-ministry Cyberwellness Steering Committee (ICSC) has set aside S$10 million to co-fund initiatives from the people, private and public sectors to promote cyberwellness. A total of 17 projects have been funded to date. One of the ICSC-supported projects is the Cyber Wellness Movements in ITE (Balestier Campus) and ITE (College West Campus), which reached out to students, parents and educators through interactive drama, workshops, group work and peer mentoring. MDA's ongoing Cyber Wellness Campaign also aims to equip students, parents and educators with practical knowledge on how to handle cyber content and issues.

Despite these efforts, Sir, the 2010 National Information Literacy Study conducted by the Nanyang Technological University found a low level of influential literacy in cyber etiquette amongst Singaporeans. Clearly, more needs to be done.

Sir, the community can play an important role in defining socially acceptable norms for responsible behaviour, a code of responsible behaviour that we seek. A recent call by a group of bloggers for a more balanced and moderate approach on the Internet is encouraging. We hope to engage the community for their views and together build a culture of civility and responsible behaviour on the Internet where a diversity of views can thrive for the benefit of all Singaporeans.

Page: 405

I would like to touch on one more issue related to the Internet. While we need to pay attention to the softer aspects of Internet usage, we have not forgotten the need to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age. In this regard, IDA has provided equipment and training to those in need of assistance through its various IT programmes. For example, 14-year-old Ibrahim Bin Paishar used to go to his friend's house when he needed to use a computer for his schoolwork. However, he has recently benefited from IDA's NEU PC Plus programme and now has his own laptop with a broadband connection. Since the launch of the programme in 2006, it has benefited more than 11,000 needy households with school-going children.

Seventy-two-year-old retiree, Mr Victor Sim, has also benefited from IDA's programmes. Mr Sim attended computer training at an IT learning hub in Toa Payoh library and now leads an active digital lifestyle, using the email, editing photographs, exchanging travel tips and sharing information. Close to 50,000 other senior citizens have benefited from IDA's Silver Infocomm initiatives.

IT has also improved the lives of those with disabilities such as 24-year-old Ang Yu Kiong, who has mild cerebral palsy. Due to his condition, Yu Kiong has a speech impediment and has difficulty walking. After graduating from Republic Polytechnic with a Diploma in Business Application in 2008, Yu Kiong had difficulties finding a job because of his disabilities. He approached the Infocomm Accessibility Centre (IAC) to enhance his employability with IT skills. IAC developed a training plan that set him on a path towards a career in web design. Yu Kiong is now working at an engineering consultancy company as a project assistant. He is happy with his job and was recently promoted.

IDA is exploring with the local Special Education Schools, including MINDS, Metta and AWWA, to tap on social media and mobile applications as assistive learning tools for children with special needs. As each school takes care of a spectrum of disabilities, a shared platform hosting suites of services will be explored to cater to the varying needs.

Sir, the President also spoke about the importance of building a future together. In looking towards a common future, one of MICA's key foci is to bring arts and culture to the community. MICA plans to spend $80 million annually over the next five years to implement the ACSR's proposals. Through arts and culture, we hope Singaporeans can learn and reflect on our shared heritage and value.

To Mr Alex Yam's suggestion that MICA should give more support to traditional arts groups, I would like to share that MICA has committed $23 million to develop the traditional arts. NAC has already embarked on its National Traditional Arts Plan. In March this year, NAC rolled out three new initiatives to increase support for productions, nurture promising groups, and develop strategic partnerships with cultural and community organisations and arts intermediaries. Some 120 Traditional Arts groups have since benefited from the new initiatives by the NAC.

Sir, we have received many comments and suggestions during the ACSR public consultation exercise. Taking in the feedback, the ACSR will refine its recommendations to cultivate a broad-based arts and culture scene to reach out to everyone, and build our capabilities to enable our talent, institutions and offerings to scale greater heights of excellence at all levels.

Page: 406

Sir, in conclusion, MICA will continue, in partnership with other Ministries, to strengthen the Whole-of Government Communications to broaden and deepen our engagement with the wider public. We encourage members of the public to come forward to share their views, and work with us to co-create policies. MICA will also build a vibrant arts and culture scene as a key part of the Government's efforts to make Singapore an endearing home for all.

Sir, please allow me now to move on to speak as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.

Sir, Singapore is at a turning point that we are all trying to grasp. Because of our open economy, events beyond our borders constantly impact us. Digital media is transforming the way we relate to one another, while immigration has changed the face of our society. Singapore remains a home with exciting opportunities for all. But the changes also create a sense of uncertainty and anxiety among many Singaporeans. We have heard MPs reflect these concerns in the House.

All these concerns are also shared by Singapore's Malay/Muslims. As a community, how should we respond? There have been many discussions both in this House and outside. Many ideas have been suggested. And as we start this process of finding solutions with the opening of the Twelfth Parliament, allow me to take a look at the wider picture. When we build, it is important that our community gets our foundations right.

Although some of the challenges seem new, we should not forget that, collectively, we have been here before. Our community is not unused to dislocations and stresses, and even challenges to our identity. Fortunately, such experiences, I believe, have been mainly positive, because they have strengthened us. They have given us greater resilience, a stronger identity and better problem-solving skills. So, our community can draw on the wisdom we have gained from the past in order to seize the opportunities of the future with confidence.

For the Malay/Muslim community, the last 46 years of nation-building has brought about profound changes to our lifestyle including our religious life. The need to adapt to nation-building policies has left lasting imprints on the psyche of the community. It is a story that has been narrated by both local and foreign commentators, including many who are not from the community.

Sir, we have always seen ourselves as part of the Singaporean family. Every year, without fail, we will see many Malay/Muslim families attending the National Day Parade, many with national flags painted on to their cheeks. Yet these very same families have a love for Malay language and are comfortable practising their religion here in Singapore. We have the same hopes and dreams. We want to see our children do well in school, our workers excel in the workplace and our families living in happiness and harmony. This is the Singapore dream of unity, peace and progress. At the same time, we treasure our religious and ethnic identity as both Muslims and Malays. Islam is central to our lives. It defines our place in this universe. It gives us the impetus to put in effort, the confidence to embrace change with a progressive outlook, and the values of tolerance and respect. At the same time, our Malay language and cultural heritage is an anchor. We are proud of our language and want to remain vibrant. As the proverb goes " bahasa jiwa bangsa " or the language is the soul of the race.

Page: 407

All our identities define who we are. Yet our religious affiliation and cultural and linguistic heritages connect us to the wider Muslim world and the region. These are important bridges that our community can tap on to the benefit of our nation. Our haj pilgrims, and this is the haj season, have often been praised for being well-organised and orderly, reflecting positively our experience as Singaporeans. Their only fault, Sir, is that they use too much water while they are in Mecca. Therefore, being Malay/Muslim Singaporeans means we are in some ways the same as other Singaporeans, and in some ways different. The exact balance is something we have to answer for ourselves. What do we want to share, and how do we wish to remain unique? This is the central challenge that has always been with us, and will never go away. Our plus point is that we have always been an open community.

Achieving the right balance has been harder than some people think. Some, mainly outside Singapore, dismissed us for staying put in Singapore. They failed to recognise the rational and responsible decisions our forefathers' made to keep our status and standing in a new nation. We neither sold out nor abandoned ship. These critics did not think that it is possible to achieve any balance between being Singaporean and being Malay/Muslim much less being both a good Singaporean and a good Malay/Muslim. On the other hand, Sir, there are some observers at the other extreme, who think we have never even tried to integrate and that we remain separate. Again, only those who do not know our community can hold such perceptions. We have not only adapted to public housing policies, but we also attend national schools, mingle and interact freely and more recently engage in serious and open dialogue about our respective faiths. The exact balance that we strive for is something that is circumstantially dynamic. But for us at the philosophical level it is a settled thing. This is our home and we are not going anywhere else.

Sir, over the years, when the welfare of our community, our way of life and identity appeared at risk of being compromised because of national policies, we have found constructive solutions. Each time, we have been guided by the same imperative, to be good Malay/Muslims and to be good Singaporeans. We have stayed true to our community identity and at the same time embraced and contributed to the Singapore project, keeping faith with this beloved nation of ours.

As our young nation developed, one of the first challenges the community confronted was adapting to living in high-rise HDB flats where the sense of a community in a village life could not be easily replicated. With the move to modern housing estates came the anxiety of seeing our places of worship having to make way for development. But in a creative move not seen in any other country where Muslims are minorities, the Government together with community leaders proposed and implemented the highly successful Mosque Building Fund (MBF). Since then, the MBF has funded the construction of 23 new generation mosques. Every working Malay/Muslim adult, from the humble road sweeper to the corporate executive, has a hand in this as we all donate to this fund.

In another ingenious move, the Government together with the community created a unique legal framework for the religious life of the community. The Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) of 1968 paved the way for the creation of three Government-supported institutions namely the Registry of Muslim Marriages, the Syariah Court and the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS). Every visitor I have met has been impressed at this innovation, in which religious institutions exist as part of a secular state. These institutions have allowed Muslims to practise their faith freely and, more importantly, as Singaporeans living in a multiracial multi-religious society. This is indeed a privilege that many Muslim communities elsewhere would welcome.

Page: 408

With the introduction of mandatory military service in 1967, it was painful to see an earlier generation of Malay/Muslim men have their loyalty to Singapore doubted. Many faced a double blow, as they subsequently faced economic disadvantage as a result of not having done National Service. Our community patiently but persistently pressed our case. Since those early years, much has been done to address this concern and today there is a growing number of Malay/Muslim officers across all uniformed services.

The debate on compulsory education inevitably turned the public's attention to our six full-time madrasahs , which pre-date Singapore's Independence. For a community proud of its Islamic heritage, the apparent finger-pointing did not go down well. We readily accepted that a cap to madrasah enrolment was necessary in line with our needs for religious teachers. Then, 9/11 happened and a JI terrorist cell was discovered in Singapore, and the entire landscape changed. I was appointed Minister in-charge-of Muslim Affairs just a few months later and suddenly the job had become very different from what it used to be. Our community was put on the defensive, constantly expected to prove our loyalty. Fortunately, the Government responded decisively to engage the wider public on the difference between Muslims and those advocating violence by misusing the name of our religion. We responded decisively too giving birth to the Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) and playing our part actively in the various inter-faith engagements and programmes. Compared with 2001, I think we are stronger now. Only those who are not in touch with Singapore will fail to see how firmly engaged we are as Singaporeans. These incidents reflect how circumstances can sometimes push us off-course but because internally the gyroscope has been balanced we invariably revert back to the straight path.

The rapid pace of modernisation in 1970s and 1980s also brought into focus other issues. The emergence of the drug problem in the late 1970s and an increasing awareness of gaps in educational performance raised doubts about the community's ability to adapt to a modern society founded on the principles of fair competition and meritocracy. Despite the daunting magnitude of the problem, we persevered and tackled the drug problem decisively hand-in-hand with the authorities. Since the formation of Mendaki in 1982, we have striven to close the educational gaps working together with other Malay/Muslim organisations. In 2003, we went further to formalise the Community Leaders Forum to share expertise and experiences, and do projects together to develop the community holistically in tandem with the Government efforts for the nation. Even though many had said we will never catch up, we have never given up on putting in effort and today we have a growing number of students excelling across the entire education landscape. Yet for every Malay/Muslim individual who makes it academically, there will be many others, from our other major communities. Hence, for my community, when someone succeeds, we rejoice as a community as he or she reflects progress and the hopes of the entire community. As a community, we do celebrate our talent achievements in all areas and not just those who excel academically.

Sir, the Singaporean Malay/Muslim is well aware that there is no free lunch and that success only comes through consistent effort. Sir, the sketch above is not comprehensive but is intended to give a favour of the challenges of the community over the last 46 years and how we as a community responded to those challenges. The challenges will not go away. Some say they may intensify because the identity issues are becoming more pronounced in a globalised world. However, Sir, I am confident that we will get better managing that.

Page: 409

What the future holds for the community is as uncertain as it is for other communities. The lack of certainty does not mean that we should think less deeply about our challenges and opportunities. We need to concern ourselves with benefiting from Government policies as well as ensuring personal and committee engagement in the national dialogue. Like other Singaporeans this is our home and it is here where we have our roots, start our families, nurture our children and chart our future. Some may cynically say that certain Government policies and institutions are remote and inaccessible and that the Malay problem cannot be solved. But our history shows the power of engagement to improve the community. We have developed deep experience in dealing with difficult issues. Our community leaders have extensive experience and are well regarded for their commitment and conviction. There is sufficient institutional memory in the community to avoid the quicksand and the minefields. For example, now there are enough community leaders who know what to do whenever there is any hint of inter-religious friction. Indeed, some Muslim groups are at the forefront of inter-faith cooperation. Through our measured and rational approach, our community leaders have earned the trust of others. We can speak up for the community without being suspected of being chauvinist or extremist.

This ability to negotiate and build trust is important because the tensions will not go away. This tension is not unique to the Malay/Muslim community. All communities face similar tension between racial and religious identity and being Singaporean. There is now more recognition that we can be different yet equal partners. We need to continue to provide first hand opportunities to make a difference to identify problems, understand their causes and come up with solutions. Open thoughtful constructive dialogue is a critical component in that process. Personal commitment and active participation in this effort is also a key component but beyond navigating what is, our community needs to be able to imagine what we can be. And in shaping that vision of ourselves, we can draw upon the many diverse experiences that have shaped and will continue to shape our community.

Sir, we are proud of our faith and our culture and linguistic heritage. We are proud to be a part of the Singaporean family where we work, live, play and interact with other Singaporeans in this little island we call home. Our aspirations, hopes and dreams are no different from those whom we share this island with. All of us carry multiple identities and this is a boon and not a bane as some of us would like us to think. Indeed, our Chinese, Indian and Eurasian and other compatriots have had their own share of trials and tribulations, both unique as well as what we have commonly shared as Singaporeans. We, therefore, need not shed the layers that define us in order to become Singaporean. If anything, these layers should continue to contribute to the continuous project of defining who we are and what it means to be a Singaporean in the 21st century. This is our hope and our sense of place in this home can only be secured by continuing our active participation and process of nation building shoulder-to-shoulder with fellow Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me share some of my thoughts in Malay.

( In Malay ): [Please refer to Pg 430 for Vernacular Speeches.] The Malay community of Singapore has faced many challenges and experiences since the country gained independence in 1965. All these challenges and experiences have not only strengthened our identity but also helped to build us into a stronger and more capable community. All the successes we have achieved, whether in the education and social fields, are the result of our hard work to be cohesive and our willingness to be progressive. These are the values that we must continue to practise in the effort to build the vision of a community of excellence. Our journey towards a community of excellence requires a continued effort and cohesiveness. I believe that we are on the right track towards this noble vision for the sake of our children's future.

Page: 410

6.50 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I would like to address this clarification to the Minister and in his capacity as the Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts. With regard to the Minister's remark that he would like Singaporeans to come forward and co-create policies, I may have belaboured the point. I think all Members would know what I am driving at now. It is really the freedom of information legislation. Can I request from the Minister whether his Ministry would consider at least looking at the both pros and cons of such legislation and to find out whether it is suitable for Singapore, especially in this era where people want more transparency, more accountability the Government?

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: Certainly, the Government will consider all necessary legislation either existing or new ones that we have to amend in order to achieve some of the desired outcomes. Let me share with the Member some information which I have obtained about the Freedom of Information Act, about its practice in other countries. We know that while theoretically the Act will allow individuals more access to government information, in practice there are typically also important exceptions to information access. In the UK, for example, Sir, I have been informed that the Government may refuse where the disclosure of classified information that may endanger certain public interests or if it is too costly to retrieve the information. So, this means that individuals are usually only able to acquire unclassified information. So, we have to bear that in mind.

In Singapore, Sir, unclassified information is already released on various platforms. And Mr Singh has mentioned the effort by MICA to put data online progressively, on the websites of public bodies and periodic press releases. This incremental value of freedom of information legislation may be limited but I agree with him that we need to study all possible formulations of the Act or other existing Acts that may help us to achieve the outcome that we want.

6.52 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): I would like to seek clarification from the Minister in his capacity as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs. The Minister did mention that he is looking forward to working shoulder-to-shoulder to achieve success for the people. So, I would like to know whether is he open for me to be part of the CLF, for me to work shoulder-to-shoulder with the current CLF leaders for the betterment of the society.

Page: 411

Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The CLF is a structure created by the community for community partners, not political parties. So, if tomorrow there is another VWO that is prepared to take on the CLF responsibilities, we will be happy to entertain them.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap: As he mentioned that it is being organised by our community, I believe that I am also part of the committee and would like to do my utmost best to build the community.

Mr Speaker: Mr Ang Hin Kee.

6.53 pm

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. My personal views in Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ): [Please refer to Pg 431-433 for Vernacular Speeches.] Mr Speaker, after listening to the debate for the past several days and combining feedback I gathered from residents, I have pondered over the following questions:

(1) Is it true that many Singaporeans who are stuck in difficult situations find that there is no way to get out of their situation?

(2) Are many people lamenting that they have missed the opportunity to lead a better life?

(3) Is the Government not doing enough to help more low-income families get out of poverty quickly?

Personally, I feel that the Government has always been trying to create better conditions and opportunities for Singaporeans. We save our reserves to cope with the needs of the future. We invest our surplus on training citizens to develop a more competitive country. We encourage more foreign investments here to create more jobs for Singaporeans.

Many MPs have talked about Singaporeans who have good careers and live happily because they worked hard and improved their skills. To help prepare for the future, the Government provides companies and individuals with various kinds of assistance, so that they can maintain a competitive edge in the face of global competition.

Indeed, not everyone or every company can have a smooth journey from the beginning to the end. Quite often, they will run into difficulties. I myself have switched jobs seven times and experienced the misfortune of being retrenched. Fortunately, Singaporeans can get help from Government schemes. Our major policies have achieved their intended results. However, we can do more in some other areas to bring some warmth to people. I think we can study where we can do more and be more comprehensive, especially for those people who strive to improve their lives, make our policies more "personalised".

Let me give three examples. I hope the Government can use them as reference to review and adjust the policies accordingly.

Page: 412

First, we can implement a tiered social assistance scheme. I met a 30-year-old single mother in Ang Mo Kio – Cheng San Seletar. Her ex-husband is in jail and she has to raise six kids single-handedly. She used to earn $1,500 and received various Government subsidies such as Workfare Income Supplement (WIS), ComCare and housing, childcare, transport and utility rebates. Her boss raised her wages to $1,700 as a reward for her good performance. This should be something to be happy about. This also achieved the objective of WIS. However, she found that she can no long enjoy some of the subsidies because her current salary exceeds the income ceiling and the $200 wage increment is not enough to meet the daily needs of the family of seven.

For low-income families, if they lose subsidies because of salary increment, some of them might lose the drive to earn more because they feel that what they gain cannot make up for what they lose. By making our current programmes more comprehensive, we can help low-income workers to get out of the social safety net. I am glad that my ex-colleague from the National Trades Union Congress, Madam Halimah, announced yesterday that ComCare will become more flexible, so that citizens can enjoy financial assistance for a longer period of time.

I would like to suggest that low-income families who are currently under assistance schemes continue to enjoy the same subsidies for six months, if they have upgraded themselves and are now earning wages that exceed the income ceiling. For the next six months, they can get half of the subsidies. This would encourage them to continue to work hard to get out of the poverty circle.

Second, there are more Singaporean men marrying foreign wives. According to Population in Brief Report 2011, unwed rates are highest amongst men with secondary education or lower. Forty percent of Singaporeans married foreign spouses. Seventy-seven percent are single men who married a foreign wife. They thought they will be able to enjoy life after marriage, but find themselves running into difficulties. These men face an uncertain future because their wives cannot get permanent residency. They cannot buy HDB flats. If the wife gets pregnant, they cannot enjoy medical subsidies. As the wife does not have work permit, she cannot find a job to supplement the family income. In the end, the husband has to shoulder the heavy financial burden. If they have children, and the wife's application for social visit pass renewal is not approved, she has to go back to her home country. I am sure many MPs have seen similar cases. Perhaps the Government can consider issuing a "special work permit" to a Singaporean's foreign spouse, so that she can work. Next, for the foreign spouses who are employed or have children, we can expedite their PR or citizenship application, so that the family can live together.

Every year, about 9,000 ex-offenders are released from jail. Under the Yellow Ribbon Project, they can get help and re-integrate into society. SCORE's data shows that, since 2007, the number of companies providing job opportunities to ex-offenders has increased by 70%. Many ex-offenders found a job successfully. This shows that the society and employers have made progress in accepting ex-offenders. Next, we should encourage more employers to participate in the Yellow Ribbon Project and hire more ex-offenders, to give them an opportunity to live a good life instead of treading their old path.

Page: 413

To encourage employers to hire older workers, the Government has earlier introduced a "Special Employment Credit" scheme. At the end of last month, the first payment was disbursed. There are over 50,000 employers who have provided jobs to 170,000 low-income older Singaporeans. I suggest the government introduces a similar "Special Employment Credit" under the Yellow Ribbon Project to encourage more employers to create more job opportunities.

We can also introduce a "Start Work Grant". For ex-offenders who are under the Yellow Ribbon Project, we can consider giving them some allowances to pay for their expenses right after they find a job because they have not received their salary.

A few months ago, it was reported that world sprint champion Usain Bolt was disqualified in the 100-metre race because he had a false start. His long hours of training and dreams were shattered in that split second. Many people feel sorry for him. They feel if he can join the race, he may win and even break the world record. Many people have had a false start in life; some people fall halfway through the journey. Our current polices can help these people to stand up again. Mr Speaker, we are different from Usain Bolt in that Singapore will not disqualify anyone just because they have a false start.

During the last financial crisis, the Government implemented many decisive measures to help Singaporeans weather the storm quickly. Hence, I do not think we are permanently stuck in difficult situations. On the contrary, if our people are willing to work hard, we will give them a helping hand. I am sure we can do more and with greater resolve. We can improve our policies and inject more warmth in them. Together, we can fulfil the vision of inclusive growth and a better future for all Singaporeans as mentioned by President Tony Tan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

7.03 pm

The Minister of State for Finance and Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo): Mr Deputy Speaker, listening to the debate over the last few days, I had a sense of déjà vu . If my memory serves me right, I was seated, five years ago, where the hon. Member, Mr Chen Show Mao, is now seated. On my right, was Mr Baey Yam Keng; on my left, Dr Fatimah Lateef.

I was looking around the Chamber to find the oldest object here, and I think it must be the Mace. It is the symbol of the authority of the Speaker. This particular Mace at the head of the Table has been a part of the Legislative Assembly since 10 September 1958 – just over 53 years ago, before many of us were born. The early Mace was, in fact, a weapon of war – with a round-fisted head and sharp metallic spikes. The Mace in this House has a head that is shaped like a lion with wings. Hopefully, Sir, it will never cross your mind to use it against us, even when we are engaged in heated wars of words.

More than anyone one of us, this Mace has been a part of Singapore's legislative history. It bore witness to all the historic moments in our young nation's political development. And yet, if the Winged Lion Mace head were to come alive and be asked how things were different back then and now, I suspect it would say simply, "some things have changed and some things have not." Whether our GDP is US$400 as it was in 1960; or US$4,000 in 1979; or US$44,000 at the end of 2010. The lower income among us still find it hard to cope. Whether we live in muddy kampongs , 2-room rental flats or at The Pinnacle with its million-dollar views, we cannot avoid entirely episodes of job losses or poor health.

Page: 414

One significant change, however, is that we now have much better resources to deal with our problems. Significantly, too, our politics has changed and is still changing. I would like to say more about our politics. But before that, let me say something about our resources and our attitude towards growth.

Minister of State Lawrence Wong had on Tuesday explained how the PAP Government did not pursue growth for its own sake. He also explained how, without seizing growth, Singaporeans would have been worse-off. I would like to add another perspective.

Many of the programmes that MPs have asked for will increase our spending. So as not to burden our future generations, the responsible way to increase spending is to, at the same time, increase revenues. This way, we can keep a balanced budget. One option, of course, is to raise taxes. If we do not, we must find ways to increase revenues. The question is how?

A quick study of our revenue structure shows that about 60% of it is contributed by four items. They are: Corporate Income Tax (CIT), Personal Income Tax (PIT), Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Customs and Excise Duties (CED). How sensitive are these revenues to economic performance? In the 2001 recession, our GDP declined by 6.1% in nominal terms. It had a major impact on our tax collections in the following fiscal year. Our corporate income tax collections in FY2002, which was based on 2001 income, fell by 12.8%. Personal income tax fell 8.3%. GST grew marginally, but you have to compare it to the double-digit growth that we used to experience around that time. GST was growing in that year at 1.4%. Customs and Excise Duties fell 4.1% as well. In all, the revenue from these four sources dropped around 9%.

In 2007, our economy did well, and nominal GDP rose by 14.6%. This led to a 14.1% increase in corporate income tax collections in FY2008. Similarly, personal income tax grew 19.3%; GST up 5.2%; Customs and Excise Duties up 4%. Overall, the combined revenues from the four items increased by about 12%.

I have picked FY2002 and FY2008 because there were no major changes in key tax rates in those years. For example, GST rate increases, or reductions in corporate income tax rates. This allows us to see the effect of economic growth on revenues in a simplified way.

My purpose in taking Members through these numbers is to explain that we really ought to have a healthy regard for growth. It helps to generate more revenues which allow for increased spending without having to worry about higher taxes. Many countries, in addition to being profligate, did not pay enough attention to their economies, allowing themselves to lose competitiveness and for their growth to trudge along. Many of them borrow money to keep up their spending commitments to their own citizens. But this is passing the burden to future generations, who are also citizens. For some, the day of reckoning has already arrived, and they are faced with the painful options of sharply raising taxes and cutting benefits. Singapore must avoid this.

Page: 415

Some other countries have resources such as oil and so can afford to spend a lot more for a lot longer before running into problems. We have no such luxury. We must not pursue growth blindly, and certainly not in a way that does not benefit the broad majority of Singaporeans. But we must also not become disdainful of growth. Without growth, we will have fewer resources to make investments for the future. Moreover, our needs and wants will always exceed our means. Therefore, we must spend wisely. It is not always possible to measure the value of our spending. But, we must still exercise prudence and resist the temptation to spend our way out of problems.

One area of spending which we have been able to do when revenue flows were particularly strong is the top-ups to our endowment funds. Having been part of the labour movement before I entered Government, the investment I most appreciate is the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund (LLEF).

In the depths of the global financial crisis in 2009, I received a phone call one day. It was about the retrenchment of 700 workers from a garment manufacturing company where we had a union branch. Ninety per cent women, seamstresses, who had no other skills. And three out of four of them aged 50 and above, with rather bleak prospects for finding the next job. Their last day was to be a Thursday, which was just four days before Chinese New Year. My fellow union leaders and I were, to put it in an understated way, quite devastated. We tried our best to persuade the employer to at least hold the workers till after Chinese New Year to no avail. So, we had to do the next best thing: keep our chins up, grit our teeth and set in motion a series of measures to lessen the pain for the workers.

The big lesson I learnt then was that there is nothing more risky to workers than a job they feel contented in. It is a great irony for union leaders seeking to improve working conditions of our workers. Because the more contented our workers feel, the more likely they are to postpone training and the less motivated they are to upgrade themselves. And so when the game is up, they are caught unaware. That is why I believe, more than Workfare bonuses, more than CPF top-ups and GST credits, we need to give our workers the chance to build lifelong employability so that they need never be caught in the terrible situation those 700 seamstresses faced.

Since 2000, we have topped up the LLEF by $3.6 billion. The monies from the fund have contributed to the development of our Continuing Education and Training (CET) system which will benefit many Singaporeans by helping them upgrade, stay employable and to earn a better living. These are the real investments worth every dollar we put in. If we continue to grow at a reasonable pace, we can generate resources that will allow us to continue fruitful spending on such programmes.

Sir, my second point is on shaping our political culture. After the General Election, many have noticed the marked change in the way people interact with their MPs. I would like to share some observations. One type of interaction, I would characterise it as sort of a Transactional Relationship. A resident comes and sees us, and says, "I voted for you, so now, please get me my HDB flat, or approve my wife's PR application, or get my son into this primary school. There are eight votes in my household." That is one type.

The second type is accusatory and sarcastic in tone. Emails that are sent, words that are used. For example, saying, "Is this how the Government puts Singaporeans first?", if they do not get what they want. Or anything can be labelled as, "The Government cares only for foreigners."

Page: 416

The third is also worrying. It is the attitude of "My-way or no-way". This happens when solutions proposed by agencies that balance the needs of all the stakeholders are rejected without consideration for others. "It doesn't suit me, so no-go."

It was not like this before. And frankly, I am quite saddened to see my country develop in this direction. If this is the "new normal", in my mind, there is nothing to celebrate. But there is a different kind of "new normal" which we can aspire to, one where it is not uncommon to admit mistakes and accept apologies.

One good example is the Central Narcotics Bureau: volunteering information that past statistics had not been entirely correct. They took the flak but I was very heartened that at least a small group of people was prepared to say, "Bravo for owning up, but please work harder, do better." But not all are so forgiving. And it makes me think, that if we always crucify people for honest mistakes, for owning up to their honest mistakes, what we will have is not the "absence of mistakes", only the "absence of honesty". Is this what we want in the "new normal" of our politics?

In the "new normal", it should not be unusual for parties, political or otherwise, to adjust our positions. I recall very vividly, a visit that I made to the French National Assembly. There, in front of the Speaker, sort of a semi-circle theatre-style, are where all the legislators are seated. And I was told, if you are from a Left party, you sit to the left from where the Speaker sees you. And if you are from the Right, you sit on the right. And you are either on the left or on the right, and your position is fixed. And no matter how the debate develops, no matter what new information is brought up, the Speaker says, what does the Left have to say, and what does the Right have to say? And so your physical position fixes your mental position!

I was very frightened by that sort of a positioning. It is necessary for us to adjust our positions from time to time with new information, new knowledge, new understanding, new developments. Further good behaviour norms that should apply equally on both sides of the bench, front and back, and across party lines, include the willingness to acknowledge trade-offs.

A good example is in transport. If we have more vehicle quotas, COE prices will be lower, but we will also have more congested roads and more illegal parking. If we have more stringent immigration measures, fewer men can get PRs for their foreign brides. In these issues, a responsible Parliament must find consensus on where the balance should fall, and from debate, move to action. In some cases, we can agree to disagree. Like in the exchange that we just had. Mr Pritam Singh, the hon. Mr Singh is not here, I wish he had just made his position clear, as the Prime Minister has, during his speech, which is that we do not agree with the perception that the media is controlled by the Government. It is all right for Mr Singh to disagree, but because he has not been willing to make known where he stands, I really do not know what to make of his proposals.

Importantly, in the "new normal", we must aspire to have the moral courage to avoid polarising the public on issues which are divisive. And by this, I mean not just race and religion but, increasingly, issues pertaining to our heritage and the environment, and also, the treatment of foreigners.

Page: 417

In the last two days, we talked about former Minister George Yeo's encounter with a Catholic priest and Minister Khaw Boon Wan's recent interactions with the Chief Monk of Bhutan. And it reminded me of a story I first read about 12 years ago. It is titled "The Rabbi's Gift". And I seek the Deputy Speaker's permission to share the story.

The story concerns a monastery that had fallen upon hard times. Once a great order, as a result of waves of anti-monastic persecution in the 17th and 18th centuries and the rise of secularism in the 19th, all its branch houses were lost and it had become decimated to the extent that there were only five monks left in the decaying mother house – that were the abbot and four others, all over seventy in age. Clearly, it was a dying order.

In the deep woods surrounding the monastery, there was a little hut that a rabbi from a nearby town occasionally used for a hermitage. Through their many years of prayer and contemplation, the old monks had become a little bit psychic, so they could always sense when the rabbi was in his hermitage. As he agonised over the imminent death of his order, it occurred to the abbot at one such time to visit the hermitage and ask the rabbi if, by some possible chance, he could offer any advice that might save the monastery.

The rabbi welcomed the abbot at his hut. But when the abbot explained the purpose of his visit, the rabbi could only commiserate with him. "I know how it is," he exclaimed. "The spirit has gone out of the people. It is the same in my town. Almost no one comes to the synagogue anymore." So, the old abbot and the old rabbi wept together. Then they read parts of the Torah and quietly spoke of deep things. The time came when the abbot had to leave. They embraced each other. "It has been a wonderful thing that we should meet after all these years", the abbot said, "but I have still failed in my purpose for coming here. Is there nothing you can tell me, no piece of advice you can give me that would help me save my dying order?"

"No, I am sorry," the rabbi responded. "I have no advice to give you. The only thing I can tell you is that the Messiah is one of you." When the abbot returned to the monastery his fellow monks gathered around him to ask, "Well, what did the rabbi say?" "He couldn't help," the abbot answered. "We just wept and read the Torah together. The only thing he did say, just as I was leaving – it was something cryptic – was that the Messiah is one of us. I don't know what he meant."

In the days and weeks and months that followed, the old monks pondered this and wondered whether there was any possible significance to the rabbi's words. The Messiah is one of us? Could he possibly have meant one of us monks here at the monastery? If that is the case, which one? Do you suppose he meant the abbot? Yes, if he meant anyone, he probably meant Father Abbot. He has been our leader for more than a generation. On the other hand, he might have meant Brother Thomas. Certainly, Brother Thomas is a holy man. Everyone knows that Thomas is a man of light.

Certainly, he could not have meant Brother Elred! Elred gets crotchety at times. But come to think of it, even though he is a thorn in people's sides, when you look back on it, Elred is virtually always right. Maybe, the rabbi did mean Brother Elred. But surely not Brother Phillip. Phillip is so passive –

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs Josephine Teo, I am sorry to interrupt your very fascinating story but if you are going to use your 40 minutes, you will exceed the time beyond 7.30 pm. Could you allow the Leader of the House to move the exemption? I am sorry once again.

Page: 418

Mrs Josephine Teo: I wholeheartedly do.