NATION BUILDING TENETS

NATION BUILDING TENETS: Debate resumed.

6.12 pm

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for your patience and to Members of the House too. Given that I am the last speaker, I will try to keep it as short as I can. But this is an important subject.

Like Mr Viswa, I google quite a bit and know that not all net sources are reliable. But, recently, I was surprised to read from a 'aneki.com' that Singapore surfaced as the most googled nation in the world. I paused and asked, "Is 'aneki.com' reliable?", or "What do people google Singapore for?" But I soon realised that these are not the right questions to ask. The right question is: how did a tiny island state in a developing region, deprived of any resources, be of interest to anyone? How did we, against all odds, evolve a model of growth that is now adopted and adapted by countries as near as Vietnam and as far as Kenya?

Putting things in perspective, just a mere 0.5% of the people with the highest intelligence quotient (IQ) in China or India would be more than the total population in Singapore. What the US consumes in a month is probably more than the total consumption of Singaporeans in a year. So with no natural resources, no market size and insufficient people, what did this little red dot do right in the last 44 years to defy gravity, contradict the law of large numbers and become amongst one of the most admired nations in the world?

Then, during this year’s National Day Parade (NDP), as I said our Pledge at 8.22 pm on 9th August 2009, the answer became clear. Indeed, the answer is found in the first sentence of our Pledge: "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people." One united people – this is what makes us stand out from the rest, and indeed from the world. Look no further than ASEAN. Whereas at one time before the Asian financial crisis, economies were booming, cities were thriving and people, I think, were happier. But, today, there are much uncertainties in the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and even Malaysia. People are divided along political, racial and religious cracklines, economies stalled and with fewer jobs, many have no choice but to leave their families to become manual labour in foreign land. They remit the money home.

Many of them, quite possibly, could have been amongst the many who have chanted for democracy, freedom, fairness, without fully understanding the context and responsibilities of these words; and they could be asking for change without insight into what change really means to the man-in-the-street. Streets have become unsafe and families are broken down. Are they happy? Hardly.

Every country I go to these days, I try to spend at least half a day visiting some of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the locals. It is a humbling experience to know that many of them ask if they can come to Singapore for a better life.

So, what is our secret weapon? One united people – this is difficult to replicate. Change that, and we will change for the worse, and there will be no easy turning back. Given the anecdotal evidence around the world, this unity is not a natural state. It takes very enlightened and determined leadership, one that is closely connected to the heartbeat of the heartlanders as much as it is connected to the global trends and one that is non-corrupt, to be able to forge a united people.

The secret weapon – sharpen the secret weapon. So our other secret weapon is that we act, we do not just talk. And we walk our talk.

Yesterday, Nominated Member Viswa and earlier on, Nominated Member Calvin Cheng lamented about our high Gini co-efficient. I think they were not in this House, when a few years ago, Prime Minister Lee painstakingly explained the need to attract top talents that can continue to create wealth and bring jobs to Singaporeans. Top wages attract top talents, and the inadvertent outcome is that of a higher Gini co-efficient. This House then debated at length on how we can, through policy implementations, self-help and mutual help, mitigate the income gap via rebates, upgrading community amenities (for example, instead of country clubs build community clubs), ComCare schemes, revamps in the 3Ms in healthcare, lifelong learning and massive upgrading of an entire nation through the SPUR programme, and the list goes on. These measures are not taken into consideration in the calculation of Gini co-efficient, are they? This re-distribution of wealth to reduce the gaps and improve outcomes is the result of the understanding that the people – residents, in fact, of Singapore – have a shared destiny.

Nominated Member Calvin Cheng also shared the story about the runners. He said that if the fast runners stop to help the foreign runners, the team will be slowed down; but if the fast runners ignore the foreign runners, it implies that they may neglect their foreign team mates. Both appear to be lose-lose options. I think we can think out-of-the-box for a win-win outcome.

First, the team can understand that no matter what happens, the fast, the slow or foreign runners are all part of the team with shared destiny. Give space to the best to be the best, while continuously build the physique and technique of the slower runners. We run as a team, and whatever price won by any team-mates will be shared by the nation. In other words, we are better off with this social contract. It is a win-win solution.

Yesterday, Nominated Member Viswa also mentioned that Singapore scored the second lowest in terms of trust amongst the people. Indeed this finding somewhat contradicts the finding of Transparency International – which is a global organisation that measures corruption around the world. And corruption is often used as a proxy for measuring trust, as corruption lowers confidence and reliability. In the 2009 Global Corruption Barometer which polled 69 countries and 73,132 individuals, Singapore emerged as the least corrupt country in the world. What is even remarkable is that the scores related to our political parties, parliament legislature, judiciary, public service and civil servants, also top the chart of being the least corrupt in the world. This trust, confidence and reliability of our institutions have contributed greatly to the premium Singapore brand, giving Singaporeans and Singapore brands a headstart when we go overseas. This high trust even has an unwanted side effect – that the Singapore passport sells at a premium price tag in the black market.

Sir, selective data without a holistic approach and understanding can at best be persuasive, but perhaps unrealistic. This House comprises of Elected Members with full accountability to its constituents. We listen to our constituents, we celebrate the weddings and festivities with our residents, we grief with our residents when ill fate bestow, not on a yearly basis, not on a monthly basis, but on a weekly and even daily basis. In fact, most of us – we jokingly say – are married to our constituency and we call it our second home. We grow old with the elderly qigong group while the toddler in the pram is now taller than me. Can we not hear them? Can we not share their joy and challenges? Can we not represent their woes, their needs, their wants in this House and not translate it into apt policies? It is in fact this very close relationship between policy-makers, PAP MPs and the people, and the faith that we have in each other, that helps us move non-populist policies in the last 44 years. It is the faith, and of course this social contract, this unwritten duty and code of honour, that prevents us from scoring short-term political brownie points but instead, go for long-term gains in national interest. Unity in diversity and solidarity together is what moves us ahead and gives us this unique Singapore edge.

To reiterate: This unity did not happen by chance, and will always be work-in-progress. The moment at 8.22 pm on 9th August 2009 was a carefully thought out, meticulously well-planned event that leverages on modern ICT (InfoCom Technology), resource mobilisation and goodwill on the ground to unite Singaporeans near and far into one united chorus.

Just days before the parade, I received a letter from the Chairman of the NDP '09 Executive Committee (Exco), BG Tan Chuan-Jin. In it, he tried to explain what NDP is this year, and I quote what he said: "Given that most Singaporeans will not be at the NDP itself, we want to reach out and engage as many people as possible. We have a wide range of activities aimed at the heartlands. There is also an important social outreach effort where we bring in voluntary welfare organisations, Institute of Mental Health and the Yellow Ribbon project to help in the packing of our fun packs, with each pack being tagged by the person who packed it. We hope that Singaporeans can appreciate how the marginalised and less privileged also play a part in our national efforts."

And for the first time, new media is used extensively to engage Singaporeans and the response has been encouraging. He said: "We have over six million views on our official website and over a million on our various interactive platforms like Facebook, YouTube and the like. Singaporeans have also shared more than 60,000 thoughts and reflections online and at least 40,000 wishes on cards. We have also worked with the grassroots, schools, self-help groups, and many other agencies to pool our various national efforts. Our National Day is a natural rallying point and it makes sense to coordinate our many activities."

And then he said: "The highlight of the evening will be our 8.22 pm Pledge moment. As we take the Pledge at the float at Marina, Singaporeans at over 640 locations in Singapore and up to 10 overseas points will also join in as we pledge ourselves in unison. This will be our equivalent of Earth Hour and promises to be a memorable experience as we bring new meaning to the line "Pledge ourselves as one united people".

Sir, I have taken time to read what he has written to us. It is unusual. I have not received a letter like that from a BG before but I think it is a very good reminder that even the BG – someone perceived as operational-minded and civil servant – is mindful of our Pledge and does his part in his call of duty to align himself, his policies, and his implementations to the Pledge. So I am glad that we have enlightened civil servants like BG Tan. We have to understand that it is not just building a united and inclusive society regardless of race, language and religion, but also regardless of background, abilities or age. Home is, after all, made up of two words, "hope" and "shared memories". Singapore is ours to build.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore has come a long way in both economic and social terms. We should be proud of it, but not rest on our laurels. We are not perfect, much needs to be done, and we will always be work-in-progress. The competition is not just within Singapore. It is global and the fittest survive. Lest we throw the baby out with the bath water, we better anchor ourselves on what we did right in the past 44 years, while adapting furiously to changing circumstances. The nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge are applicable, of course, to all policies – social, political, and not just economics. Our secret weapon – one united people; and the other secret weapon, the ability to walk the talk – requires not just the public sector and the legislators in this House, but also the private sector and the people sector to step up. It is not just a "many hands" approach but a "many hearts", "many heads", and "many hands and legs" approach. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I call on this House and our nation to journey on, as Minister Mentor says "step-by-step" with vigilance, hard work, compassion and cohesion – so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

Sir, I support the amended motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Deputy Speaker: There are two amendments before the House. I shall put the amendment proposed by Minister Mentor first, followed by the amendment by Mr Zainudin Nordin.

I shall now put the question on Minister Mentor's amendment to Mr Zainudin's amendment.

Question , "That after the words "achieving the" in line three of Mr Zainudin Nordin's amendment, the words "aspirations and" be inserted", put and agreed to .

I now come to the amendment of Mr Zainudin Nordin as amended by Minister Mentor. It has been proposed as an amendment by Mr Zainudin Nordin that the words "from House" in line 1 to the end be left out and there to insert the words "as amended".

Question , "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and agreed to .

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Original Motion, as amended, is now before the House. The Question is:

"That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.".

6.30 pm

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity to move the motion and conclude at this point. My sincere thanks to the many Members who rose to share the views and insights pertaining to the motion, and the amended motions.

It is not important that Members agree with the points I raised. What is important is that there has been active discussion and thought. Where we can persuade each other, that is great. Where we cannot, let us agree to disagree. This, after all, is the democratic process. What is important is for us to feel free and empowered to express our points of view without fear or favour in the best interests of our country.

I do not intend to respond to all the points made by the Members. I will keep it brief, as advised by my good friend, Mr Sam Tan, yesterday.

Minister of State Mdm Yu-Foo Yee Shoon – in an inimitable, non-confrontational and persuasive style – reassured the House that no one will go hungry or be left behind as Singapore progresses. Thank you, Mdm Yu-Foo, especially for taking pains to highlight the constellation of help available for the needy. This is indeed comforting but my suggestion to Mdm Yu-Foo as well as to the Ministry is that it would be most useful to publicise some of these benefits a lot more. Not just to the beneficiaries but to people like me who obviously are not aware of them, because it does inspire much-needed confidence.

Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Sam Tan, most eloquently fired a series of salvos at me, adding much colour to my speech. In the process, there appears to be some misconceptions – perhaps I was not clear in my speech. For example, I did not say categorically that the democratic process is flouted by Government. I said there is a perception that it is not a level playing field on the ground. I did not say economic process is less important. I merely said that deeper, longer term challenges for us are issues of rootedness, commitment and happiness. What I stated in my speech are my honest sense of the perceptions and sentiments on the ground based on my interactions both formal and informal. We can debate whether this is accurate, whether this is true or false but the best way to ascertain the sense of the ground is by doing a qualitative independent survey which perhaps the Government can consider doing.

Mr Sam Tan, all the same – the many points of disagreement notwithstanding – has, I am pleased, accepted one of my suggestions. It seems to have passed his stringent test that the vernacular TV channels should carry more content on each other’s culture and happenings.

Mr Zainudin Nordin, I am glad, agreed that racial and religious harmony is a journey and not to be taken for granted even though we have put in place good structures and learnt important lessons from the 1964 riots. I have no issues with the amendment the Member proposed to my motion, essentially because in my speech, I did take pains to acknowledge the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-Government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. The key words, for me, in my original wording of the motion are "re-affirm our commitment to the key tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge". I am glad that the Member acknowledged that we can do better which is my key argument. So we are in agreement in essence.

Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen gave what I consider a thought-provoking speech. And the manner and tone he adopted is something that is highly appreciated. Not only is it thought-provoking, it is also delivered with dignity and therefore a lot more persuasive. He said power and resonance come when actions match words. I could not have put it better. I could not have agreed more which is why, in my speech, I not only acknowledged the positive actions of this Government and the people, in getting here, what I have recommended are also specific actions to help us move towards the aspirations as enshrined in the Pledge. I am heartened that the Minister does see economic goals and our aspirations as not being mutually exclusive. That is precisely what I am asking for, to move towards, to pay even more attention to the tenets of the Pledge when striving for economic progress. I never saw the two as mutually exclusive. I agree that we should not implement change for the sake of change and especially if we know it is going to cost undue distress on the ground. When I called for re-politicisation of our people, for example, I did not envisage a situation where there are riots or rallies at every corner on every subject. Even if you wanted this, I am afraid it is an unlikely scenario because of our current political culture.

What I really ask for is about getting people to get more interested, more connected with what is happening politically, because I do sincerely believe that this is going to help Singapore as we move forward.

My final comment is on the contribution made by Minister Mentor Lee just now. I thank Minister Mentor for giving us perspective at a point when we needed it, all of us; perspective that can only come from a person of his wisdom and his experience. He said the Pledge is not an ideology but an aspiration. A timely reminder. I completely agree with the amendment he has proposed because it is in keeping with my own objectives in moving this motion. While Minister Mentor Lee highlights the realities that we have to be cognisant of, I am sure he would agree with me that the day we stop believing in the aspirations and working towards them, is the day we cease to make real progress. So while reality sometimes will bog us down, will frustrate us, I think we must continue to believe that we can strive towards these aspirations which could appear extremely distant at this present moment.

It was precisely this commitment to the aspirations of equality that drove our Government to ensure that ethnic minority groups and their needs would be given special attention. It may sound paradoxical but moves like affirmative action are indeed motivated to attain the aspirations of equality – an aspiration that is captured in our Pledge.

To conclude, let me briefly clarify three key points I made in my speech that appears to have been misunderstood. Firstly, ethnic self-help groups. I am not at any point advocating doing away with them. On the contrary, I did highlight the good work done by Mendaki, Singapore Indian Development Association (SINDA), CDAC and the Eurasian Association. I also highlighted that I have served on the Executive Committee of SINDA for the past 12 years and am very committed to what SINDA is doing because firsthand I have seen the good work it has done on the ground and the way the Indian community has benefited. All I am asking for was for us to find more ways for us to address the inadvertent signal we could be sending to the ground which I have sensed that the creation of these ethnic-based self-help groups could go contrary to the spirit of the Pledge insofar as wanting a multi-racial society. That is all I am asking for. To rationalise and deal with some of the contradictions that may be perceived on the ground.

Democracy and justice – I am not saying that the Government is stuffing ballot boxes or doing things that are non-Constitutional. I was highlighting a lingering perception that I sensed on the ground that politically, it is not a level playing field and if we do not address this, there will be growing cynicism especially amongst our youth who will choose to express their displeasure through angry postings in the Net which is not useful.

Thirdly, on economic progress and happiness. I did not say economic prosperity is not important and that it should be put on the back burner. It would be naive to promote an argument of that nature. What I was highlighting was that national economic progress must result in happiness for the individual and this may not always be the case.

My intention in moving this motion was not to take shots at the Government or its policies. It must be evident in my speech that I have a healthy regard for the Government and appreciation for what we have achieved, and that we should not take that for granted. My motivation is simple. As a citizen of this country, I am deeply concerned about the level of rootedness and the latent threats to harmony that if these two issues are not adequately addressed, we may not succeed as a nation, a people. For this, we need an emotional anchor or a collective reflex for which I am confident our National Pledge would serve as a reference point.

I am glad that we have had a chance to have this discussion. I do believe it is useful and I do believe it would provoke further discussion on the Pledge and the importance of some of the tenets of the Pledge on the ground. I think it is important for us to move away from hardline positions and look a lot more at shared interests, and there are plenty of shared interests even as we discussed and debated the various points.

We can disagree on the substantive issues I raised but I would find it very hard if Members cannot accept that we as Members of this House do see and should see the importance of re-affirming our commitment to the key tenets of the National Pledge.

I am confident that the House will support the amended version of the motion and once again my sincere thanks to Members for actively participating in the debate on this motion, and provoking thought and discussion on the National Pledge in society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank you.

Original Motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House acknowledges the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years since it attained self-government in 1959, in nation building and achieving the aspirations and tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge, and reaffirms its commitment towards achieving the goals and ideals of our Pledge when debating national policies.