NATION BUILDING TENETS

NATION BUILDING TENETS:

(Motion): 4.30 pm

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to move this motion. Sir, I beg to move,

That this House reaffirms its commitment to the nation building tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge when debating national policies, especially economic policies.

My inspiration to speak on the subject came about a month and a half ago when I was invited by BG Tan Chuan Jin, Chairman of NDP Ex-Co 2009, to write a piece on what the National Pledge means to me. Before that, BG Tan and I had discussed at some length the meaning of the Pledge and why it is important that it is re-energised, become a living, breathing mantra for all Singaporeans.

We lamented, with a good measure of alacrity, the way we used to "get it over and done with" in school when we had to recite it – a tradition, we gathered, is held up even today! We talked about how beautifully crafted our Pledge is, and what

Column: 1008

a waste it is that its meaning and power are not understood enough or reflected on, let alone garnered for rallying us as a people.

It was when I was writing my thoughts for the essay that I realised how powerful the Pledge is, and how much it means to me, in spirit. The process of writing the essay was cathartic as an avalanche of memories came rushing at me – memories, good and not so pleasant, that formed the basis of my belief system as a citizen of this country, my home. The National Pledge, I realised, contained the basis of who we are and what makes us unique. In fact, it holds the key to our success as a peaceful, harmonious and certainly economically successful nation. And it struck me that the National Pledge is the only document, if we could call it one, that cannot be amended by a two-thirds majority in Parliament! In effect, our National Pledge is akin to the Bill of Rights in the United States of America; it defines who we are; what we aspire to remain regardless of the realities of a fast changing world; it is about what we stand for – our credo.

It has often been said that Singapore does not have an ideology – that pragmatism is our mantra and modus operandi. But if we examine our National Pledge closely, it is our national ideology – a set of inalienable values, precepts that demand adherence in the face of the lure of pragmatism. It is designed to serve as the moral compass for us as a people – we lose it, ignore it, or misabuse it to our peril.

The stability provided by the National Pledge gave us, especially our Government, the confidence to take decisive steps, make quantum leaps, rapidly shift gears or change directions to keep us moving with the currents – knowing very well the boat is even keeled and will not capsize. As such, the value

Column: 1009

of the Pledge comes into sharp relief not when the going is good, but when we are facing tough challenges, be it the current economic challenges or SARS a few years ago. During these times, when scarcity is the order of the day, the centripetal forces of race, religion, language, and class go into overdrive – our instincts and impulses become primordial. It is during these times that our mettle, our resilience as a nation is tested. We did well during the SARS outbreak, and we appear to be working together fairly well to get through the current economic crisis. But the fault lines remain. What if we were to face a national crisis today that is not based on economic or health issues but on race and religion, as we experienced the race riots of 1964? Are we confident our national impulses are entrenched enough to override the divisive, primordial instincts? If the situation worsens and our livelihood and survival as a country is in doubt, would we have enough Singapore citizens, let alone Permanent Residents (PRs), digging in our heels come what may because this is our home? I wish I could say with absolute certainty the answer is "yes". The truth is, I am not sure.

Look at the results of a scientific survey done in 2007 by the Singapore Polytechnic. Eight hundred Singaporean youth – between the ages of 15 and 29 – were polled. They all went to Singapore schools and attended National Education sessions, as required. Thirty-seven percent of the youths polled said categorically that they are not patriotic. More than 50% said they would migrate if given a chance. The findings of this survey are not very different from many others conducted with youths, younger working adults, overseas Singaporeans and even National Servicemen.

I read a July 2009 article in AsiaOne.com that quoted a major survey

Column: 1010

by Experiences 2009 (the organiser of an annual US education convention) that highlighted that of the 153 Singaporean students studying overseas polled, 79% prefer to work in the USA after they graduate. Earlier this year, at Chung Cheng High School’s 70th anniversary celebration, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed that more than one-fifth of the students who performed well in their "A" level examination between 1996 and 1999 are no longer working in Singapore today, a decade later. Now even though these findings may not be surprising for some of us, they must certainly become a cause for concern.

To me, the biggest challenge we face, as a nation, is not so much the sluggish GDP growth or flight of capital. It is not about whether we have enough able bodies here to create economic prosperity, but whether we have enough hearts and souls committed enough to make this home, not just a convenient place to live, work and play.

We need to ask ourselves if we are an "Inc" or a nation. If we are content to define ourselves as an "Inc", then our focus should be on the top and bottom lines and ensuring shareholder returns in quantifiable terms. But if we want to be defined as a nation, then it is imperative that we balance quantifiable outcomes and technical KPIs with emotion-based outcomes such as racial and religious harmony, and peace and happiness. To achieve this, society needs to place a premium on and reward commitment, comradeship and conviction – qualities that provide the resilience needed to face a sea of troubles; that remain consistent regardless of the fortunes of the day; that form the ultimate buffer against uncertainties during tumultuous times. This is a key point highlighted most lucidly by our Prime Minister two days ago in his National Day Rally speech.

The tenets of the National Pledge point to what we need to do to build and

Column: 1011

sustain this resilience, this tenacity, this self-efficacy. But it will not serve us well if we merely pay lip-service to the Pledge and recite it as a ritual without internalising what it means.

We need to give our National Pledge the importance due to it as the ultimate glue that binds us as a people. We got a sense of the emotive power of the Pledge during National Day this year, when at 8.22 in the evening, the whole nation breathed it together. Many of my friends told me how emotional a moment it was for them and their family – and here we are talking about quite a lot of people whom you could not possibly imagine had the capacity to think beyond the sex appeal of numbers and digits! My ten-year old daughter, Maya, told me she felt she was saying the Pledge for the first time because it was the first time she said it with feeling. My wife told me being at this year’s National Day Parade gave her hope, and a stronger belief that, deep down, we are one united people. My business partner, who is a PR, said it made her feel Singaporean and proud of it.

The emphasis on the Pledge cannot be incidental or utilitarian. We need to commit to ensuring that every time each one of us recites the National Pledge, we say it with commitment. For this, we must ensure all citizens from young understand it beyond the words. Most importantly, we in Parliament must lead the way by demonstrating that no national policy or Bill will be passed if it goes contrary to the letter or spirit of the Pledge. Better still, if we can reaffirm our commitment to the tenets of the National Pledge – that they have primacy when considering national policies, especially economic policies.

So, what are the key tenets of the National Pledge? Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to take the House through each

Column: 1012

of the four key tenets and share my thoughts on what they mean to me and how we have fared and what we need to do to address them more, going forward.

Let me start with the idea of Citizenship – "We the citizens of Singapore".

Born in the year 1959, the year we gained self-ruling status, I have had the opportunity to experience the steady, sometimes tumultuous, evolution of Singapore – and to a large extent this has shaped my idea of citizenship and commitment to country. Seeing the strapping, young Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew speak at the Fullerton Square arguing passionately for merger with Malaysia, and then the excitement of Merdeka Day on the 16th September 1963 when we became part of Malaysia, and learning that the Hibiscus was now our national flower; witnessing the racial riots as a boy, experiencing the tense environment of the curfew; trying to figure out why our Prime Minister was in tears as he talked on black and white TV on the 9th August about our independence – something that should normally call for celebrations; I remember the feeling of pride, even as a boy, as I watched our first National Day Parade on TV in 1966 with President Yusof Bin Ishak in full ceremonial attire reviewing the parade at the Padang; and then in 1967, the obvious trepidation parents felt when their sons were called up for National Service – how quite a few of my friends and family chose to leave the country because of it; the British announcing their pull-out and many losing their jobs including my father and uncle; the single-minded drive to industrialise and with it the creation of jobs and modernisation of the country – the transport system, buildings, proliferation of HDB flats; and at a personal level when I was in secondary one, having to vacate the old Raffles Institution (built in 1823 by Sir Stamford Raffles) when we marched as a school to the spanking new

Column: 1013

premises replete with an Olympic sized swimming pool which was a rarity then at Grange Road.

What dramatic changes we have seen, and benefited from in just 50 years – that Prime Minister Lee illustrated during the National Day Rally. It was not just nostalgia for me. I felt this surge of pride, as I am sure many other Singaporeans did, during the visual treat by our Prime Minister with his witty asides!

National Day, especially in recent years, has been an occasion for me to reflect on how far we have come as a nation, a people – how we moved from black and white to colour and now different shades of each colour. How from being preoccupied with getting water in our homes and sanitation, and ensuring our children get their BCG injections, today our concerns are with quality of life, travel, upgrading our home and, for an increasing number, freedom of expression.

I am humbled by what we have achieved in just over 40 years – what I have been given the opportunity to have and enjoy. While lapping up the comforts of the day, how could we forget the journey here; the tough and rough corners we had to negotiate. How could we not pause to appreciate, if not salute, the many champions – leaders and unsung heroes alike – who got us here. It was service to the nation (even when we were hardly a nation) and self belief, self efficacy that propelled them. Many of them may not have known what JFK said about asking not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country – they lived it. Many of these were everyday people, people I knew growing up – people I had conversations with; people who taught me the importance of believing and striving. I

Column: 1014

understood the meaning of being a citizen from these unschooled stalwarts.

Citizenship is not a concept – it is something you live, breathe and feel, deeply. For this reason, I believe it is futile for us to talk in technical or legalistic terms about citizenship – rights, obligations, fairness!

Just as it would be odd to talk about rights and obligations as a son or daughter when it comes to protecting our parents and our family, in my view, it does not make much sense for us to ask why, as citizens, we should serve our country. Would we have got here if our forefathers thought along similar lines – their sacrifices are immeasurable. For this reason, as a citizen and National Serviceman, I say let us drop the term National Service "liability". It should be National Service "commitment". The words I was introduced to, made to understand experientially as an officer cadet in SAF in 1978, still ring true in my heart – "Duty, Honour, Country".

If this is how a citizen ought to feel – unqualified commitment to country – what then is the "duty" of the country to us? Citizens should be made to feel our commitment is appreciated and not taken for granted. Rewards and privileges must be significant and discernable, and accorded without being asked for. Until recently, the only differentiator was that citizens could vote during elections – something that many hardly see as a privilege given the one party dominance in local politics and the fact that about half the wards are not contested in a General Election. Recently, there has been some effort in drawing a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs, in healthcare, for example. But this is not enough. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to still feel that they are taken for granted. Yes, we see the need to augment our resources by bringing in foreign talent, for economic reasons primarily. But if we do

Column: 1015

not pay more attention to the sentiments of citizens in this regard, especially in areas such as competition for jobs and national service commitment, we could face a further erosion of rootedness and commitment to country. The consequences of this should be evident. I am aware this is a complex issue, but the Government must pay more attention to this, and this House must remind it to do so.

The country, through the Government, is also expected to be accountable to citizens. And this accountability must be visible. People’s views and concerns must be sought and heard, and acted up. Where the Government cannot address citizens’ views and concerns, it must explain the reasons. Yes, this may be tedious and at times could slow things down for Government, but it must be done. Similarly, when citizens challenge the Government on issues and policies, the response needs to comes across as being sincere and not unduly robust and intimidating on the one hand and callous and cavalier on the other.

Citizenship also comes with the right to expressing views and concerns without fear of reprisal. The climate of fear, that loomed large right up to the late 80s, is not so evident today – but I still come across people who say they are afraid to speak up on matters they feel strongly about because they are afraid of consequences. Half in jest they point to the sprinkler sensors and ask if they are indeed sprinklers. But only half in jest. The Government has come some way in its actions to ameliorate this concern, but I feel more can be done, because a climate of fear, no matter how mild, can erode our sense of ownership and affect rootedness. The Government should be happy when people rise to state why they disagree with policies even if it is conveyed as robustly as the Government’s own responses to the people – it shows that we care.

Where you see

Column: 1016

anger, you are likely to find passion and commitment. The Government can afford to "chill" more and be less thin-skinned! There is a distinct difference between being pro-Singapore and anti-government. In this regard, the "social contract" between the Government and the people established in the 1960s needs to be better tailored to suit the higher level needs of citizens today. The Government must address this better and faster, not as a tactical consideration to extend the longevity of rule but because it is simply the right thing to do. It is not a legal but a moral imperative.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the second tenet of the Pledge is that we strive to become a "united people, regardless of race, language or religion."

We live in a pluralistic world – people with diverse backgrounds, interests, beliefs and goals. It is challenging to unite people, but we cannot and should not give up the belief that we can build a collective reflex. This reflex is not a function of economics or material goals but built on a deep belief system that all of us – regardless of our station in life – can relate to. It is more than a shared interest. It has to be a core belief that we share, that connects with our sense of self, our worth, identity, our aspirations. It must make us feel good about ourselves as a people, knowing that it is unique to us. It has to have the power to transcend the social, political and economic differences amongst us.

To find what this core belief is, we need to go beyond the obvious; beyond the formulaic prescriptions that may have worked before. We need to move from the "what we do, and do well" paradigm towards addressing the question, "what do we stand for, as a people?".

For me, what we can claim is uniquely Singaporean that is admired by many would include our multi-racial, multi-religious make-up; our honest, trans-

Column: 1017

parent, reliable set-up; and the principle of equal opportunity that we will not give up. These are values that we have built up over the years, and today have become an intrinsic part of our psyche, our culture as a people. Time and time again, my friends and visitors from overseas remind me of how lucky we are to be in an environment with such a high level of racial and religious harmony – that we should not take it for granted and, yes, we are guilty of taking this for granted. We need to take pains to illustrate these values experientially to our younger generation so that we do not risk losing them.

In order to prevent healthy scepticism in our people, especially our young, from becoming entrenched cynicism, we, as a society, need to address apparent contradictions and mixed signals. Examples are the issue of Malay-Muslims in the SAF, SAP schools and cultural elitism, the need for ethnic based self-help groups, the need for us to maintain the current racial distribution in society, and whether Singapore is ready for an ethnic minority Prime Minister.

We have come a long way since the late Mr S Rajaratnam gave us the National Pledge. Much has changed along the way, sometimes for the better and other times posing a challenge to national unity. The terrorist threat is a case in point – it has set us back in our efforts to build trust and a social compact. We need to avoid becoming alarmist. But we cannot afford to be complacent and stick to the assumptions relevant in the years before.

I am heartened by the Government’s proactive approach in ensuring that racial harmony and our social compact are not threatened. Initiatives such as the IRCCs and the Community Engagement Programme, and the creation of organisations such as OnePeople.com can

Column: 1018

go some way in building resilience in this area. Likewise, lucid and timely articulation of the Government’s unwavering stance against any elements whose words or actions could undermine inter racial-religious trust has helped send the desired signal to the ground. Senior Minister Prof. S Jayakumar’s considered thoughts on why it is foolhardy to take racial harmony for granted captured in his interview published in the Straits Times last month is a good example of this. And, of course, Prime Minister Lee’s clear, honest and inspiring articulation of the same point in his National Day Rally speech is timely. To me, being complacent about our racial harmony based on what we see on the smooth surface is akin to skating on thin ice: we assume from the surface that the ground is solid, but all it takes is one crack to deepen and spread into a network of cracks. By the time we realise how thin the ice really is, it may be too late.

We need to move forward in a leap of faith: that, yes, there are fault lines and some have deepened and widened, but the bonds that have come to bind us at a basic level since the 1960s can endure if we choose to focus on it. What we must avoid is overt propaganda, which can be counter-productive. Instead, we should seek to deepen the primordial ties between communities using sports, arts and culture and the mass media as agents. Talking about the media, let me suggest something the TV media should do in this regard. When TV came to Singapore in 1963, there was just one channel – so we watched all programmes regardless of language. Then it became two channels – Channel 5 in English and Malay, and Channel 8 in Mandarin and Tamil. What was interesting, as a result, and because it was not that convenient to switch channels (there was no remote control then), Tamil newsreaders were recognised in Chinatown. Likewise, Chinese newscasters had star status when they went to Little India! Today,

Column: 1019

with each ethnic community having our own channels, we have lost the opportunity to cross-fertilise through the media! It must and it would be useful to have a policy for each vernacular channel to carry more stories or features about what is happening in the other communities. This is not happening enough today.

The third key tenet of the Pledge is about building a "democratic society based on justice and equality".

I am very thankful that my father chose to make Singapore his home when he came here with a few dollars in his pocket in the 1940s. Yes, it is far from perfect here. I certainly have issues with many things in my country, but would I wish to raise my 10-year-old daughter anywhere else? The answer is a clear "no".

Yes, I do lament our lack of freedom to express ourselves, and the Government’s seemingly unmitigated grip on power and what appears to be an inconsistent willingness to listen to public sentiment that does not suit it.

Yet, how can I not appreciate what I have received from my country in spite of these setbacks, and in some cases because of them. Equal opportunity, meritocracy and pragmatism were the underlying principles of governance that allowed us to grab opportunities and prosper.

However, even as we hold on to these values, we need to recognise that the lay of the land has changed, and drastically, in some ways. The freedom for citizens to express themselves, a free press and a truly level playing field in politics for a credible multi-party system to evolve – all of which are fundamentals of democracy – were placed on the backburners to make way for progress and prosperity, I feel. Perhaps we needed to accept the

Column: 1020

trade-off as part of the social contract. The outcome of progress was affluence, and an educated and sophisticated populace whose needs have gone several notches higher. A roof over the head, a clean living environment, a good education and good healthcare system – today, these are for many Singaporeans nothing more than basic factors; things any good government is expected to deliver. In short, the Government has created conditions for success, which in turn today gives it the challenge of managing that success and the expectations that come with it.

Accountability requires the Government to go beyond lip-service in addressing the call for greater democracy, civil liberties and choices. In the political arena, a more level playing field especially in the management of elections and media coverage. What is increasingly demanded is fairness and justice, not just in form but substance. Yes, it is ridiculous to expect the incumbent party in Government to facilitate the opposition parties to win more seats in Parliament. But what is asked for is that the Government desist from making it more difficult than necessary in an unfair and undemocratic manner for the opposition to gain success – through last minute changes in electoral boundaries, or a lack of media coverage or what can sometimes be seen as a biased coverage. In my view, it is the duty of a responsible government to help evolve a political climate that encourages greater interest in and participation from the people. If not, people are likely to feel increasingly alienated and disenfranchised resulting in apathy and, worse cynicism. I fear this is already happening.

But thanks to the advent of the Internet and new media, there appears to be a resurgence of interest in the people to engage in debate on issues. I think there is a growing sense of restlessness and even helplessness with what is viewed as a media that is aligned with the

Column: 1021

Government. Many in this group are now vacillating towards cyberspace, seeking out and contributing contrary viewpoints, often expressedly anti-establishment. This is gaining momentum, given the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, and the growing number of net savvy Singaporeans and PRs. While some illuminating and thought provoking ideas are raised in the cyber sites, it is not uncommon to find misinformation and at times, I suspect, even disinformation circulating. The tone can be angry and sometimes downright caustic seasoned with a good dose of vulgarities. What is giving this new 'movement' life and momentum is essentially the perception that the mainstream media tows the Government’s line because it is required to. We can sit here and debate whether this is true or not. But for me that is not what is critical. What is important is for us to acknowledge that there is a challenge here – the mainstream media needs to gain greater credibility in the eyes of the people, and must not be seen as functioning to serve the interest of the establishment. The current situation is certainly not healthy for the Government or the country as it nurtures a "them versus us" climate that could become unnecessarily adversarial.

Pragmatism as a modus operandi may have worked well to get us here, but going forward, the Government has to accept that the end will not always be seen as justifying the means. Especially with the triumphant advent of the Internet driven new media, there is bound to be greater scrutiny of inconsistencies between societal ethos as enshrined in the National Pledge and the Constitution, and actions and statements on the ground. This is an inevitable outcome of success and being plugged into the international grid. As we continue to strive for economic progress, we must be guided and, where necessary, even

Column: 1022

constrained by what the fundamentals of our National Pledge are as spoken through the words "democracy", "justice" and "equality". Underscoring the sentiments of these words would be respect, accountability and fairness.

The notion of justice is intrinsically linked to fairness. When justice, especially in the way it is meted out, deviates significantly from the common man’s sense of fairness, questions of legitimacy arise. This, I believe, is the basis and value of common law. In this regard, the Government needs to listen more carefully to the ground and address disquiet and unease in response to specific policies and practices. Examples would be the ground sentiment about the string of libel suits filed by PAP leaders against various Opposition party leaders, and the second round of increases in the pay of Ministers and senior civil servants soon after a two percentage point increase in GST. I am not suggesting that the Government be populist and adjust good policies to pander to popular sentiment. This Government has earned the respect of many – here and abroad – for coming up with effective policies and being decisive in implementation. My point is that the Government can do more to find out why for certain policies and practices there was such a strong reaction from a generally accommodating people. Just as important is for the Government to take pains to address the key causes for the reaction by going the extra mile in persuading on the rationale for the policy in question and, where necessary, review the policy.

The last tenet I would like to discuss is what it means to "achieve happiness, prosperity and progress".

When the National Pledge was crafted in the 1960s, life and aspirations were relatively simple. Common wisdom dictated that economic prosperity and

Column: 1023

progress led to happiness. And, quite often, this was right.

Today, the scenario is quite different. Society is more sophisticated – better educated, travelled, exposed to thoughts, ideas and ideals, people are given to making different life choices as a result. And options are growing, especially with globalisation and greater mobility. Unlike before, there is a growing disjoint between national priorities and those of the individual. It is not unfashionable today for people to take the path not taken, to do what gives them maximum satisfaction, even if it means economic prosperity is a trade-off. The growing number of successful professionals who have chosen to go into the arts and social work/enterprise is indication of this trend. Similarly, I see more people being disillusioned with being on the fast track, especially after seeing how "greed" has resulted in the current global meltdown and the suffering that has come with it. Many are vacillating towards a balanced lifestyle, while a growing number is looking to spirituality and philosophy for answers.

While our enduring mantra "society above self" is worthy and has served us well as a nation, given the realities of the day, we need to pay more attention to the needs of the individual. After all, individuals make society and, by extension, happy individuals with a sense of accomplishment in whatever their fields are, will have a positive, sustainable effect on the happiness quotient of society. This, in turn, will have a bearing on prosperity and progress.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): 4.59 pm

Perhaps we need to reverse the cause-effect relationship between these two desired outcomes. Traditional thinking

Column: 1024

would suggest that prosperity, defined usually in economic terms, is the cause and happiness is the effect. Now, with research showing that happy people are more productive and driven and therefore have a higher potential for career success, it may make sense for us to pursue happiness as a necessary condition for sustainable economic success. Naturally, this is counter-intuitive but if we are prepared to think out of the box, it may just make sense.

Regardless of whether economic prosperity is a cause or effect, one thing is clear – happiness is a higher goal. It must be.

If so, let us now evaluate whether our economic policies have indeed resulted in or at least contributed to happiness. GDP has always been a key indicator of economic performance. Our per capita GDP has risen exponentionally over the past 44 years. According to figures from the Department of Statistics, in Singapore dollar terms and in nominal terms, Singapore’s per capita GDP grew from $1,567 in 1965 to a whopping $53,192 last year – certainly, it is one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Without doubt, this is something we should be proud of and thank the Government for.

But when we look closer at what constitutes the GDP, there is cause for concern. According to data, profits make up about 46% of Singapore’s GDP, which according to economists I spoke to, is extremely high compared to other developed economies. And from what I understand, half of this high profit share goes to the coffers of foreign-owned companies with operations here. What is left in the GDP pie to directly benefit Singaporeans is therefore a relatively small amount. According to a recent article in the Edge by economist Manu Bhaskaran, and I quote:

Column: 1025

"This could be why even though Singapore’s per capita GDP is roughly 11% higher than Hong Kong’s, our per capita consumption is about 21% lower that Hong Kong’s. If we take per capita consumption as a better indicator of welfare, then simply going for high growth per se does not guarantee that we will achieve the best possible welfare outcome for Singaporeans."

I am not saying that per capita consumption should replace per capita GDP as the leading indicator for economic well being. What I am highlighting is that per capita GDP or GDP for that matter, as indicators have limitations. Perhaps the Government should look at a bundle of indicators to get a better picture of how economic performance is benefiting the people.

On the point about happiness, there is another observation I would like to share that should be a matter of concern to all of us – income inequality. According to figures from CIA World Factbook, Singapore ranks as one of the highest in the world in terms of income inequality. The Gini Index is the measurement of income inequality – the higher the Gini coefficient, the worse the level of inequality. Based on 2008 figures, Singapore has a Gini coefficient of 48.10 – which is much higher than other countries in Asia including China, Malaysia and the Philippines. In fact, it would appear that Singapore is closer to many under-developed countries in the Gini Index.

Income inequality is certainly not a desirable thing – it certainly cannot be a contributor of happiness in society as a whole. But I did not realise that, in fact, studies have shown that income inequality has a strong bearing on happiness and mental well being of individuals and societies. According to Equality Trust, a London-based organisation, studies have shown that, "inequality

Column: 1026

makes life more stressful … (it) divides people by increasing the social distances between us and the widening differences in living standards and lifestyles." In a study conducted by Equality Trust of more than 23 countries all over the world, Singapore has the highest level of income inequality but second lowest in terms of trust amongst the people.

One can argue that the figures I have quoted may not be accurate or that it is one out of many studies with different findings? That may be the case, but can we or should we summarily dismiss these findings. What if there is truth in what is stated? If indeed happiness and quality of life are higher order goals and economic growth and jobs are a means to achieving those goals, then we should ask ourselves if we need to rethink how we are managing things, and perhaps see how we can do things better. We may not need to do a complete turnaround, but it looks like some adjustments may be warranted.

The final point I would like to make about happiness and sharing of prosperity pertains to the plight of two groups of people in society – the very poor and the elderly.

Financial aid for the poorest of the poor in society is not a fresh issue. Members in this House have argued for Public Assistance (PA) to this group to go up. According to MCYS, there are about 3,000 families who fall into this category – defined as people unable to work due to illness or disability, with little or no means to finances. The latest upward revisions to the Public Assistance rates are, for example, for an individual – from $330 a month to $360 a month, a $30 increase! For a four-person family, the PA increased from $830 a month to $950 per month, a $120 increase for four persons.

Yes, we do not want to become a welfare state. But what has that got to

Column: 1027

do with an elected Government’s responsibility to provide the basic needs of a small group of citizens who, it has been established, cannot fend for themselves because of illness or disability. The Government’s response to calls for increasing Public Assistance grants has been that we should avoid creating a dependency on handouts, which in turn could become a disincentive for working for a living. As such, the Government’s view has been to provide a very basic level of assistance which will be supplemented by what the community and grassroots organisations can provide. Yes, this is possible, but why should it be an expectation imposed on these organisations when Government does appear to be in a strong enough financial position to provide the necessary assistance directly? Even if we talk about doubling the Public Assistance for a four-member family from $950 per month by $1,000, it would amount to $36 million to benefit 3,000 families or 12,000 needy Singaporeans for a whole year to cover the increase! Our GDP for year 2008 was $257 billion and Foreign Reserves officially estimated to be in excess of $250 billion. It is not just about providing for their welfare per se, it is about allowing them a measure of dignity as they struggle with poverty. It is about ensuring their children get good, nutritious meals and a decent level of comfort and security at home to have a decent chance at doing well in school and making it in life. It is a small investment in happiness and dignity for our citizens. I do hope the Government will, over time, relent on this issue. I am confident that this is something most Singaporeans desire.

The other group that deserves special attention and appears in deficit of happiness comprises those in their 70s, 80s and 90s – Singaporeans who worked hard to lay the foundation for what we are enjoying today. Veteran journalist, Mr P N Balji, in a comment piece in TODAY recently referred to them as the "Merdeka

Column: 1028

Generation". He laments the plight of those in this group who are "bedridden … breaking their backs cleaning up after us in food outlets and even being pushed in wheelchairs by the maids at some of our parks." Do we not feel, as an affluent society, a conscionable people, a good Government, that these senior citizens – our grandparents - deserve better? Do they need to fend for themselves in this manner? We owe them dignity and respect. I echo Mr P N Balji’s call: "It is time to start thinking of another pledge, this time for our Merdeka Generation: We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge to look after our Merdeka Generation by taking care of their needs and wants in a way that they can live their golden years in happiness and look back at the nation they helped create with joy and pride."

Madam, if we agree that the National Pledge is the document that comes closest to capturing who we are, and what we stand for as a nation, then it behoves us as Members of Parliament to give it due importance – as a primary reference when we debate major national policies and practices. It is important for us to ensure alignment of policies with the key tenets of the Pledge. For this to happen instinctively, which is what we need to aspire to, we need to develop a stronger collective reflex that is faithful to the Pledge.

To facilitate this, I would like to make three specific suggestions: First, I believe it would be useful to have a review of all existing major policies and practices to check for significant contradictions with the key tenets of the Pledge – resulting in mixed signals being sent to the ground which in turn could create confusion and disengagement or worse, cynicism. This is an important exercise that should involve participation of the public, private and people sectors. We will benefit not only from the outcome, but the process itself which will help us build a better national

Column: 1029

collective reflex. I can see an organisation such as REACH spearheading this initiative, together with the CDCs and OnePeople.com .

Allow me to highlight a few areas where we may find these mixed signals that I am talking about. First, over the years, we have, I feel, become very race conscious as a people. In almost everything we do, we are reminded of, and asked about our race. Starting with the NRIC, and in almost all application forms – schools, jobs, marriage, clubs and even when signing up for a cooking course at a Community Centre. Then, the creation of ethnic self-help groups, such as Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and the Eurasian Association, I feel they have all inadvertently exacerbated the problem. Even media reports on crime see the need to highlight the race of the criminal and go a step further in describing him as dark or fair in complexion. Do not get me wrong, I do see value in some of these initiatives and actions. I am currently serving as Vice President of the Executive Committee of SINDA and have been an active contributor for more than a decade – I can see the practical need for such an organisation and the contribution it makes. I can also understand that for data collection and study of trends it is useful and sometimes necessary to capture the race of the individual. All I am saying is that we need to study this practice carefully and with an open mind, with a view to finding ways to amend or tweak the practices to better manage mixed signals that do confuse. Many young people I have spoken to have highlighted this apparent contradiction with the "regardless of race" tenet of the Pledge. Principals and teachers I have spoken to have also raised this issue.

Another example of an area that the review could look at are policies pertaining to foreign workers. We understand the

Column: 1030

economic and business justification for this, but there continues to be the undesirable effect of wages of Singaporean workers in this category getting depressed. I understand the NTUC is trying to address this issue, but from what I have gathered from talking to lower skilled Singaporean workers, their wages have come down. This cannot be a source of happiness for these workers even though there is prosperity for the nation.

The second broad suggestion I have to help align policies with the tenets of the Pledge is that we need to urgently address the issue of rootedness and commitment to nation. I view this as a time-bomb ticking in our midst. There is enough evidence that there is a lack of a sense of rootedness on the ground, especially in younger Singaporeans. This could be attributed to many factors which would include a lack of knowledge and understanding of our history and current affairs, a lack of meaningful engagement on matters of national concern, and easier prospects for leaving the country. I do not believe our youth are apathetic. In fact, when effectively engaged they can have strong and constructive ideas and often the commitment to walk the talk. What puzzles me is how come we are in this situation even though we have had National Education, and before that, when I was in school, civic education, for decades now? It cannot just be because the young of today have not experienced the difficult times in the earlier years of nationhood.

I suspect it could partly be because, as a society, we seem to have lost the oral tradition of sharing experiences and telling stories. We need to revive this, and fast, while we still have enough people of the older generation who have the stories and are in a condition to share them. The other contributing factor could be that those assigned to "teach" National Education (NE) may themselves not be

Column: 1031

sufficiently motivated to do so. Perhaps our teachers are too bogged down with work to have the bandwidth necessary to impart NE with conviction. Also, I suspect that a subject like NE is best conveyed through informal activities and not through formal lectures with the indispensable power-point slides. There could be other more salient reasons or challenges. I feel it is necessary for us to do a systematic review of how we can increase the sense of rootedness and commitment especially of our younger brethren – and this would need to include an open-minded review, and rethink if necessary, on how NE is taught, and how NE initiatives could be better coordinated with similar activities by OnePeople.com and the Community Engagement Programme managed by MHA. In terms of improving the knowledge our youths have about our history and current affairs, I would recommend a systematic revival of importance given to subjects such as history and geography in schools, which in the recent past have been relegated as being "soft subjects" that provide less utility than science subjects.

More than teaching these subjects, I hope we can find a way to inject curiosity, interest and fascination in our youth, so that they would be motivated to find out more as a life-long journey of inquiry. Recently, I met a young lady who had a good honours degree from a local university who did not know the difference between the President of Singapore and the Prime Minister. It is not just confounding but upsetting to be confronted by such realities. Something is very wrong here. Whatever the case might be, one thing is clear to me – what we have right now has not worked well enough, and if we do not intervene promptly and creatively, the tenet of being a united people may not happen in substance.

My third and final suggestion seeks to help align our current policies and rules

Column: 1032

with conventional principles of democracy. From the late 1960s there were stringent rules that may have discouraged active political activism, even participation. Detention of political activists under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and media controls, whether real or perceived, right or wrong, created a climate of fear that inhibited political participation. Over the years, in my view, this could have crystalised into a political culture of apathy and disinterest. This in turn exacerbated an already fragile sense of rootedness and a lack of patriotism. Our senior political leaders have been highlighting the challenges they have been facing in persuading the best and the brightest to serve in political leadership, and why salaries had to be significantly high to help them make the decision to come on board. This situation does not augur well for Singapore on many fronts – it poses problems in succession planning, retards socio-political resilience and could result in brain drain the moment we face a serious enough crisis.

For these reasons, it is imperative that we consciously and proactively start the process of re-politicisation – to get people, especially the youth, interested and involved not only in social work but political matters. A good place to start this would be our universities, which have been the traditional base of political interest and activism. Political associations should be encouraged, and campus rallies should be allowed once again. I know that for some of us in the House, especially for Minister Mentor Lee, this suggestion could be somewhat heretical as unpleasant memories of the 1960s and 1970s are still fresh in the mind. But we are indeed dealing with a very different Singapore today: people are generally politically apathetic, risk averse, more educated, affluent and so stakes are higher. Regardless of the changed circumstances, there is, as always, the residual and potent energy of youth which today is channelled increasingly towards

Column: 1033

activism in cyberspace creating an underground culture that may not always be constructive. If we read the content in the blogs and internet sites we can sense restlessness, frustration and even anger. It is my firm belief that if the mainstream environment comes across less sanitised and more politically engaging, we will, in due course, see a healthy migration of these energies. This is good because in the mainstream there is a greater level of transparency and accountability. But this will only happen if there is real and discernable relaxation of rules pertaining to political participation and activism. Today, there still is a climate of fear though a lot less prevalent than before. This will change if the right signals are given, clearly and unequivocally. And only the Government can do this.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we are at a point of inflexion – an opportunity to change; to reverse some trends and attitudes that are detrimental to our progress, indeed our survivability, as a nation. This Government has time and again demonstrated the ability and will to change course when it is deemed to be in the best interest of society – the 1987 reversal of the "stop at two" policy, the introduction of the IRs and then the F1 Grand Prix are just some examples. We now need to demonstrate the same will and courage in other areas that have a strong bearing on our resilience as a people, a nation – specifically, areas I have taken the time to elucidate.

Yes, in recent years especially, we have seen the Government opening up and paying more attention to some of the points highlighted. But there have been mixed signals which are confusing to the ground and this does not incentivise sufficient positive action. Incremental change is generally prudent and less disruptive, but I fear this may not be

Column: 1034

enough to address the issues I have raised. The clock is ticking. We need to act fast and radical changes may be called for to get the desired outcome.

Yes, there are risks. There will always be risks in change. But that has not and should not stop us from doing what is right. I put it to the House that, in this instance, inaction is not an option.

We need faith. Faith in our people’s capacity for good judgment. Faith that Singaporeans will not abuse what is given to them – the privileges, the choices. Faith that we will value the increased space for expression and action and use it well, and appreciate the support given to us in times of need. Yes, there will always be some who will go the other way, but let us not punish the rest of society for this. This Government has good reason to trust the people – Singaporeans have stood by this Government through thick and thin for 50 years. To a good extent, this is demonstration of faith in a government that has, by and large, been upright, effective, responsive and consistently delivered on promises. It is time now for the Government to reciprocate – by demonstrating the same measure of faith in the people.

I say to the Government and to this House, let us take a chance on our people, on ourselves. Let us act on the firm belief that our National Pledge will serve as a bright shining light that keeps us on track. We have reason to believe that we will succeed if we are faithful to the Pledge that was crafted 44 years ago with passion, conviction and foresight by our founding leaders in their infinite wisdom.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you, once again, for the opportunity to move this motion.

Question proposed.

Column: 1035

5.21 pm

Mr Michael Palmer: Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak on this motion. I agree to second this motion because I felt it is timely. The theme for this 44th National Day and 50th year of our independence is for us to come together reaching out, reaching out.

The focal point of this year's Parade was at 8.22 pm when the call went out to all Singapore citizens to rise and recite the Pledge together. What resonated with me was that we recited the Pledge together. The fact that everyone was reciting those same words together, whether at the floating platform or in different parts of Singapore, or indeed in different parts of the world, gave the moment even greater significance.

I spoke to several people after the Parade. They all told me that this was a significant moment for them. Yes, there were some who were caught by surprise and there were some who did not take part. But, and large, many of those whom I spoke to said they were moved by the moment. They said it was a timely reminder of what we stand for and what we must continue to uphold for our future.

Mr Sadasivan has covered many points in his speech. I do not intend to revisit all of them. However, I feel I must express my disagreement with three issues that he has raised. First, he has raised the accountability of the Government to the people. As an elected Member of this House, we are always accountable to the people on the ground, in our constituency, through our residents and to Singaporeans as a whole. We are accountable on a daily basis for everything that we do. When elections come around, we are ultimately accountable. I, therefore, cannot agree that there is a lack of accountability.

Column: 1036

Second, I do not agree that there is a climate of fear among our people. In fact, my experience on the ground has shown the opposite. People are not afraid to speak up for what they believe in and against Government policies that they disagree with. This feedback is received through numerous channels, including my email box, on a daily basis. It would appear that the younger the generation, the more vociferous they are about their disagreement. Therefore, I do not think that participation is lacking. This is not viewed in a bad light but instead is considered seriously by the Government.

Third, I cannot agree that this Government does not listen in response to the concerns of the people. In my view, the opposite is true. There are numerous channels of communication between the Government and the people. Ministers also make an effort to explain policies not only in this House but also on the ground. Singaporeans are given every opportunity to engage the Government and have their views heard. Inevitably, some will disagree but, ultimately, the decision lies with the Government and they are accountable for that decision to the people at the ballot box.

In fact, what contradicts the climate of fear that Mr Sadasivan has spoken about is that he stands in this House today and he is able to express his views openly and freely without fear of reprisal. My disagreement is also a demonstration of the democratic process at work. The Government's adherence to the tenets of our Pledge has brought us to where we are today. That said, it is perhaps timely that we reaffirm our commitment to that.

Madam, let me move on to the portion of the Pledge that I would like to speak about. It is the opening sequence which reads, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion."

Column: 1037

The challenge that we face going forward is to remain a "united people, regardless of race, language or religion." Indeed, this is a very substantial topic. But I would like to highlight three areas that I believe this House would have to consider in the days to come. They are: keeping Singaporeans connected to Singapore and united in the face of globalisation, uniting with new Singaporeans, and our unity in the face of rising religiosity.

I was invited to speak at the annual Temasek seminar a few weeks ago. This is a seminar organised by MINDEF to engage a group of top students from our junior colleges and polytechnics. The theme for the speech was "Our Home, Our Future, Our Singapore". Naturally, being students who would soon have to decide on their tertiary education in what they do with their lives thereafter, the topic of globalisation and whether they would continue to live and work in Singapore arose during the question-and-answer session. To my surprise, a handful of students openly expressed their view that they felt no connection to Singapore and would not have a problem moving to another country to live and work. Some other students were unsure what they would do and, therefore, non-committal. Happily, some students affirmed their commitment to make Singapore their home but the majority of students were silent. After the seminar, I approached various groups of students and asked them whether they were surprised that their friends and fellow students had expressed the desire to leave Singapore. They said they were not. Apparently, this was the subject discussed in their circles. What they were surprised about was the fact that some of their cohort were bold enough to express their desire to leave Singapore in an open forum. This is certainly a worrying trend. The fact that some of our youth do not feel a connection to Singapore and are ready to

Column: 1038

leave means that they are not one united people. Many reasons were cited by those who declared that they would leave. The main ones were that they felt there were more opportunities abroad and that some of their family members had migrated, so they, too, will migrate.

Our dilemma is that in our globalised economy, we cannot stop Singaporeans from venturing out and living and working overseas. In fact, in many ways we encourage it because we need to expand our markets and economy. We need some of our best talents to go out into the world gain invaluable experience and skills which they can then bring home to benefit Singapore. The crucial thing is that they return. In order for that to happen, they have to feel rooted to Singapore. But how do we keep them connected to Singapore? This is by no means an easy question to answer. I think that involves a certain level of constant engagement, perhaps just enough to remind them that we are still here and we look forward to them coming back. It might also involve reminding them of the many positive attributes of Singapore. We can assert the familiarity of family and friends from different cultures and religions all co-existing harmoniously, our security and stability, our gastronomic draw, our clean and green city landscape, and the buzz of the new cityscape as depicted in the URA video that the Prime Minister screened during his Rally speech.

Currently, our overseas Singapore units and our overseas missions carry out this engagement. They organise Singapore days and smaller gatherings for overseas Singaporeans. The task that they have of keeping Singaporeans connected is not an easy one but I would encourage them to keep up their efforts and step them up where possible. Come what may, we cannot give up.

Let me touch on the second issue, which is uniting new members of our

Column: 1039

society and those of us whom I will term "old" Singaporeans, that is, those who are born here and have lived here for all or most of their lives. The low birth rate coupled with an outflow of talent have left a gap in our talent pool. The worry is that in time to come there will not be enough people to facilitate our growth and development. We have all heard the irrefutable arguments we cannot progress without attracting more people to make Singapore their home. However, as we know, allowing more people to become new Singaporeans and make Singapore their home is not without its own difficulties. People of different races and religions who have grown up in other countries have their own customs, practices and ways of life. These are often different from our local customs and ways of life.

These differences may give rise to friction which is exacerbated by the fact that living space is scarce in Singapore and a lot of the time we have to share our common space.

Friction arises between new Singaporeans and old Singaporeans often because of a lack of understanding of familiarity with each other's customs, living habits and practices. New Singaporeans need to be acquainted with our local customs, practices and living habits. Old Singaporeans also need to be tolerant of new Singaporeans and give them time to adjust to our way of life. After a certain level of understanding is reached, a certain level of give and take must come into play. As the Prime Minister put it, "live and let live". I believe that over and above attracting people to become new Singaporeans, it is also essential that we acquaint them with our local culture and way of life.

Similarly, we must try to get all Singaporeans to interact with new Singaporeans to give them a better understanding of their background and culture. To this end, the People's Association has introduced integration and

Column: 1040

naturalisation champions (INCs) in the grassroots network. These INCs who are selected grassroots leaders take the lead in organising events to help new citizens and PRs integrate into the Singapore way of life. The CDCs are also looking at this issue on a district level. This is certainly a good start. Much of the time, I find that the INCs organise community events with a view to integrating the new Singaporeans. Aside from meeting some old Singaporeans and perhaps having their olfactory nerves tested with the durian or two, the new Singaporeans learn little about daily habits and ways of life in Singapore.

In my view, more can be done to prepare our INCs so that they are better equipped to introduce the new Singaporeans to the local way of life as well as deal with any friction that may arise between the new Singaporeans and the old Singaporeans. Perhaps, this may not be a job for a grassroots volunteer but someone who is employed and specifically trained with the necessary skills. They can, of course, be assisted by grassroots leaders. In schools, our current efforts to promote racial harmony centre largely on teaching our children the customs and practices of Singaporean Malays, Chinese, Indians and Eurasians. Bearing in mind that we are increasingly getting new Singaporeans who hail from all over the world, we should also teach our children the importance of accepting and befriending people of all races and religions beyond focusing on the main races in Singapore. Hopefully, our children will grow to have open minds and be better placed to understand the people that we are embracing as new Singaporeans. Ultimately, our new Singaporean population will grow but our available space will not. The necessity for us to learn to share our common space with more and more new Singaporeans is inevitable. We must take steps now to reduce as much of the potential friction as possible.

Column: 1041

In his National Day Rally speech on Sunday, the Prime Minister spoke at length about the rise of religiosity around the world, including Singapore. Religion is a sensitive topic and not one that is easily discussed, particularly when dealing with different religions. I must admit that when I learned about what the Prime Minister was going to speak about at the Rally and that is going to be a centrepiece of his speech, I was a bit apprehensive. To give such a sensitive topic such prominence left a great deal to each individual's interpretation. The different interpretations of the message are illustrated by the differing headlines in the press the following day. The Straits Times carried the headline "PM warns of religious fault lines", while TODAY 's newspaper headline read "Of Race and Religion". I think the underlying message in the Prime Minister's speech is that religions and racial harmony does not come naturally and without concerted effort. We must always remind ourselves of the need forward and we must work and maintain it. Part of this process is to discuss the topic from time to time and not shy away from it. In doing so, we must always remain respectable of each religion and have due regard to the views expressed by the different groups. This is particularly important when there is a potential flashpoint over growing friction. When it comes to racial or religious issues, they are better nipped in the bud.

I believe that Singaporeans have an immense capacity for racial and religious tolerance and an understanding of the importance of such tolerance. I believe that our understanding of it goes beyond that of people in many other countries. This is primarily due to our education system. My belief was reinforced just last weekend in my constituency. I was attending an event and happened to notice some celebrations going on in the nearby office hall. I noticed birthday

Column: 1042

banners and I thought I would take the opportunity to extend my wishes. As I approached, I noticed that on one side of the hall was a group of Chinese celebrants with their catered food laid out and party flavours set up in one corner. On the other side of the hall, I noticed a group of Malay celebrants with their catered food and party flavours. I discovered that both the Chinese and Malay families had booked the hall for the same evening to celebrate first birthdays of their respective family members, and they informed me that both bookings had been approved by the Town Council. My immediate thought went to the example of the Malay wedding, the Chinese funeral that the Prime Minister referred to in his Rally speech. But to my delight, I was informed by both groups that they had realised that an error had occurred. They discussed the issue between them and had amicably agreed to share the hall, each taking one side. Each group had exercised tolerance and restraint. Each group had realised the situation for what it was, a situation that required them to share a common space, no intervention or mediation required.

In this House, I believe that on the one hand, we need to be able to discuss of race and religion openly and address any potential areas of friction that may arise. We must be an example for people to follow. On the other hand, we must be careful not to micro manage every situation so that what may not have started out as an issue of race or religion then becomes one. This in itself would be counterproductive. We should also trust in Singaporeans to know the value of racial and religious harmony so that the best solution can be found by the party involved with little or no external intervention. It is a delicate balance that we need to maintain, but maintain remarkably.

At 8.22 pm on 9th August this year was a special moment. Singaporeans

Column: 1043

stood together, united, regardless of race, language or religion. It was a proud moment, a historic moment. The question that this House needs to ask itself is this: how do we maintain that unity and pride in every Singaporean, whether new or established in the days to come? How do we make that moment last for more than just the moment?

Mdm Deputy Speaker, with that, I support the motion.

5.37 pm

The Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to touch on the points mentioned by the Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Viswa Sadasivan on the poor and the elderly. I feel that he sounds a little too pessimistic. Our safety net is designed based on several principles, in particular, we are work-focused and low in entitlements. We stress family as a first line of support. We help the needy to stand on their own two feet and we focus a lot of our help on the children so that they can break out of the poverty circle.

The ComCare Fund was set up in June 2005 to help the neediest which are the bottom 20% of our society. Through ComCare, we ensure that no needy Singaporean is left behind. The Fund now stands at $800 million and would eventually be topped up to $1 billion. We expect to spend $77 million on ComCare programmes in FY 2009, 37% more than what we spent in FY 2008. As at end June 2009, the ComCare nation-wide schemes were helping about 27,000 cases, an increase of 15% compared to the number of cases receiving assistance as at end December 2008. Since the inception of ComCare in 2005, we had helped over 85,600 cases. ComCare is a working model of flexibility and

Column: 1044

decentralisation highlighting particularly the role of the "many helping hands" – grassroots organisations, the voluntary welfare organisations, the self-help groups, the Community Development Councils (CDCs), etc, – coming together to provide a robust and sustainable safety net for the needy. We recognise that it is important to be flexible in applying help to the needy. The CDCs, which administer our schemes, have the flexibility to extend help to needy families that somehow do not fully meet the ComCare criteria due to special circumstances.

The Public Assistance (PA) scheme is only but one of the many schemes under ComCare which cater to a range of different target groups. First, ComCare Self-Reliance is targeted at those who can work. The Work Support Programme and the ComCare Transitions are part of this pillar to help them to get jobs, to go through training. Second, ComCare Grow which is targeted at the children. The CDCs administer childcare, kindergarten and student care subsidies. They also link needy school children with help under the Ministry of Education's Financial Assistance Scheme and give them free textbooks, free meals and school materials. Third, under the ComCare Enable pillar, the CDC administers Public Assistance and also work with hospitals and HDB to apply for Medifund and rental flats respectively for the old and needy.

In view of the economic downturn, we have made several enhancements to the ComCare scheme to help needy families this year. The PA scheme was revised upwards from April 2009. An individual person on the PA scheme now gets $360 a month in cash, up from the previous $330. MCYS also provides children from PA families with additional assistance of up to $130 per child per month. This is to ensure that children from PA families continue to receive care and education so that they may break out of the poverty circle. A family of four – two adults and

Column: 1045

two children – could get up to $1,210 a month. Besides the PA Allowance, PA recipients have also received extensive cash handout and utilities, rental and S&CC rebates, etc., from the Government this year. For example, an elderly living alone in a 1-room flat would have received almost $120 a month in cash and rebates from the Government. Together with his PA Allowance of $360, this comes up to almost $480 a month. On top of this, he enjoys free medical care – outpatient and hospitalisation care, and a range of community support like meal vouchers, cash grants, ang pow s, weekly visits by befrienders' programmes, etc. So, on the whole, some of them get about $500 a month. The PA rates are not generous, but they are calibrated to provide for the basic living needs of PA recipients. Nobody needs to go hungry in Singapore. We dare to make this statement.

With the recent revisions in the PA Allowance, the rates for larger families are already very close to what a low wage worker earns. However, there must be a difference in the amount of money received by a PA recipient and a working adult receiving Workfare. We may be able to afford to be more generous like the Nominated MP suggested since the number of PA recipients is only 3,000. However, the greatest danger in doing so would be taking away the incentive for the much larger number of Singaporeans who are working hard.

From July 2009, the Government raised subsidies under the ComCare Centre-based Financial Assistance Scheme for Childcare (CFAC). Including the Government subsidy for working mothers, it is over $600 per child per month. When we ask this question at quite a number of gatherings, nobody guessed it right. There is also the Kindergarten Financial Assistance Scheme

Column: 1046

(KiFAS). Family with a monthly income of $1,500 or less receives at least 95% fee subsidy and pays only $10 a month for childcare – they get 12 hours care – and $5 for kindergarten. Those earning between $1,500 and $1,800 per month, they pay $20 for childcare and $10 for kindergarten a month. So, no young children are deprived of kindergarten and childcare in Singapore unless their parents are irresponsible or they do not know where to get help.

More flexible Work Support Programme: The Work Support Programme provides the unemployed with financial, medical and educational assistance while they upgrade their skills and find a job. From mid-February 2009, we have extended assistance to families on the margin during this downturn. The length of assistance has been increased from six months to one year. During this period, we also offer other help. The benefits are very close to Public Assistance. We call it ComCare Transitions. For those with kidney problems or other diseases, we help them from month to month.

The third feature is about empowering the community. The CCC ComCare Fund has been raised by $0.75 million to $7 million per year, for financial year 2009 to financial year 2010. Grassroots leaders can tap on this Fund to provide immediate help to residents. This means that anyone can go to the Meet-the-People session or the CCC to get help immediately while the CDCs process their applications to get them onto national ComCare help schemes.

We have a very comprehensive social safety net to help needy and vulnerable families in Singapore. As Minister Vivian mentioned during the Committee of Supply debate early this year, we estimate that the social service sector will receive some $460 million in financial year 2009, and this will come from MCYS

Column: 1047

funding, the ComCare Endowment Fund and public donations. It is not a small amount.

On top of this, various Government Ministries also provide various assistance and subsidies for the lower income – for example, the Ministry of Health has Medifund to help needy patients, the Ministry of Education has its Financial Assistance Scheme to help needy students, and HDB provides subsidised public rental housing to needy families. This is further complemented by the "many helping hands" in our community, such as the voluntary welfare organisations, the self-help groups and the grassroots organisations.

All these various forms of support, taken together, make up a robust and comprehensive social safety net that has served us well over the years. We will continue to improve on this safety net and make it better going forward. And we will make sure that no one will be left behind as Singapore progresses.

Let me say a few words in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Just now the Nominated Member has mentioned about the needy, elderly people in Singapore. I felt that he was too pessimistic.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me give a short brief on the social safety net of our people. Most importantly, we must train those who are strong and healthy so that they are able to work and look after themselves. As for the young ones, we must be able to educate them and bring them up. I would say that no other country can give the assurance to the people that so long as the children can get a place in the school, they will not be deprived of education just because their parents cannot afford it. In fact, we have given various subsidies and bursaries to

Column: 1048

our children – we have our childcare centre subsidies, kindergarten subsidies etc.

For the childcare centre, the Government subsidises more than $600 for the needy families. Apart from this, the parents need to pay only $10 per month for the childcare centre services and $5 per month for the kindergarten services.

On many occasions and during some gatherings, I ask the people: how much do you think that you have to pay if you take into account the Government’s subsidy? Most of them will say, maybe a few hundred dollars. But I can tell you that for the very poor families, when the children go to the childcare centre, they pay $10 per month and for kindergarten they pay only $5. For those earning $1,500 to $1,800, they pay only $20 per month for the childcare centre and $10 for kindergarten. In fact, not a single student has to drop out because they could not afford to pay the fees.

As I said earlier, for the elderly who are not supported by their family, we give them Public Assistance of $360 per month, excluding housing subsidy and the medical subsidy. They do not have to pay for medical treatment. I have visited one resident and he told me that his doctor is a specialist in the eye centre.

Apart from that, temples and religious parties also give them ang pows . And on top of that, the Government also gives other subsidies like utilities, service and conservancy charges. So they enjoy subsidies in cash and in kind for as much as $480 per month. On top of that, they receive subsidies from other social welfare organisations. All in all, they get about $500. Honestly speaking, we do not give $500 to our parents every month. For the singles and destitute, they enjoy subsidised rental housing and so they pay about $20 to $30 a month. If they do not

Column: 1049

have a flat, they can go to the old folks' home run by our VWOs.

With Government subsidies and the assistance from the social welfare organisations, all our people are looked after, but the underlying principle is that we want them to be self-reliant. They must be able to help themselves. We would also like to depend on the family as the first line of social safety net.

I would like to emphasise this once again – for those who are healthy, they must be self-reliant and work to support themselves, and their children and elderly will be looked after. For anyone who needs help, they can always call the ComCare hotline 1800-222-000 for assistance.

*Cols. 1095-1096.

5.53 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and Acting Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I watched my fourth National Day Parade this year as a Member of Parliament. Each year is better than the past, and this year's NDP is the best one yet. As I stood and recited the Pledge at 8.22 pm, it was a time for pride and reflection.

I am sure the same sentiments also ran through the mind of the Nominated Member, which had in turn motivated him further to write a well-crafted, articulate and very lengthy maiden speech in Parliament. I think he broke the record.

I share some of his views and I agree that we should find ways to re-energise the Pledge as the ultimate social glue that binds us as a nation, as a people. However, I do differ with the Member on a number of issues. I will not attempt to address all of the Member's points as he

Column: 1050

has given us a full slate of issues to ponder over. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I will just confine to a few issues that are close to my heart.

Let me start with our humble beginning in 1959, the year when Singapore gained self-governance. So, Singapore is 50 years old this year. And the Confucianist in me realises that at the age of 50, a man knows the will of Heaven or, in Mandarin, Kong Zi shuo: wu shi zhi tien ming (孔 子 说: 五 十 知 天命). On the level of rhetoric and philosophy, this can be interpreted to mean that at 50, a man has gained wisdom and clarity – he knows that his life is larger than himself, he knows the forces of nature and the strength of his own destiny. It can also mean that he has chosen a more deterministic view of life at 50, and he has made a decision to contend with, or resign to, his lot in life.

It is a statement of epiphany, a crystal of philosophical wisdom, a way of life, and an expression of your beliefs. On a personal soul-searching level, I have a deep appreciation for it. However, on a matter of public policy it provides – I fear – very little concrete direction.

The Nominated Member might have inadvertently confused the first for the second. There is room for rhetoric and there is also room for practical intent. But the first cannot be the cover for the second. The Member makes many points but, in there, there are two ways to make good points, or rather, two sorts of good points. The first sort, which is more philosophical in intent, makes good listening, good reading, and gives us memorable turns of phrases. The second sort, which is more pragmatic in nature, makes you think, challenges the Government in public policy, and gives you more meat to chew on. The second sort, I am afraid, is less apparent in the Member's speech. Let me elaborate how.

Column: 1051

Take for example, what he says about citizenship, and I quote: "We must ensure all citizens from young understand it beyond the words. More importantly, we in Parliament must lead the way by demonstrating that no national policy or Bill will be passed if it goes contrary to the letter or spirit of the Pledge." He says that it would be useful to have a review of all existing policies and practices to check for significant contradictions with the key tenet of the Pledge, resulting in mixed signals being sent to the ground. So he wants the Pledge to be some sort of check against bad Bills. But he then says further that: " – Citizenship is not a concept – it is something that you live, breathe and feel deeply. For this reason, I believe it is futile for us to talk in technical or legalistic terms about citizenship – rights, obligations, fairness!"

So, you want the Pledge to be a check on bad law-making, but then you also dismiss the rights and obligations that laws create. So, what is the point of this suggestion then? This appears to be what the Member would call "a mixed signal" to me, which I do not quite understand. But this may not be a fair reading, to lump one sentence with another, to look for coherence where none was meant. Perhaps there is a more straight-forward reading of the criticisms. For example, one, the Member might be saying that the Government is not accountable to the people and the Government takes them for granted; two, there is a climate of fear and the people are afraid to speak up; and three, our current rules and institutions are not aligned with conventional democracy.

He might be saying all of the above, but he is saying it very carefully. First, he is asking for more, he acknowledges that the Government is accountable but we ought to be faster, more sensitive, more genuine in our approach. This I would not disagree. I would very much disagree, however, with an allegation that the

Column: 1052

Government takes people for granted. How so? Does the Government ignore the fact that our population is ageing and not make lifts to their flats? Does the Government not fund and build such lifts and make sure every block will have one? Does the Government ignore that people find it difficult to find jobs during a recession? And does the Government not help all it can to the extent of using the reserves and offering Jobs Credit? Does the Government, as the Member alleges, care only to grow the rich but ignore the poor on Public Assistance (PA)?

Madam, I know this subject as I have spoken on this several times when I was a backbencher. Now that I am on the Government bench, I will not change my mind and my tune.

It is true. PA recipients have a hard life. They have to watch every cent but they have a roof over their head. They have something basic to live on each month. Just now, my colleague Mrs Yu-Foo, has taken some time to explain what the Government has done to help the needy through Public Assistance and ComCare. So I shall not belabour the point suffice to say that the Government does not take the poorest for granted. It ensures that they do not pay a single cent when they fall ill through the Medifund.

There are many helping hands to put food on the tables but of course, there is always room for doing better and at the urging of the Members in this House, including the Nominated Member of Parliament, the Government is increasing the PA grant periodically, sometimes without the Members asking for it. So Madam, we do these things because it is the duty not to do less. We do not do them for the reasons that the Nominated Member says, so that the citizen feels unqualified commitment to the country. He says, and I quote, "Citizens should be made to feel our commitment ... is appreciated and not taken for granted. Rewards and privileges must be significant and discernible and accorded

Column: 1053

without being asked for." Madam, I think he has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick. Commitment to a country requires no quid pro quo . If we are treading on rewards and privileges, if these are the things that a committed citizen needs, then I do not think the commitment is worth very much.

What about the first generation of leaders, the Merdeka generation? They asked not for rewards or privileges. There were none to give then and yet how much these people gave. Not just the likes of Dr Goh Keng Swees or the Kenny Byrnes but the trishaw riders who gave to build a university, the business leaders who set up schools and foundations and the men and women who took in their neighbours of different races during the racial riots in 1964. So do you think they were doing all these for a PBM? As I see it, the Government does not, cannot and will not take the citizens for granted because it is the duty of the Government to provide as well as they can for them but this is quite different from the issue of commitment and citizenship. One, it is not traded for the other. Second, the climate of fear. The Member is not saying that the Government is instilling fear deliberately. I am glad he made this clear but merely that there is such a perception. People are speaking up but we could do more to encourage participation, he says. This, I would not disagree with. But I would disagree if he adds that the fear was created by the Government that was thin-skinned. I think our Government can take strong views and criticisms as well as any other government in the world. Perhaps in my firm rebuttal, we can see more evidence of thin-skinned government but if there is a difference between being thin-skinned and standing up for what we believe in, if doing the latter risks being mistaken for the former, then I would take the risk rather than leave my principles lying in the mud. So that is not what the

Column: 1054

responsible and an accountable government would do.

Lastly, he says that we need to do more to inspire young people to be patriotic, to want to serve our country and not to rely on high salaries to attract them into service. This, I would not disagree with. Madam, I would not disagree with these points because it is difficult to disagree with platitudes but it is as unhelpful to agree with them as it is to state such platitudes in the first place. Now, Madam, the above may tempt us to treat the Member's speech as a sort of good-nurtured roasting of the Government, all done with the best of intentions. So we ought to take it in our stride, to "chill", as the Member suggests. But Madam, to do so, in my view, will be a mistake because mixed in with the cheerful half praises and murky suggestions are two serious allegations. These, if not rebutted, would cause great damage to the Government's reputation.

The first allegation is that we stand here in this House, each of us elected Member, not on the strength of our own making but through the conniving and insidious interference of a corrupt party and an equally corrupt government. The election process, the Member alleges, is not democratic. The Member asked that the Government desist from making it difficult in an unfair and undemocratic manner for the Opposition party to "gain success". He says that electoral boundaries are changed at the last minute and there is a lack of media coverage or biased coverage. Because of this, he says people are increasingly alienated and disenfranchised. Madam, this process has allowed two opposition Members of Parliament and as many as four in the past, to come into this House. So is the Nominated Member saying that the process by which this Opposition gained the seats in the Parliament and gained entry to this House is not clean, it is dirty? Do we hear the Opposition

Column: 1055

Members making these same allegations? I think in his time here, and in his public duties, I have not heard the Member for Hougang make such a claim, so far as my memory can recall. The Nominated Member has also not given us international benchmarks such as those that conventional democracies adopted in the timing of electoral boundary changes. He has not given us the ways in which we have flouted other conventions. He does, however, insinuate that we caused the media to be biased and the point about media coverage is quite separate and one which I think the Nominated Member has to put to the Editors of the various newspapers. I can only take up the one point that is against MICA and I wish to state that we do not interfere with the editorial stance of the papers and the media owners. We do not. This arm's length policy is an old and established one which has worked for us in all these years.

Second, the allegation that in our drive towards economic prosperity, we have neglected other equally important goals. Madam, I disagree with this point. The Nominated Member implies that now that we have attained a certain level of economic success, we can perhaps relax a little. Allow freedom for citizens to express themselves and allow a credible multi-party system to evolve. All these are not here, he says, because they have been placed on the back burners, I quote, "placed on the back burners to make way for progress and prosperity". Madam, it is true and I agree with the Member that the lay of the land has changed but this change does not mean that economic growth should be put on the back burner.

I think it is useful to remember that economic growth remains a priority for the Government and, in fact, for any given government, and it is also a backbone of Singapore's success in the last 50 years, we should not forget that. One economist, Dr Henri Ghesquiere –

Column: 1056

who is a Belgian and had studied Singapore for the IMF for many, many years – talks about three reasons for Singapore's success in his book Singapore's S uccess: Engineering Economic Growth . He says that Singapore has an integrated approach to Government, with policies and cultural values, institutions and political dynamics, reinforcing each other. Secondly, there is a distinction between basic principles and core functions and their applications. Dr Ghesquiere makes these points merely as a polite way of saying that Singapore strikes its own path, often times, an unpopular path. It does not follow the political fashions of other countries. Lastly, it talks about the leadership and the importance of this for the continued success. Now, an integrated approach is necessary and is the goal of the many countries but at the heart of this approach must lie an important national goal that people can agree on and in Singapore's case, many people will agree that our economic strategy will still be regarded as a top priority because this is where it will guarantee us success, prosperity and many other good things to come.

And crucial to our continued success in the economy, is the social development of the country. In Singapore, with its many races and religion, the fact remains that the racial and religious faultlines will continue to assist for many, many more years to come. There is a need to ensure that racial and religious harmony be maintained at all times and to achieve this, we have to remind ourselves time and again, even if it sounds like a broken record. We play the same tune but we have to play the tune time and again. So on a policy level, we see this in the many measures which have been put in place after the September 11 bombing. Inter Racial Confidence Circles (IRCCs) became a small but important part of living in a multi-racial Singapore and IRCCs were set up to tackle people's fear and get the racial and religious groups to know each

Column: 1057

other better. This was until after the arrest of some 34 members of the JI, a terrorist network which wanted to stir up racial strife between Singapore and Malaysia, and turn both into a part of an Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia.

The Prime Minister has reminded us again the importance of keeping an eye on religious and racial faultlines in Singapore during his National Day Speech just two days ago. Yet, the way we do things in Singapore is quite different from the rest of the world. So the way we keep faith will all the faiths on our tiny island is not to try and mesh everything into a whole but to keep things separate. Unity in diversity is what has been working effectively for Singapore. That is why we see the race on our ID cards, we celebrate our heritage, culture and our history.

We have such organisations as the Chinese Development Assistance Council (CDAC), Mendaki, SINDA and Eurasian Association. Self-help groups are mixed signals according to the Member. He thinks that we should stress our sameness, not our difference. But I wonder if there is any point to pretending because a Malay is actually not an Indian and is also not a Chinese. We are all different and if we group ourselves into different ethnic groups and then we can help ourselves to tackle problems better, quicker, with less embarrassment – why not? Why force ourselves into a common hole when we are all different sorts of squares? Madam, as Head of the CDAC for many years, I know firsthand the importance of cultural sensitivity and knowledge. I was able to carry out my duties effectively because of who I am, what I look like, how much I know and how the people in the same community have trust and faith in me. These conditions also apply to my counterparts

Column: 1058

in other self-help groups. In many other countries, self-help groups would not work, but in Singapore it does. So we are an unconventional democracy. To me, the signal is not mixed. It is just merely different.

So lastly, Madam, I would like to point out that the Member has at least made one concrete suggestion which I think merits further review. He says that it will be useful for each vernacular channel to carry more stories or features about what is happening in the other communities. I quite agree with this idea and MICA will look into this. Madam, the Pledge is written by Mr S. Rajaratnam, a reporter who, in 38 spare words, had captured the soul of the nation. He said everything that needed to be said. It would be a pity to go against his grain and belabour his points because straight talk needs very few words. So with this, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank you. [ Applause ].