DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

Debate on the Address:

(Fourth Allotted Day): Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [25th May, 2009],

'That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:–

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.".' – [Mr Michael Palmer].

Question again proposed.

2.14 pm

Er Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the President's Speech. The President encouraged and inspired us to stay united and together face up to the challenges ahead of us. I firmly believe all Singaporeans, those who live and work here, will march forward shoulder-to-shoulder to realise our vision, our home, our future and our Singapore.

We are like seasoned sailors who have gone through countless storms. Each experience of the stormy seas has made us wiser and better prepared for the more adverse environment. In the last few months, our Government has painstakingly formulated many policy measures to help workers and businesses to avoid massive retrenchment.

The Jobs Credit Scheme is a boost to the morale of workers in the workplaces but there are some employers who still resort to retrenching their workers and thus plunge them into bottomless predicament. At my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have come across many workers whose services have been terminated by their employers. The reason given is invariably, very simply, "Due to the present economic situation, we do not need your service anymore." These retrenched workers are paid minimal compensation or no compensation at all. I would like to know whether the Government would take action against such unreasonable employers.

Let me cite an example to illustrate this. A resident came to see me and he told me he was an administrative staff in a foreign-owned construction company. I asked her what was her salary like, she said $3,000. Before she was retrenched, she was not given any option, such as a pay cut. So, after putting in 30 years of service, she was retrenched. In fact, she told me this company still has many ongoing projects in Singapore, eg, MRT project.

Another resident worked in a five-star hotel as a security officer for more than 10 years. For his case, he was posted to another department, but after that he was retrenched. There was no reason given. For the past few years, many workers have worked themselves to the bone for their companies. During the last recession, they tightened their belts. Even during boom times, they accepted only negligible increase in their pay for fear of being replaced by the low-wage foreign workers. Hence, when the cost of living went up, they were badly impacted. Sir, when their salaries were suppressed, they had to eat humble pie because they hoped that they could retain their jobs. And they also realised that there was no such thing as job security.

We often talk about tripartite cooperation, but such arrangement is beneficial to the big companies only. Many employers are not subject to the tripartite arrangement. I would like to ask the Government to reconsider the policy on foreign workers. These foreign workers have taken over the jobs at the HDB coffee-shops, small eateries, gas stations, grocery shops and market stalls from our local workers – jobs which are traditionally theirs. We often ask old people to go and find jobs but the jobs available to them are getting scarcer and scarcer. I would like to ask the policy-makers to look at the problem squarely.

If you read the Zaobao, there is one letter by a reader, entitled "Senior Citizens Find It Difficult to Find Jobs". The writer was a lady, Luo Liming. I believe our colleagues have the same thought as our residents. I believe Singaporeans can accept foreign workers to come here. Singaporeans, on the one hand, love them; but on the other hand, hate them. Why? The bosses like them because they are hardworking and their pay is low. Those Singaporeans whose rice bowls are threatened or are taken away by the foreign workers hate them. Therefore, when allowing foreign workers to come in, the Government should strike a balance, especially during this extraordinary time. The Government should ensure that those Singaporeans who would like to get a job can get a job.

*Cols. 673-676.

Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] I would like to touch on housing. I hope that HDB will be more sympathetic during the economic downturn that we are facing now. For those facing difficulties, it is hoped that HDB can give assistance like reducing mortgage payments or extending the period for rent payment, instead of sending warning letters repeatedly and eventually repossessing their flats.

HDB must also accelerate its housing programme so that the new applicants do not wait too long to get their flats and remain in the balloting list for a long time. Let us stop and think – what is HDB’s original intent? It to render assistance and provide housing for our people? Or is it to be proud with our housing developments that are beautiful and they can give back huge financial returns? A new HDB flat can cost as high as $500,000. Where is our responsibility towards public housing? Yes, we can say and argue that there is still demand for those flats. If that is so, then we have changed our original intent. Now, we are focusing more towards higher priced flats and neglect those who really need affordable housing.

Still on the issue of housing, I hope the Government will accelerate the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP). We have a number of elderly who need lifts to facilitate their movement. Now is the best time for the LUP as the much lower development costs will allow the people to reap its benefits. Now lifts are a necessity and no longer a luxury.

(In English) : Next, I would like to make another appeal for our ageing residents. I must admit that much has been done to assist the elderly. But the implementation of some of these policies is not moving sufficiently fast. As we know, time, especially for the elderly, is very precious. Time is not on their side. It is not good enough to tell them that by 2011 or by 2014 we will have this, that or the other. Very often, my elderly residents told me that they may not live long enough to enjoy the upgraded facilities. What they need is "now". For example, they need lift upgrading and lifts at overhead bridges leading to MRT stations. Walking long distances to the traffic light junction is a challenge for some. Climbing the overhead bridges is an even greater challenge.

I have been talking about this for the last two years and I certainly hope that our policy-makers are looking into this request seriously. We need to have a holistic policy to look into the needs of the elderly, not just monetary but also infrastructure. We know how vulnerable the elderly people are when crossing roads, especially at busy intersections or at night when lighting is not good. For the elderly, when they are injured, the injuries tend to be more serious because of the brittleness of their bones and also their overall health condition.

In fact, I am very worried also about cyclists who weave in and out of pedestrian paths. Old people are not so agile to dodge these cyclists or, in Malay, we say elak , and their eyesight is not good enough to give them the wide field of vision to notice the cyclists coming.

Next, our elderly need affordable healthcare. Are we better off providing affordable healthcare or spending money on putting up artistic murals, fountains, musical performances, lavish annual reports, and so forth? Ask the man in the street, he will say all these decorations are of no use to him – help me use this money to help me lower my bills. That is all the uncles, aunties, pakcik and makcik , ask for. They do not need such frills. For example, we know that if the older people suffer from flu, their condition can deteriorate quite fast. We also know that we can take some prevention by going for a flu jab. Is it not better for us to spend this money giving flu jabs to the needy elderly? I believe it is better to spend on saving lives and preventing people from falling ill.

Next, I would like to ask the Government to provide emotional support for the elderly. While the onus will invariably be on the family and relatives, the Government should give more support to provide for the emotional needs of the elderly. It is one thing to get a roof over the heads of the elderly; it is another to organise them into groups to take part in activities and give them something that they can look forward to. Children, relatives and guardians are sometimes very pressed for time, especially in the generation where they have only one- or two-child family. Some are struggling to keep up with their jobs and feeding their families and, hence, are not able to give the quality time and emotional support for the elderly. As a result, the elderly either end up staring at the blank wall at home or, worse still, roam about in the neighbourhood until evening when their children come home.

Lastly, I would like to ask if we are well prepared to go the next lap when the world economy recovers. What will be the economic landscape? I am glad to hear from the Prime Minister yesterday that the Government has set up an Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) to come up with new and creative ways to grow the economy for the long term. I hope the ESC will draw up an action plan, prepare all of us so that when the world economy recovers, we can be the first one to charge out from the starter block like a sprinter.

*Cols. 677-678.

Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, the President in his Address has outlined the priorities and focus of the Government and Singaporeans in the years to come. He defined a "New World Order" with its impending challenges, citing examples such as the recent global economic downturn and the H1N1 flu pandemic. However, he left the question as to how multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore will cope and respond to these challenges for debate. He called for a fresh rethink of perspectives and creative solutions from all Singaporeans.

As such, I would like to begin by extending my appreciation to the Government as it is due to its forward-looking approach in crafting policies that have enabled Singapore to be where it is today. We have built ourselves a successful and harmonious nation that has been the envy but widely recognised by others.

Nevertheless, we should never underestimate the undercurrents of change and the complacency of continued success. Our policies must meet the needs and feel the pulse of the people.

Thus, it is imperative that we constantly review and tweak our strategies and policies to ensure its alignment to the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans.

Many issues have been discussed over the last three days. I would like to discuss three more issues that we may need to address to better prepare ourselves for the New World Order.

Firstly, policies in the New World Order. Sir, our Prime Minister mentioned in the House yesterday that the world beyond the crisis will not be the same again. This is not just another cyclical downturn followed by recovery but the world economy is undergoing a structural shift instead. I feel that the New World Order is likely to be characterised by shorter economic cycles, more integrated and globalised marketplace, high mobility among products, services, funds as well as human, without the exception of Singaporeans. Many economists have called for more flexibility in all markets in responding to the needs of the New World Order. Therefore, it is important that we continue to refine our policies to make it more relevant to this New Order.

Let us take the real estate policies as an example. The cost and management of real estate ownership and usage often form part of the evaluation criteria in a business decision-making process. While the real estate investment trusts have increased real estate's liquidity as a form of investment vehicle, real estate still remains relatively illiquid, with high transaction cost and operates in a relatively inefficient market.

Over the years, the URA has increased the level of transparency in the real estate market by releasing useful data to the public. Many stakeholders that I have met in the real estate industry have welcomed this greater transparency. As we move forward, the URA should enhance the partitioning, or what they call classification of the released data, which would certainly provide greater transparency to the real estate players and investors in their decision-making process, thus, contributing towards reducing the inefficiency of the real estate market.

Sir, we need to continuously refine our real estate policies so that they are relevant to the times. For example, the need for flexibility and the shorter economic cycles would mean that companies may require shorter leases as part of their risk reduction strategy, if they look at real estate as a factor of production. On a related issue, we should ask ourselves if the current lease structure of land in Singapore is the most optimal one, taking into account of the current needs of the society, such as ageing society, as well as the current socio-economic landscape, namely, globalisation. In addition, with added competition in the region and globally, as each city attempts to have a stake in the global city arena, we need to continue our effort in positioning our city-state not only as a place for real estate investment and consumption but also as a place to live, work and play. However, above all, I feel that our policies should facilitate the creation of Singapore as a home for all Singaporeans.

This brings me to my next point, which is housing and well-being of Singaporeans in the New World Order. Sir, the President in his Address spoke about Singapore being an Asian city with a high quality of life. The housing market represents homes where Singaporeans live. In particular, its significance is apparent where the majority of Singaporeans own our homes.

In the academic literature, home is often described as a haven. To me, a home is where one should feel secure, safe, comfortable, peaceful and able to live with our loved ones. It is where one grows, develops and achieves the best that one can be. It is a place or space where people can retreat and relax. Housing encompasses a bundle of characteristics that are integral to the family well-being. These characteristics include the physical and availability of housing, its relationship to the occupants and the neighbourhood conditions.

During my engagements with my constituents, I observe an increasing number of certain segments of my constituents facing problems in meeting their commitments from home ownership. At the same time, I have seen an increasing trend of Singaporeans opting to rent HDB flats as a way out of their housing problems, such as the inability to pay their mortgage loans. Due to increased demand, many fall into the long waiting list for rental flats. There are also young couples who are eagerly waiting to buy flats direct from the HDB.

Buying a home, be it a HDB flat or private property would require a large capital outlay, particularly the initial capital payment and long-term commitment from the buyers. Although the CPF provides the avenue for paying this long-term financial commitment, however, it turns into a burdensome experience when retrenchment sets in and there is not adequate money in the CPF account. This may become more apparent with the uncertain future.

Sir, I would like to urge the Government to continue to explore more housing options for Singaporeans with different circumstances. In addition, we need to provide Singaporeans the options that can be achieved within a reasonable time so as not to affect the stability of the well-being of Singaporeans and their family members.

Since I started helping at the Meet-the-People Sessions back in 1997, I witnessed how hard the HDB staff worked to help individuals and families, who have difficulties, in securing their homes. Our policies have also been refined to help more Singaporeans cope with the changing socio-economic landscape. While there are those who could be helped, there are also those whose circumstances are more difficult to address. I am concerned that our inability to secure homes for these Singaporeans will affect their well-being.

Due to their inability to secure a home for themselves, we have seen many Singaporeans made alternative arrangements to find shelter on their own. There are those who have to be separated from their families while waiting for their accommodation to come. I have seen family members having to stay apart, where their kids stay at one relative's home, while their parents stay at another relative's home. In addition, I met a single mother who shared with me that her son had run away from a temporary shelter as he could not withstand the pressure of having to cramp in the home of her relative. I believe there are other examples.

Sir, I feel that the home is an important institution for an individual, the family and the society. My concern is that these families may be driven into dysfunctionalities or, even worst, go deeper into the dysfunctionality cycle without a proper home.

Every Singaporean has the potential to contribute to our success. However, without a proper home, that potential may not be realised or be hampered. I can still remember how I felt my family's well-being improved when my parents took care of our home needs since I was a young boy. We started staying in a row of wooden houses in Joo Chiat. Following the resettlement, my parents rented a flat at Marine Terrace. With hard work and commitment to improve the family's well-being, my parents bought a three-room flat in Bedok South before settling down in a four-room flat in Tampines till today. My father believes in being prudent in his home purchases, however, he feels that having a reasonable home is important for the family's well-being. We need to continue to inculcate the values of being prudent and educate Singaporeans on the true meaning of home ownership in Singapore.

Sir, I welcome the recent refinement to the HDB rental policy to ensure that only those who deserve should be allocated a rental flat. Recently, I have been receiving increasing requests from my constituents to rent HDB flats as well as to purchase smaller flats. Realising that the queue for rental flats is long, some residents have shared that they do not mind purchasing smaller flats, such as a two-room flat, but they are unable to do so due to the high cost.

As such, in addition to the available rental flats, I would like to propose to the Government to consider setting aside two-room flats with a limited bundle of rights for purchase on shorter leases to families or those who may need a temporary reprieve from the downturn or any other personal crisis. This concept could ride on the current studio apartment system for our senior citizens but the criterion is further extended to certain segments of the population. We can limit the bundle of rights attached to the flats, such as the rights to trade in the open market and the tenure of the flat to serve its purpose. I feel that the tenure of the flat should not be too short a time for the families to recover from the crisis that they are facing. On the other hand, it should not be too long as this may discourage them from progressing towards a higher level. Perhaps a five to 10-year lease would be appropriate. While we want to provide temporary shelter for Singaporeans, we should also facilitate them to scale their own peaks of excellence once they are ready to do so.

I understand that the main problem faced by those who are unable to secure homes for themselves is simply because they are already entrenched in the deep end of the problems which goes beyond just the housing issue. I also recognise that my recommendation is just part of the solution to the main problem. We still need the many-helping-hands approach to assist Singaporeans secure their homes and get their family's deep-rooted problems out of their life. Above all, the core of the matter is still to ensure Singaporeans have stable employment so that they can pay their home mortgage or rental and get back on their feet.

Sir, I believe that further extension of housing options would enable the sandwich class such as those from the middle lower income and those affected by the downturn better manage their financial standing in meeting the challenges of the New World Order. In this way, even those who fall from their peaks of excellence can recuperate and recover and start their journey to climb towards their peaks again. To me, most importantly, the availability of more housing options would enable the healthy functioning of the family unit, thus, contributing to the progress of our nation.

Thirdly, Sir, is the New Singapore mindset and norms in the New World Order. The New World Order would require us to face certain uncertainties. The Singapore mindset must also be tuned to such a phenomenon. The current norm/ status quo may no longer apply in 10 years' time. Old strategies and outlooks have to be replaced with those thought through out of the box. Without us realising, our children may be preparing for jobs that have yet to be invented. The New World Order would also cause those unable to adapt to the changes and capitalise on opportunities to fall behind and this would likely impose stress lines onto the lower income.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is my observation that, generally, Singaporeans have developed a certain status quo rites of passage. Most famously is the five Cs that Singaporeans hope to realise. I would like to add another C and that is the courage to persevere, courage to stay resilient, courage to innovate, courage to adapt and, to me, most importantly, courage to pursue their own peaks of excellence. This attitude must be embraced by all Singaporeans and organisations here, and it is my hope that the Ministries especially would factor this in their policy making.

One learning point from the Women's Everest team which, I think, is an excellent example of the Singapore mindset. It was reported that the team had to delay their plans due to certain groups not wanting to support their bid. But due to their perseverance and a strong can-do belief, they have now conquered their ultimate peak of excellence – Mount Everest itself.

Allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, the uncertain future requires us to think differently and take actions in a different way too. We must continue efforts to strengthen families, as it is one of society’s institutions. Today, some members of our community still face problems related to the issue of dysfunctional families. This is due to the various reasons, which are usually complex and inter-related.

In this matter, we may need to look for different ways to solve this issue, and change the practices and habits in dealing with the issue of family. This is in addition to analysing our system to ensure that everyone in the family can exercise their responsibilities in any situation, whether during difficult times or when the family breaks up.

For example, we must continue efforts to spread the message of good practices in financial planning. Seminars and workshops like "MoneySense" and "Smart Spending" must go beyond the small segment of the community that has already been identified.

These programmes must form some modules as part of an inter-connected family programme that is targeted at children, elderly, singles, married couples as well as other segments of the community.

Another issue that needs to be re-looked is family planning. This issue should not be seen as merely a numbers issue, that is, in terms of the number of children we have. When we talk about family planning, we must look at the way we raise our children as long as they are under our care. We must study the issues of family development and survival.

This includes the topics of daily living, education, morals and other needs of our family members. During my Meet-the-People-Sessions, I often meet female divorcees who share with me their experiences on the failure of their ex-husbands to pay for their children’s maintenance after the divorce.

The ex-husband usually gives excuses that he must take care of his new family, which may include the children from his new wife, and thus making it difficult for him to support his children from the previous marriage. These will give the family more problems and can be the main source of stress that worsens the problem until the family becomes dysfunctional.

As we move forward, we must update our system to ensure that those involved, especially the children, are not affected by this situation. To make this effort successful, all parties involved in family development, including main stakeholders like husbands, wives, parents and the couple’s relatives as well as community and religious leaders, must play their roles to expand our community’s perspectives on family issues.

The New Order in an uncertain future will require society to have a mindset that wants to continue improving their skills, as a preparation for the coming changes in a new socio-economic landscape. In the past decade, we have seen the shortening of economic cycles, apart from speedy advances in technology and economic engines that shapes the world’s agenda.

Our community must act fast towards these changes, not only to ride through the effects from the emerging challenges, but also to take advantage of opportunities in the New Order. What is important is that this value must be part of the Singapore spirit so that we can continue to survive and be relevant, in any era of globalisation.

*Cols. 679-682.

( In English ): I am pleased to note the Government's effort in reaffirming its commitment to Singapore and in moving forward to face the challenges of the 21st century. Managing the challenges of the New World Order is a journey in which all Singaporeans would travel together. There is no overnight solution but we should stay confident of our system that was built upon sound fundamental principles that has brought us to where we are today.

To stay competitive, we should have thecourage to fine-tune, innovate, keep on trying to find relevant solutions. If Singapore makes fundamental changes to the way we work and embrace a culture of innovation and change, we will attract like-minded friends who share our vision in our island city state. This will help gravitate talents and investors to share our vision to build a vibrant and cosmopolitan Singapore, where a diverse group of people from all over the world can work, live and play.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has provided us a template to ensure that Singapore continues to evolve and sustain success in the future. The Government, through its plans, has to ensure that every Singaporean has a part to play and that we have to take responsibility for Singapore, our country, our home, to be a more inclusive society for all.

Sir, on that note, I thank you.

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to thank the President for his Address.

The backdrop to this debate could hardly be more different from our last in 2006. Back then, everyone was looking forward to a more sustained period of development. Unfortunately, the good times came to an end too soon. For some, it seemed that the party had ended before it began.

I have no doubt that Singapore will emerge from this recession stronger. We are not a typical nation and we will continue to defy all odds. We are a very young nation with only 50 years of self-government. If we take a look at the other countries which also became independent around the same period, such as Fiji (1970), Mauritius (1968), Maldives (1965), Kuwait (1961), Rwanda (1962), Sierra Leone (1961) and Somalia (1960), I think we can pat ourselves on the shoulder and tell ourselves that we have done relatively well. We managed to achieve economic growth and become a global city, while preserving social harmony and this is no mean feat considering our diverse racial and religious mix.

So how do we continue to survive and do well in the next 50 years and more? We must continue with our efforts to build a people with greater initiative, entrepreneurial drive and creativity so that we remain competitive and, at the same time, a people who is gracious, outward looking and yet, inclusive. Due to our small size and diverse economy, it is not possible to grow all the manpower and skill sets to match all our existing and future needs.

One way to meet the manpower needs is to make our job market open to global talents who have the training, exposure and experience. It is a global world and a global job place. We also need to recruit foreigners to do the jobs that locals are unwilling to do or to supplement our limited local labour force for massive projects, like the MRT network extension and the IRs. Most of these foreigners will come and go, but many will also stay and make Singapore their home. With greater depth and wider breadth of talent comes more diversity. How do we engage our indigenous and new residents and citizens, tap on the multiple talents, expertise and experiences, come to terms with and be understanding and accepting of different views and aspirations?

There is no one solution but I believe that a positive and open attitude would go a long way. When we, as a people, accept and embrace our differences as a strength because we have common objectives, we would have won half the battle. On this, the Government can lead by example.

Another step towards a more mature society is when people can think for themselves, want to be involved and pro-actively participate in the community instead of waiting to be called upon.

With collective citizen participation in all spheres of Singapore life, rootedness to Singapore will be the natural and inevitable consequence. This profound truth was beautifully illustrated in the charming and familiar story of "The Little Prince". When the fox told the young prince, "It is the time you have spent with your rose that makes your rose so important." So what matters to us and what we feel responsible for is what we have invested time and effort into; to make our stand on; to defend and to debate over, but also the magnanimity to see differences and graciousness to accept failure and defeat.

Indeed, in the recent AWARE incident, many people and the media have invested a lot of time, effort and attention. Many see this episode as a coming of age for our civil society. The incident also showed how traditional and new media can be complementary and enrich each other's content. The Straits Times ' reporter Hong Xinyi in her 8th May article wrote:

"It was like the best of both worlds – logging on to a constantly changing homepage that was automatically loaded with timely, interesting content from both traditional and new media that had been curated by your favourite people, with commentary and discussion to boot."

For the AWARE incident, people are gathering information from both sources. They did not have to turn to new media for alternative information and views as these are reflected in traditional media. However, this is not without risks, as a hoax by a 22-year old Irish student demonstrates. According to a 6th May Agence France-Presse report, Shane Fitzgerald wanted to test how our globalised, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability. He posted a poetic, but phony quote on Wikipedia which was attributed to Oscar-winning French composer Maurice Jarre who died in March. As the quote had no referenced sources, it was quickly discovered and removed by Wikipedia, but not before the quote was lifted by mainstream papers. The fake quote appeared in obituaries published in the Guardian , the London Independent , and in various Indian and Australian newspapers. The hoax remained undiscovered for weeks until the student emailed the newspapers to inform them about the misleading quote. He had wanted to find out how journalists are using the Internet as a primary source. He had expected his fake entry to get into blogs, but not the mainstream newspapers.

This is indeed a reversal of positions. After all, people generally trust the traditional media more.

Hence, Singaporeans need to be ready for a totally different media landscape which will continue to change by leaps and bounds. This is not a skill that is "SPUR-able". For our people to be knowledgeable about media – what it can do, what kind of information it offers, whether to believe it or not, I think there needs to be a lighter touch for both traditional and new media. This will increase participation, debate, awareness and promote a better understanding on issues. Alternative views should not be relegated to platforms that may be obscure initially but increasingly gain prominence for being the underdog, popularity for the sensationalism and, worse still, perceived credibility as the majority voice out there.

In the cyberspace, people search for information and, whether knowingly or unknowingly, they search for views that reinforce their own. It is ironical that while the Internet offers a wealth of information free for all, we can become even more skewed and entrenched in our own way of thinking if we only choose to read what we want.

As the Singapore society matures, Singaporeans have to think more by ourselves. Without this ability, it will be difficult for our nation to move forward to a higher level.

A good example of the folly of leaving important assessment and decision-making to others is the financial products fiasco which saw the high notes of emotions and more than mini-bonding at the Speakers' Corner. Many educated investors did not read the fine print before they committed their hard-earned money. We must be able to make independent and informed decisions and, ultimately, be responsible for the consequences of our decisions.

The Prime Minister's announcement yesterday of the changes to the political system will create a more diverse platform for the making of the country's policies. After the next General Election, there will be at least 18 members outside the ruling party in Parliament. With more voices in this Chamber, the public will need to navigate through the different viewpoints expressed and form its own judgment. To make informed and, hopefully, wise decisions, they must have access to the right and relevant information.

Our Hansard documents debates within this Chamber, with the "why's and how's" our policies were formulated and evolved over the decades. Currently, public online access to our parliamentary reports is limited to this term of Parliament, ie, from 2006. As a nation with the leading e-government system, it is unthinkable that for a member of public to access Parliament reports prior to this term, one has to plough through the volumes in hard copy at the Central Library. It is not as if the reports are not already digitised. In fact, records from the 1950s are available on LawNet, but for a high fee that law firms pay. Parliamentary debates and discussions are matters of public interest and Singaporeans who are interested should be able to access contents of past debates freely. The UK and Australian Hansard are available to anyone with an Internet connection. Hence, I hope our people could at least have free unlimited online access to the Hansard at our public libraries' terminals, if not from home.

This leads me to my next topic. I am not sure if the restricted access to our Hansard is a symptom of our governmental system where everything is tied to KPIs and cost-benefit analysis. Are we having a situation while we talk about a whole-of-Government approach, there is a silo focus on individual agency's performance targets? I would advocate for a more creative and better utilisation of Government resources and facilities to reduce wastage and provide better public services. I will now give an example in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, in my constituency, Queenstown, the Tanglin Halt post office was closed down a few months ago. Many residents complained to me that it caused them a lot of inconvenience and they requested that we consider reopening the post office. Response given by SingPost is that Ghim Moh Post Office is just nearby; it is within two kilometres, and there are also shops selling stamps and SAM machines in the vicinity. Therefore, it is not necessary to keep Tanglin Halt Post Office in operation.

SingPost is a listed company. It naturally has to focus on its bottomline and shareholders' interests. Besides, I realise that the residents only visit the Post Office once in a while to send parcels and registered letters, moreover, they can pay their fines at 7-Eleven convenient stores. And so, I do understand why it is not profitable for Tanglin Halt Post Office to continue its operations as it is lacking business justification.

Therefore, I suggested that the residents pay their fines through GIRO or SAM machines. It is more convenient and less time-consuming that way. Unfortunately, many of my residents are elderly people. They are not IT savvy, and so they prefer to make payments using cash. That is why they would rather take a bus down to Ghim Moh Post Office that is two kilometres away. I believe that not only elderly folks but many of us prefer to deal with a person who can respond and not a machine.

After some checks, I realise that majority of these payments made at post office are Government bills, for instance, TV licence, maid work permit, utilities, income tax, CPF, traffic fines, hospital fees, etc. Honestly, SingPost's main role is not to collect these payments for the Government. I believe that SingPost does impose an administration fee for this service. But if the Government can pay this administration fee to a listed company, then can other Government agencies take over this role?

Many Government agencies have offices in the neighbourbood. I would like to propose that we allow the public to pay their Government bills through these office counters, for instance, counters at the community centres, library, HDB, police stations, CPF Board, etc. According to preliminary calculations, there are altogether 166 Government offices as compared to 60 post offices in Singapore. I am sure it will bring greater convenience to the public if we allow them to pay their bills at these places.

Of course, it is not People's Association's KPI to collect traffic fines, but if the Government would like to improve its capacity to serve the public, it should consider doing so. There may be administrative logistics involved but if SingPost can do it, I am sure the various Government bodies will also be able to coordinate among themselves.

For example, this year during Budget debate, I have proposed that we allow the school carpark situated at Lengkok Bahru be opened for public use. To do that, it also requires inter-Ministry efforts and coordination. I am heartened to know that MOE and HDB are now working together on how to make this happen. I hope that the Singapore Public Service Commission can look into this and see how we can better make use of our resources more creatively and efficiently for the benefit of our people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion.

*Cols. 683-684.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, at this stage of the debate on the President’s Address, I will focus on the coming security challenges and evolving the political system, including responding to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on changes to the system.

First, the coming security challenges. The security landscape of Singapore is set to become more demanding than ever in the coming months. The opening of the two Integrated Resorts with casinos is just a few months away. This event has the potential to threaten the quality of life in Singapore for all of us if mishandled from a law and order perspective.

I am aware that the law enforcement agencies have been making extensive preparations for this event. The casinos will demand tremendous resources towards meeting criminal activity of an unprecedented nature in Singapore. Indeed, the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) Addendum states that the Ministry is studying how overseas organisations deal with transnational crimes and criminal organisations, and strengthening measures against loan shark activity. It is foreseeable that Police would need to have heavy presence, both inside and outside the casinos, both in uniform and plainclothes, to battle the problems caused by foreign gangs, prostitution, illegal money-lending, money-laundering, casino fraud, robberies and thefts, among others. These are complex problems and our approach must be wholehearted from the beginning, otherwise it will be much more difficult to recover if organised crime takes root here.

In 2005, when the casinos were debated in the House and among the public, thousands, such as the group called Families against the Casino Threat in Singapore (FACTS), campaigned against them. The Government assured Singaporeans that measures would be put in place to reduce the collateral damage to society which the casinos would bring. The Home Affairs Minister told Singaporeans that the Ministry would do its best to keep Singapore safe and secure, which would need adequate resources.

Last August, when the House debated an adjournment motion on security lapses, the Second Home Affairs Minister showed a table of police-officer to population ratio in Singapore, Hongkong and New York. Singapore was seen to have the smallest ratio at 239 officers per 100,000 population, which was 60% of Hongkong’s ratio and 55% of New York’s ratio. We were also told of huge numbers of overtime hours clocked by our Immigration officers. At that time, without counting the added demands of having casinos, it was already acknowledged that the Home Team was stretched and strained and, unable to clear their leave, leading to a Human Factors Study on operational fatigue within the Home Team. This study confirmed the work overload and understaffing in several areas even before the casinos are functional.

Since preparations for the casinos commenced, there has been further drawdown on manpower as experienced officers have been drawn from other units to man the new units in charge of casino-related matters.

Meanwhile, our population of 4.84 million is expected to continue to grow, to a capacity of six million eventually. This population also has a high percentage of foreigners who bring new law enforcement challenges due to language and lifestyle differences.

In addition, on the community policing front, there is a public perception that police presence in housing estates has dropped from the levels in the 1990s when the Neighbourhood Police Posts were in full swing. This can be explained by the fall in intimate patrols such as foot and bicycle patrols, fewer house visits, and shortened Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) hours.

MHA’s Addendum states that it will recruit 1,500 additional officers into the Home Team as a whole, with these officers being spread to police, immigration and other units. Will this be sufficient to meet the challenges in the coming months and years? How does this figure compare with the findings of the Human Factors Study? Will Singaporeans find that the spillover effects of the casinos were not sufficiently contained because inadequate resources led to a deterioration in the quality of life in Singapore? The Government must make these answers known in the coming months.

Sir, next, I move on to evolving the political system. The Member for Hougang has already touched on some aspects of why the existing political system cannot be said to be robust. He cited how the Executive Government controlled Parliament due to its overwhelming majority and why the only real check on the ruling Party had to come from outside it through elected Opposition Members.

Our firm belief is that it is the threatened or actual loss of elected seats which will temper the dominance of the ruling Party. More than any parliamentary debate, this threat of loss of territory reminds the Government of where its mandate comes from and that they govern at the will of the people. It also enables Opposition MPs to prove that they are able to take care for their constituents and work with them directly to improve their lives.

Some PAP Members in this House have different views and they all believe that continued domination of the PAP in political, social and economic arenas of our society is the best way forward and best assurance of the future of Singapore. Some PAP MPs also believe that the PAP’s self checks are enough to ensure a clean and non-corrupt Government as Opposition parties may become corrupt when they take over the Government. We believe we can leave it to Singaporeans to judge and decide whether they agree with this thesis.

I would like now to respond to the Prime Minister's speech yesterday on the changes to the political system. Overall, Sir, my distinct impression is that the ruling Party now realises that it has gone too far with the GRC system, and that this has affected the political development of its own MPs. The ruling Party may also realise that the demise of the Opposition is not good for the PAP nor for Singapore. Let me now move to the specific changes announced.

First, the proposals regarding the size of electoral constituencies. It is natural to welcome the formation of more Single Member Constituencies (SMCs), or single seats, from the legal limit of eight up to 12. The Workers' Party's position still remains that we should revert the entire system to SMCs. Though the PAP's claim is that GRCs ensure minority representation, we have seen in Singapore's past that minority candidates were elected as individuals without any need for such affirmative actions. The PAP's own minority Ministers and MPs, and the late Workers' Party's Secretary-General, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, are testament to this. Be that as it may, this increase from eight to 12 single-member seats is a step in the right direction as far as we are concerned.

Next, the indication that the size of GRCs will be reduced overall is overdue. It will ensure that each candidate identifies more with the voters and is more accountable for outcomes. It also lowers the barrier for electoral competition, which should in theory increase the likelihood of contest and enable more people to vote. However, this will mean extensive reconfigurations of existing boundaries, which will cause confusion among voters and affect the work of political parties. As such, the new configurations should be made known and justified many months in advance of the elections.

Next, I refer to the proposal to assure at least nine Opposition Members in Parliament through the NCMP scheme, up from the current legal default minimum of three. Though this can never replace having elected Opposition MPs, it is overall supportable because it will give greater recognition to the desire of voters who cast votes for opposition candidates in significant numbers, which would otherwise be shut out in a pure "first past the post" system. It will also facilitate Opposition parties serving the people in Parliament based on the results obtained at the General Elections.

Sir, regarding the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme, the Workers' Party continues to be against the scheme as we believe that MPs must contest the election as an essential pre-condition to obtain some sort of mandate from the people.

Sir, there are still other unsatisfactory aspects of political elections in Singapore which we believe should be changed. These include removing the Prime Minister’s Office from being in charge of elections and having an independent elections commission. Also, the need for greater transparency and public accountability in the way electoral boundaries are drawn.

Nevertheless, overall, the Workers' Party believes that the changes announced yesterday are improvements over the current system.

Finally, Sir, as the ultimate beneficiaries of such changes should be the people and not political parties, the people's views on these changes should be actively sought before they are finalised.

With that, Sir, I thank the President for his Address.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.15 pm until 3.40 pm.