DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

(Debate on the Address): Debate resumed.

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to join in the debate. I support the motion in thanking the President for his Address.

I also thank the Prime Minister for addressing the numerous concerns of my colleagues who have spoken for the past three days and for setting up the Economic Strategies Committee to study the long-term economic transformation of Singapore and to review specific strategies to develop different sectors. He also temporarily ended speculation on how the electoral system will be changed to cater for a wider range of views.

The President touched on "Building Our Future Singapore in an Uncertain World". We are indeed living in an uncertain world especially after the collapse of the financial system in the US has disrupted the global economy and the globally feared H1N1 pandemic flu has finally landed on our shores yesterday with our very first case being tested positive. Many Singaporeans I have spoken to seek reassurance and messages of hope during this critical period. In short, they expect the "New World Order" to be within reach. The ground sentiment is that people want to see more concrete measures. Let me elaborate.

Sir, the Prime Minister's speech has clarified some people’s impression that the Addenda to the President’s speech did not seem like a holistic blueprint with clear vision, precise objectives, coordinated actions and milestones and key performance indices in addressing the much anticipated "New World Order", geopolitically and economically. They hoped to see bold vision with the balance of steady hands that is believable, identifiable and achievable, a vision that inspires, galvanise and work. Apart from the day-to-day issues, people need hope for themselves and their children and strong confidence that in unity the new vision in addressing the "New World Order" is within reach when hearts, minds, blood and sweat are fused together as a nation.

Singaporeans are used to the Government providing a simple, clear and common vision regardless of the occasion to fire up their hope, energy and focus to transform ourselves, our society into something we can identify with and work towards. The Government is expected, once again, to rekindle in our people a national pride that takes us beyond what we have achieved today, in the short 50 years of self-government. Many gratefully remember how our Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had set aflame the hearts and minds of Singaporeans in turbulent times. They appreciate Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s sterling guidance when he was our Prime Minister. That Singapore enjoyed tremendous growth (until the US financial system collapse) and continues to attract to our shores eminent businessmen, much coveted global investors, technology and scientists under the open and inclusive governance of our current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong have not gone unnoticed. At least for Singapore, the Chinese saying that "wealth does not last three generations" is not true as our Government has always been guided by a clear, fundamental vision to secure Singapore’s future.

The true grit of our leaders is being tested during this downturn. We have read of how people in the region and far away have been comparing the state of affairs in their countries with ours, often with a tinge of envy that we can continue to push through tough but unpopular policies that ensure our survival in the immediate and long term. In difficult times, people look to their leaders to crystallise their vision into simple messages to the people to spark their inner strength, bring forth their passion and let them put in their extra effort without asking. When people are fired up with real hope and not false dreams we would have a continuous and momentous drive that would further catalyse change, focus the administrative service into decisive and pragmatic actions and foster unity of purpose as a nation. As Minister of State for Defence, Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee, said yesterday, Americans need strong leadership, so do we. Now is the time for the Government to launch a 10-year vision and blueprint before the depressing numbers of the economy start to pull at our heartstrings and the tectonic plates of the "New World Order", both geopolitically and economically, begin to shift irreversibly. I therefore laud the Prime Minister for his bold and resolute address to this House yesterday which has outlined the direction forward in bold and well-thought out strategies. We take cognisance that we are limited by land and other natural resource constraints.

It is therefore imperative for us to identify the growth areas where we have our natural competitive advantage to optimise the yields from our precious resources, which include our people. This will consequently create a virtuous cycle of better paying jobs, greater job satisfaction and more work-life balance for our people and will ensure that niche businesses created will not be easily overtaken by others. In the same vein, we need to groom and retain talent by creating a conducive environment for local and foreign talents who want to make Singapore their home. We need to co-create a liveable city state which will fulfil the needs and aspirations of their children as well as their own needs when they age or retire. Singapore can be different and should be different from New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Shanghai. Talents come here because it is a place to maximise profits, it gives them a unique living experience complete with security and with cultural and religious diversity co-existing harmoniously, which is not easily replicable elsewhere.

Sir, I would like to continue in Mandarin to give an update to what Minister of State Koo Tsai Kee had said yesterday on an article that is published in the Lianhe Zaobao today to show Singapore's changing fortunes.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] In today's Chinese newspaper Lianhe Zaobao , there is an article titled: "Where does the problem lie?" It is a commentary article by the foreign press and the author is Ouyang Wenfeng. He wrote in his article, the United States Military Academy at West Point held a graduation ceremony last Saturday, the US Defence Minister gave a speech at the ceremony, the top student this year is not an American, it is a Singaporean named Li Wei Xian. He majored in Economics at West Point, and is planning to return to Singapore after graduation. A great talent like him, remains dedicated to serving his country. It is no wonder that Singapore can surpass Malaysia within a short period of time and remains the most powerful economy in Asia. We are a small state, but yet we achieve so much and, so, Singaporeans are proud about it.

When Singapore was separated from Malaysia, was Singapore more powerful than Malaysia? Today, the whole world knows about Singapore. If I tell my friends in US that I came from Malaysia, in eight or nine cases out of 10, they have no idea where Malaysia is. But, if I tell them it is near Singapore, they get an impression almost immediately. However, I sigh with emotion. There are talents in Singapore, there are also talents in Malaysia and they graduated from UK Cambridge, Oxford or US Harvard, or Yale University. But, how many of them will return to their homeland? Beside those graduated from top notch Universities, even for local graduates, if they can get a job and a green card in US, they will not return to their homeland.

*Cols. 685-686.

( In English ): **** Sir, I end the quotation here.

On investing in education, we need to continue to attract more foreign talented students at their tender age so that they can have more time to be assimilated into our system and society. We should hatch a plan to expose our local and foreign talents to acquire soft skills through cultural exchanges, immersion and exchange programmes, drama, debates, scientific conferences and competitions, exchange internships, host markets or industries throughout their schooling curriculum. We could ensure that the same talents, when they are still young and energetic eight to 10 years after graduation and after appropriate preparation, are sent overseas for meaningful assignments for a certain period where they will cut their teeth, round their corners, hone their skills, immerse in the foreign environment to work with their foreign counterparts to gain valuable experiences in an environment that will widen their perspective, challenge their knowledge, push them to find solutions in uncharted and unfamiliar territories and deepen their ability to examine issues from the diverse perspectives of their host country. If we espouse lifelong learning, this is where we start to equip them with true skills and experiences. Their tasks would include making or grooming new friends, developing their own network for their own benefit in the advancement of their career and for Singapore indefinitely.

Sir, let me move on. The President emphasised the importance of investing in our healthcare system and enhancing our 3M financing framework to assure every Singaporean access to high quality healthcare. The Ministry of Health has announced, amongst others, that Medisave will now be extended beyond the six chronic diseases to include outpatient treatment of schizophrenia and major depression. I am heartened to note that five new nursing homes are expected to be built in the next two years, including one catering to the special needs of psychiatric patients. This will greatly ease the financial burdens of many families, especially during this economic uncertainty. Many people welcome Minister Khaw Boon Wan's pledge that the Health Ministry intends to "strengthen capabilities of family physicians, especially in chronic disease management, mental health, palliative and home medical care" by promoting "best practice guidelines for family physicians and in our polyclinics" and to ensure that "Intermediate and Long-Term Care (ILTC) for our ageing population is adequately funded and provided well". Such reassurances are very well received by Singaporeans who prefer to have their senior family members receive quality care on home ground.

On 24th March 2009, MOH responded to an inquiry by my parliamentary colleague, Dr Lily Neo, that there are about 25,000 patients with serious mental illness in Singapore, principally schizophrenia. Ten percent of them are institutionalised at Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and psychiatric homes. The rest continue their treatment in the community, often in partnership with IMH. Given the considerable number of patients seeking such treatment and, I believe, the trend is upward, I urge MOH to consider decentralising the specialised psychiatry services to the heartlands. I am aware that certain local polyclinics and general practitioners at the heartlands already provide such services. But I suggest that we extend the availability and reach of psychiatry services to all polyclinics, where feasible, in partnership with the general practitioners with such expertise. The advantages are obvious, considering the pressures faced by our greying population, our dual income families and school-going children in our highly strung and competitive society. This will ease the burden of patients and their loved ones who accompany them for treatments regularly.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has reiterated in the Defence Ministry's Addendum that "National Service remains the backbone of the SAF, and maintaining the motivation and morale of our National Servicemen remains a key priority. MINDEF will continue to recognise the contributions of our National Servicemen, their family members and employers, and work on enhancing their commitment to the defence of Singapore."

The several accidents and deaths of NSFs and NSmen on reservist duties, both in the SAF and SPF, in recent years have highlighted the need for insurance coverage. Besides what is currently provided for service and non-service injuries via the public service, I learn that National Servicemen are given an option to opt for a personal accident insurance coverage to cover them throughout the year as well as the recall period. Active servicemen are given an extra $20 monthly allowance to help defray the cost of this insurance but this option is not extended to servicemen who are on reservist. To give family members of our servicemen a greater peace of mind, I urge the Government to consider providing additional coverage for our servicemen on reservist duties paid for by the Government. This will be a strong signal and important gesture of the Government's gratitude towards our National Servicemen.

Minister George Yeo has said in the Foreign Affairs Ministry's Addendum that "Good relations with our closest neighbours, Malaysia and Indonesia, are essential."

Indeed and I hope that, as part of building the good bilateral relations, Members of Parliament and the public/private/people sector representatives from Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore should continue to have more frequent interaction and cooperation.

In the same vein, in relation to bilateral relations with Malaysia, Singaporeans cheered on hearing the Malaysian Prime Minister's clear message during his recent visit to Singapore that both sides should embark on a new relationship without the baggage of the past.

Mr Speaker, Sir, an investor has opined that, while the mighty world powers can print money and pump prime, they cannot print finite basic resources, especially basic commodities needed for economic growth when the world recovers. If this is true, we as a small and neutral nation, proven to be of no threat to any of the big boys, are in the best position to buy into concessions or invest in companies owning concessions but are in need of cash in this downturn. We stand to benefit by being the neutral and least threatening intermediary that can secure precious and finite resources at this trying time and supply the Chinese, Indians, Japanese and Koreans when most or all the other cylinders of the global economy start to kick in, say, three to five years' time.

In addition, as technology firms find themselves cash strapped when credit is scarce, it would be wise for us to offer, selectively, to invest in them. We have shown our Sovereign Wealth Fund to be the most transparent and the least of adversarial threats, even in the sharp scrutinising eyes of the US Congress and EU Commission. We should invest the blood and sweat savings of our forefathers prudently and boldly to secure a stronger foothold for our children and grandchildren to build upon, after we carefully evaluate and identify the sphere of our natural competence and competitive advantage. We cannot bring our nest egg to our graves, after we allocate sufficiently for rainy days. We should ensure that each generation is enterprising and creating new sources of value and wealth for our next generation, while investing prudently and steadfastly in the wealth accumulated and passed on by the previous generations, which is not our blood and sweat to claim, for the optimum benefit of ensuing generations.

We recognise that it would be foolhardy to expect a Temasek 2. But we do need an Enterprise Builder and Enterprise Enabler. It is true that what is lacking is not just about money. However, we should put our money where our mouth is. We should allow some of our hard earned reserves to help us create more than just monetary returns by bringing some of tomorrow's best viable technologies and most promising industries that are fit for our natural competitive advantages for other markets to create goodwill. We should be willing to sacrifice even a little on absolute monetary return in exchange for the precious intangible benefits that could help spark and thrust Singapore forward into the next decades.

We are proud that our reserve managers in GIC and Temasek, when benchmarked against investment agencies, have been credible, successful and viewed with admiration globally in their community. We further acknowledge Temasek's sterling role since inception of its stewardship and the building of many of our great Singapore Enterprises in many forms, directly or indirectly, or in concert with other agencies or leaders. The question is, could we harness the same resources, people and spirit to help create a second renaissance in the building and rebuilding of our local businesses and enterprises? If not Temasek or Temasek 2, what would be the best way or best institution or combination of people and institutions for us to focus on this, going forward? If and when the Economic Strategies Committee crystallises its action plans in response to the Prime Minister's vision and blueprint, would such an institution be an effective added medium in reshaping Singapore's new business and enterprise landscape?

With global warming becoming inevitable, given our hot and humid climate, Singapore may not be a comfortable and choice place to live and work for some people. This would adversely affect our aspiration to become a First Class Home. Is there something feasible that needs to be done or could be done? I recall reading that a child reportedly asked Minister Mentor if we could air-condition Singapore. At a separate occasion, Minister Mentor reportedly mentioned about technology embedded apparels that could adjust the external temperature of the person to a comfortable and optimal temperature, be it colder or warmer than the ambient. They both dared to dream. Do we? Do we have the boldness and tenacity to make dreams come true? Do we have the entrepreneurial wherewithal to further make it commercially successful? Would cooling and lowering the humidity in Singapore bring us a "sixth tap for our water needs"? If the technology is available, will it become affordable just as desalination and NEwater become in time? Can Singapore solve its water constraints and climate change issue together, invest in viable technologies while we do R&D on new ones? If successful, we could market this system in many parts of the world with similar issues. Could this be a business or industry that we can build, while solving our own issues?

3.59 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I stand in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. Like many concerned Singaporeans, I am eager that Singapore and Singaporeans will indeed emerge stronger after this economic recession.

I would like to provide inputs to strengthen Singapore in three areas – namely, economic development; civic consciousness and social services – so that we can realise our vision of a stronger Singapore as we move on to another 50 years and more of self-government.

First, economic development. Sir, the Economic Strategies Committee announced by the Prime Minister yesterday is a much welcome move. The Committee has its work cut out for it in one of the most challenging global economic declines in 60 years.

Singapore's traditional model of attracting Foreign Direct Investments (FDI), especially global MNCs through tax and other incentives, needs updating for the following reasons:

(1) The recession and the economic packages, including bailouts of financial institutions, have left governments worldwide with huge fiscal deficits, which they are compelled to reduce. President Obama is one of the latest to announce changes to the US tax regime, in order to raise more than US$200 billion from overseas US companies over the next decade. The writing is on the wall that Singapore's strategy to offer appealing tax incentives to encourage MNCs will soon lose its relevance, diluting the flow of foreign investments into Singapore.

(2) MNC investments may continue to flock to investment destinations with larger hinterlands, like China and India.

(3) The risk appetite of Singapore's sovereign wealth fund managers, like Temasek, is unlikely to increase with the increased scrutiny of the populace, including PAP MPs, NMPs and Opposition MPs in this House. In its response to public call to become more transparent, Temasek has placed itself under tremendous public pressure and, sometimes, expected to perform even better than seasoned private investors like Warren Buffet, Li Ka Shing and Oei Hong Leong, whose asset portfolios were shaved by the billions. In fact, local tycoon Oei Hong Leong, reputed to be an investor with the Midas touch, was reported to be suing Citibank for $1 billion loss in his investments. With so many Singaporeans giving investment advice on the hindsight, I am not certain that the captains and crew of Temasek and the like will be motivated to take on higher-risk ventures for higher returns. Singapore must find other ways to pay its bills. Hence, the new Economic Strategies Committee will have an essential and challenging task ahead.

Sir, besides addressing the five strategies that the Prime Minister has outlined, I hope the Government and the Economic Strategies Committee will continue tracking the effectiveness of the Resilience Package of this year's Budget.

Sir, there have been mixed evaluations of whether big-ticket measures, such as the Special Risk-sharing Initiative (SRI) and the Jobs Credit Scheme, have achieved their intended outcomes. Although saving jobs and companies is appealing and expected of governments, there is a school of thought which argues that, instead of indiscriminately doing this, might it not be wiser for Government to not overly hamper market forces and artificially resuscitate weaker companies and/or let go of jobs, especially in industries that are set to either disappear or go offshore anyway? Some say Singapore will be stronger in the long run if we bite the bullet and help affected workers make the transition now through specific skills training and more portable healthcare and social security packages.

Sir, Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR) or upgrading the workforce is definitely the right direction to head for a country whose main asset is human capital. However, I urge the Government to continue to hone the programme so that the billions of training dollars in some 800 courses will indeed reap skills upgrade in preparation for an upturn.

Sir, in the field of training consulting, it has been well known that many training programmes fail to deliver expected organisational benefits or improvement in knowledge, skills or attitudes. This has led to the development of a well-known and time-tested model of measuring training effectiveness by Donald Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick's four-level model evaluates training effectiveness from reaction to learning, to behaviour changes and to actual results. Much training dollars go to waste if training does not impact changes at the high level in behaviour or organisational results.

Sir, I applaud the Prime Minister's decision to commission an Economic Strategies Committee and I appeal to the Committee and the relevant Ministries to continue tracking the effectiveness of especially the big-ticket Jobs Credit, SPUR and SRI schemes. Let us fine-tune and even be confident enough to abandon or retire the schemes if they do not serve the purposes for which they were launched.

Next, on civil society: about graciousness and civic consciousness. Sir, in his Address, President Nathan has urged us to match our first-class infrastructure and environment with graciousness. Indeed, if we are to emerge stronger as a nation, as a people, Singapore needs to look beyond infrastructure.

Sir, when I did a quick poll of several professionals on the topic "The Singapore I Would Like to See", almost all of them mentioned the need for our society to be more civil and gracious. In a National Graciousness Index Survey conducted by the agency, Singapore Kindness, Singaporeans scored 58 out of 100 marks. Earlier this year, a Singaporean even felt it necessary for him to quit his banking job to start a non-profit agency called Gracious Singapore Limited to help bring about a more gracious Singapore.

Sir, I agree with the constant call by our leaders to be more gracious and develop a higher sense of civic consciousness. As I visited the temporary market in my ward with NEA officers and my grassroots leaders to urge food sellers to practise more stringent hygiene standards, it baffles me that we have to remind people in the food business to sell clean food. Is there not a moral obligation or a duty amongst us to do that without being reminded and graded?

Recently, when a worker in my ward requested for visitors not to feed the many pigeons at a popular mall because of residents' complaints of litter and bird flu risk, the said worker was beaten up by an unhappy pigeon feeder with a big spade. Although many of my residents, I must say, return to say "thank you" after successful appeals on their behalf, I know of others who threaten to call the press when my fellow MPs and I do not give in to unreasonable demands or demands that are detriment to the good of their neighbourhood. Sometimes, the demands escalate to setting fires on their MPs, throwing chairs at them or threatening to beat them up. Even NMP Siew Kum Hong himself, a proponent of free speech, had to file a police report recently for alleged untruths and insults hurled at him by some netizens.

Sir, many of us take for granted those who pick up and clean up after us and reserve the words "please" and "thank you" for no one and especially not to those who are of lower social status than ourselves. "Think of yourself, but think of others too", we keep saying to the youths, on the flawed assumption that only the younger people of this country need that advice . But we need adult models too, as well as opportunities for all of us to perform our civic duties. All Singaporeans, especially us adults, must determine to practise basic courtesy, control and civic consciousness, so that Singapore is not just developed economically, politically but also civilly.

Sir, on social services, I would like to highlight three principles of engagement.

Ex-US President Dwight Eisenhower said, "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."

Sir, in the provision of social services in Singapore, I believe that the principles of engagement between Government and its people are either not clear or, if they are clear, not fully accepted yet. Unless we hold crucial dialogues – not monologues – to clarify perspectives regarding these principles, there will always be tension between the Government and the people.

Principle 1 – Family as the first line of defence. Sir, I believe that this principle underlying the design of many social service programmes in our country is either not communicated or accepted by those seeking Government's help. Out of the many applications for financial assistance in my GRC, only an average of about 36%, which are clear-cut welfare cases, gets approval from our Community Development Council (CDC). Although nearly all applicants get some form of temporary help through the ComCare Fund administered at the grassroots level, 65% of applicants are disappointed by the unsuccessful outcomes of their applications. Very often, after the investigation and house visits by CDC officers, applicants are found to have family members who can potentially support them but choose not to. To many of these applicants – most of them elderly – their first port of call is the Government because they do not want to bother their children, or their children have chosen to abandon them. Exercising their rights under the Parents Maintenance Act is not anyone's favoured course of action.

Sir, we need to communicate, explain and seek understanding and more acceptance of this principle of "Family as the first line of defence" in our country, so that we can address the high expectations of Government's social service programmes which it is unable to fulfil.

Principle 2 - Equality of opportunity. Sir, the second principle of social service support that we must uphold and seek agreement as much as possible, between Government and people is that there should be equality of opportunity to all, even if equality of outcomes cannot be guaranteed.

Sir, to ensure a stronger and cohesive Singapore, the "Singapore Dream" must be potentially within the reach of every Singaporean. Many of us would agree that we are not equally talented and that, indeed, a CEO or a Cabinet Minister will earn more than a security guard or the rest of us. But we must protect with gumption the principle that, whilst there is inequality of outcomes in life, there must never be, as much as possible, inequality of opportunities.

Inequality of opportunities can be unproductive, leading to corruption, politics of envy and social unrest. If people are excluded from access to the "good life" and blocked by the elite from upward mobility, then they will look for other, possibly more violent, ways of getting their share of the economic pie. The needy and the disabled in our country must be accorded more than lip service equal opportunities in education, physical access, healthcare, security, employment and lifelong learning. The best antidote for inequality of opportunities is equal chance of access to quality education in pre-schools, mainstream primary and secondary schools, special schools and employment.

Why should boarding schools, an elite feature in the Singapore education system, be a privilege only to the elite? In my work in the low-income and disability sectors, I find many children and youths from needy background who will benefit greatly from boarding schools. But many of them will never get close to this privilege due to the exclusivity of boarding schools. And why cannot the rest of the so-called non-elite schools enjoy the boarding school experience at some time in their school career? Why should children, unfortunately born with congenital diseases, be deprived of basic medical coverage linked to their disease and not be insured up to the same basic health quantum as their able-bodied peers?

Sir, we need to ensure equality of opportunities to all. Inequality of outcomes in life is not inherently bad. Few of us would argue that those who are more talented or those who hold jobs of high accountability or risks should be paid more. But I want to put in a qualifier. Inequality of outcomes in life is acceptable, I believe, only as long as:

(1) All Singaporeans have the opportunity to move up;

(2) The living standards are improving for the average person; and

(3) There is tangible help for those who genuinely need a leg-up, ie, (a) those who cannot make it due to their age, health or lack of family support; or (b) those who suffer temporary setbacks, eg, casualties of this economic recession.

Sir, as leaders, we must do all we can to ensure that there is equality of opportunities to all Singaporeans, rich or poor, disabled or not.

The third principle that I would like to speak on, in designing social service support, which I believe, must be communicated and contracted between Government and the rest of Singapore, is this: work must come before welfare. I share the stories of two of my residents – Mr Lim and Mr Tan (not their true names) – the facts of which are validated by the social service agency serving both of them.

The first one – Mr Lim is a wheelchair-bound, middle-aged gentleman aged 57, I believe, who, despite his constant pain in his nerves and limbs, has been assisting at our neighbourhood link at Beach Road for the last four years. Despite his low English proficiency, Mr Lim has learnt the use of the computer and is the key data entry operator scanning the entry cards of all the elderly clients at this centre. He likes work.

Mr Tan, another wheelchair-bound man in the same age group, lives in a rental flat. He has an NEA licence giving him permission to street-hawk, but Mr Tan has never exercised this licence. He visited several doctors and was given a medical certificate that certified him to be unfit for work for the rest of his life. Mr Tan, according to his support agency, has been seen to be walking within and outside his flat, and he enjoys playing with the children and his dog in the neighbourhood. He is a constant client at several social service agencies and is articulate in demanding that he be granted the full right of a 'public assistance' recipient. Several agency staff, when I asked them, are convinced that Mr Tan prefers welfare to work. He has written eloquent letters to them to demand for higher welfare quantum. Most recently, in one of his letters which was copied to me, Mr Tan threatened to tell The Straits Times if he does not get more monthly allowance.

Sir, based on the testimony of the social workers working with him, Mr Tan is unlikely to receive more welfare from the State as they are convinced that he can at least work on a part-time job, being more qualified and healthier than other welfare applicants.

Sir, I share this story not to pass judgment on Mr Tan but to illustrate the point that we need to repeatedly clarify and communicate more convincingly the gospel of 'Work Before Welfare' and other key principles in designing social service programmes.

In conclusion, Sir, for Singapore and Singaporeans to truly emerge stronger when this crisis is over, I contend that:

(1) The new Economic Strategies Committee and our leaders need to track the effectiveness of the Resilience Package that has been implemented, and be bold enough to change or abandon any schemes that do not serve the long-term good of Singapore;

(2) All Singaporeans, young and especially adults, must develop a stronger sense of civic consciousness and graciousness;

(3) Government must communicate, explain and uphold the three "Principles of Engagement" underlying Singapore's social support services, namely, (a) family as the first line of defence; (b) equality of opportunities for all; and (c) work before welfare.

Sir, I always encourage people with disabilities and their families, when they are faced with life's challenges, to not keep asking, "Why Me?" and instead say, "Try Me!" I believe that Singapore will be a stronger player when we emerge from this economic crisis if, in the face of challenges, we can respond together "TRY US!"

Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak especially after a wonderful speech from one of my favourite Members of Parliament.

An economic crisis like what we are facing right now is, perhaps, the ultimate stress test of a social safety net. It is well and fine to talk about it, to talk about principles, but to live the experience of our people at a time like this will determine whether or not this social safety net works, whether or not people believe in it, and whether or not it really achieves what we are after. I echo Ms Denise Phua's quotation of President Eisenhower, that if we value our privileges more than our principles, we are apt to lose both. So, perhaps, it is worthwhile reiterating what our principles are. Let me start with a story.

About five years ago, I remember visiting Beijing and it happened to be their equivalent of National Day. I was invited to the Great Hall of People and had a wonderful dinner. A few months after that, I accompanied the Prime Minister to India and we went to the equivalent of the Istana, a full ceremony with horses and everything there, and, of course, met the President of India. At both these occasions, I remember the thought that emerged in my mind was that, on my maternal side, my great grandparents came from a poor sub-province within Fujian; and on my paternal side, somewhere in what is today's Andhra Pradesh. And I remember wondering if my ancestors had stayed put, would I be having dinner in the Great Hall of People or participating in a ceremony in the equivalent of the Istana in New Delhi? The answer clearly is "no".

I was also reminded of a point, which I think Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee made yesterday, that we are not smarter, more hardworking or in any way superior to the people in Southeast Asia, India, China, or anywhere else in the world. And, yet, as Singaporeans, we have privileges. We get to visit and get access to leaders and places whom our ancestors would never ever have had the possibility of doing so. In fact, our distant cousins in their home countries probably would not have these privileges. So the question must be, why do we have these privileges. It is not genetic, it is not just luck. I believe it is because we have a system. It is because of our values, the way we are organised, the way we motivate ourselves, the way we nurture our children, and the way we bring the best out of each person. That is what allows us to punch above our weight, to go beyond the genetic and historical trajectories that otherwise we would have been condemned to. So in this whole debate, it is worth remembering that it is about how we are organised, primarily in three areas: politics, economics and the social safety net.

Let me focus on the social safety net because I want to respond to the many MPs who have given comments, suggestions as well as criticisms of the work of my Ministry. The purpose of a social safety net is two-fold: first, to make sure that people have enough of a sense of security, so that they are willing and able to make the necessary adjustments to cope with change. Because if people are insecure and scared, no amount of cajoling, persuasion or encouragement is going to make them adopt the necessary adjustments, go for training, work harder and make all those changes to cope with challenges. You want to create enough of a sense of security, so that they can adapt to change.

The second objective of a social safety net is to ensure that no long-term harm comes about because of a short-term crisis, in particular that means focusing on children. Because in many countries, even today as we debate in this Chamber, there are children who are being pulled out of school to go to work, who have to work excessively long hours in highly risky environments because they need that extra money. It may be an adaptation to cope with a present, clear and imminent threat but there will be a very big long-term cost. So, remember, our social safety net is to achieve these two objectives: one, give you enough security to cope with change; two, make sure, especially, our children's future is not mortgaged.

I totally agree with Ms Denise Phua about the principles behind our social safety net. The number one principle is still about personal responsibility. We must still be a people who has a sense of right and wrong, hard work, honesty, fairness and a sense of discharging our responsibilities to all people who depend upon us. If we lose these personal values, both at an individual, community and national level, no amount of tweaking, economic strategies, social safety nets or handouts will bring Singapore through this crisis.

The second point is family responsibility, and I totally agree with Ms Denise Phua. Most of the people whom we see at our MPS are not a representative sample of Singapore. The truth is most people in Singapore cope, have tightened their belts, are working as hard, perhaps even harder than they should, but they are doing their best. For the people whom we see at our MPS, there are two categories. One is the group who truly cannot cope, who have no family support, and really are at their wits' end. And these are the people whom we and our partners in the CDCs as well as in the Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) must help. It is our duty to help. But Members have also referred to many stories, and we all have our own war stories. The reason that old couple is in tears in front of us is because something has gone wrong in the family. Their children either do not want to support them or, as you said, sometimes the old couple does not want to impose on the children and they see the Government as the first port or first line of call. In fact, I was very alarmed.

Let me share with you one more story. A young lady received a scholarship, was sent overseas, has come back and is now deciding which organisation to work for because she is bonded. But, in the meantime, she has decided that "I need some extra help" and has gone to the CDC to ask for assistance. I discovered this and I was absolutely shocked. A scholarship recipient, having a choice of jobs, is in between deciding where to work, has decided that there is a CDC, there are Government assistance schemes, "Let me access it". Maybe she has good reasons to do so. But the fact that this is the first response should ring alarm bells. But all of you, I am sure, will have your own version of these stories.

So whatever we do, let us come back to these values – personal responsibility, family responsibility and, the third area, our organising principle which is for the "many-helping-hands" approach. I am also mindful, and I think even Ms Phua herself has said, that the real social work is being done by the VWOs. They are not the outsourced agents of MCYS. We believe that social services should be delivered by people on the ground who know the true needs of the beneficiaries, and by people who truly have a heart and a passion for it. I totally agree that it is possible to construct an army of civil servants under my Ministry to do it, but I think you all know it will not be done as well. In fact, Members will recall that just earlier this week, Mr Shawn Koh, I believe, who is a social worker running the Marine Parade Family Service Centre, was talking about the School Pocket Money Fund. It is a fund in which we can top up some extra money for students, so that they can buy lunch in schools. And he said, very wisely, it is not about the money. In fact, we use the fact that we have money to give as a tool of engagement, because it means the social worker gets to interview the child and the parents who go to the Family Service Centre. Very often, you find out the financial problem is just the tip of the iceberg. There are usually bigger structural social issues behind it. So we will have to continue with our many-helping-hands approach, and we will have to use all our assistance schemes as an opportunity for engagement.

Having said that, I think there is a need for us to change our relationship between MCYS and NCSS, and between NCSS and the VWOs. I have told the leadership of NCSS to actually go and study the unions. The unions on the ground are independent and the members vote for their leaders. But NTUC acts as an enabler, a central repository of resources and manpower. It has the economies of scale to train industrial relations officers and post these people out as a resource to the individual unions on the ground. In other words, I want to change the centre of gravity, so that the people in charge of social services are truly VWOs on the ground. NCSS is there not to check or audit you, not to be a watchdog, but to be a central enabler – achieve economies of scale, give promotional and training opportunities for the staff of VWOs, and slowly in that way enable us to upgrade the sector.

There are two particular areas that I am focusing on especially during this time. One is families, who in normal times are able to cope. One or both parents may work and children are in school. But now either because of retrenchment, lack of overtime pay or the fact that bonuses have been cut, these families are now vulnerable. We have a programme called "Work Support" which so far has been targeted primarily at people from the low-income families who suddenly lose their job, either due to health problems or because they were retrenched.

Two months ago during the Budget debate, I announced some increased flexibility for the "Work Support" programme. Instead of six months, we extended it to 12 months. We also have exercised greater flexibility in the eligibility criteria for the programme, looking at per capita income rather than just their total household income. We are now studying to see whether we may extend this programme, at least for the duration of this crisis, to include families who may not yet have lost their jobs but really are having difficulty in coping. This, again, is to give people that assurance that no matter how tough times get, there will be assistance available, not as the first line, because we still expect people to go to their families and to use their own savings first but, as a last resort, the Government is there and we will provide assistance to you.

The second area which we are making further changes to is with regard to Family Service Centres. We have about 36 Family Service Centres today in Singapore and I must admit that some are very, very good and some are not as big, not as well endowed as the more established ones. We have set aside another $16 million, which we are going to pump to these Family Service Centres, primarily so that they can first recruit more staff, more social workers. Secondly, upgrade those social workers because in dysfunctional families, what we realise, again, is that it is not a matter of just giving a handout, they can go to your MPS, you can give them some ComCare funds, but they are back every week or every month. These families need intensive hand-holding and case management and we want that to be delivered at the Family Service Centres and by properly trained, qualified and committed social workers. So, we will be spending time in this year upgrading our Family Service Centres.

Now, upgrading the Family Centres alone will not be enough because we need to make sure that people on the ground – the CDCs, the local advisors to grassroots organisations – know who these Family Service Centres are and develop a relationship where you refer the families who need help to, keep track of what is happening and let me know if things are falling short.

The third area which we are looking at more critically is this issue especially with respect to support for the elderly and aged parents. Many of you have said that, perhaps, our Maintenance of Parents Act needs to be revised and I am looking at that. You are absolutely right – most parents will not want to use legislation as a first resort and, indeed, they should not. But, on the other hand, we see more and more cases, quite egregious cases, where the next generation is not fulfilling their end of the bargain and they are playing, in a sense, a form of emotional blackmail and we have to carry the burden of looking after their parents. I think that balance is not fair. So, we will have to see how we can make it easier, at the same time without causing spurious or unnecessary litigation to occur. But in order to ensure that children support their parents - sometimes, it is a dispute between siblings, like one sibling, usually the lady, a daughter, who is bearing a disproportionate burden and the others are not doing their share. We may need to amend the legislation so that we can compel the other members, first, to declare what they truly are earning and whether they can or cannot support the families and then encourage the family members to arrive at a fair and amicable solution.

On the Mental Capacity Act which Parliament approved a few months ago, we have appointed the Board for the Office of Public Guardian. Mr Richard Magnus is chairing the Board. We are now working very hard on developing the code of conduct, which will be used as a guide to the people who are operating the system. As Members have advised me, we need to embark on much more public education so that people know what the Act is about, how to use it, how not to use it, how it can be abused and what to avoid. So, you have to watch this space. We will have to do more work in that area.

I could not help responding to the Workers' Party since Ms Sylvia Lim just made a speech. I note that in the Workers' Party response to the electoral changes announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, the Workers' Party seems to be trapped in a time warp. They still say they do not believe in GRCs, they want everything to be in SMC. They still say they do not believe in Nominated Members of Parliament. They totally support reduction in size of GRCs. But, interestingly, they support an increase in the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament. If you truly believe in "first past the post", single seat, winner-takes-all, then you cannot take this rather awkward in-between position where you want more NCMPs but you do not want to hear other voices through the Nominated Members of Parliament.

Let me reiterate what we believe. An election is first and foremost a process to choose the Government. It is not a process to choose the Opposition. It is to choose the Government. It is for the people to decide which team of political leaders have the competence, honesty, integrity, ability and the heart to form the government. The Opposition - how big, how small or how varied it is - is actually a secondary issue. And what we are trying to tell our people is that in future, you do not need to vote tactically. We will guarantee a diversity of views in this House, but focus on choosing candidates who can form a government, focus on choosing someone who will run your Town Council, look after your homes, look after your people, keep it safe, keep it clean, keep its values up. That is the primary question; everything else is secondary.

The next thing is I am still uncomfortable with the Workers' Party's opposition to GRCs. I do not need to go into yesterday's exposition by the Prime Minister as to why we chose to have GRCs instead of proportional representation. But the Workers' Party has not been able to come up with some alternative formulation to ensure minority representation in Parliament. I cannot help thinking they are more focused on lowering the bar for contestability rather than creating a robust system which will enable the right people to form government, that will enable the government to have a mandate and to have the decisive majorities in order to govern this place and to ensure that all voices are heard. Yes, I know it is possible and, from history, minority candidates have won in elections. But ask any minority candidate, and I speak as one, it is a disadvantage. And, yes, some people may be able to overcome the disadvantage and that is good, that speaks well for the candidate and for the people. But we cannot leave things to chance. We need to make sure we have a system in which as many voices, and especially a system that represents the many different races and religions that constitute Singapore, are represented. So, I ask the Workers' Party to take some more time, think through these issues, before reacting in a knee-jerk fashion by regurgitating an old position.

The PAP is proposing these changes in all sincerity, because we want to have a future in which we continue to have a country that can punch above its weight, in which our children can continue to be welcomed and have access to places which their ancestors could never have dreamt of, simply because we are better organised. We have the right values as people. We are organised to create a system which is fair and honest – a system which enables all of us to achieve our full potential and which keeps us cohesive in the midst of our diversity. If we can do that, then the future is bright. We will overcome this current crisis and we will emerge stronger, with our principles in place and then we can secure our privileges.

Mdm Cynthia Phua (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to elaborate on his thoughts on ex-spouses supporting the children, in view of the increasing divorce rate.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: That is another topic which has been exercising my mind.

The divorce rates are going up. I got married in 1987. Ten years after that, about 10% of my cohort have already been divorced. If I look at the cohort who married 10 years after me, they have surpassed that. So, there is no question that divorces are increasing. I have also heard the many suggestions, especially from Dr Muhammad Faishal and Dr Maliki, about this issue of serial polygamy. Man divorces one woman, goes on to marry another woman, the woman has babies for him, he leaves, she then looks for another man, repeats the cycle, and then we see them at our MPS. I think the case Dr Maliki told me is that he has got one woman with eight children from five men. We have all got our own various stories. And we do need to go back to the basics, which is whether you love or do not love your wife, whether you want to split and break a marriage or not, your first point is to fulfil your responsibilities to your spouse or ex-spouse and especially to your children.

Some of the suggestions we are looking at include making the marital history more available. For instance, today, I think you have to pay $30 to do a search at the Registry of Marriages on, say, my marital history. I am looking at making that free if you do it online. You still have to pay if you go through paper records. We are also looking at whether we can maybe even make maintenance payments, or the lack thereof, a matter of public record, especially where a man has on a long-term basis not discharged his responsibilities. It becomes a bit like a credit bureau, but this is a "matrimonial credit bureau", so that the next spouse at least will know what sort of man she is marrying. She will know whether he has discharged his responsibilities and, realise that men do not change their spots, make an informed decision before they proceed. But I do not want to trivialise these things. We are in discussion with the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law, so that we do this properly and carefully and stay within the law.

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Low. No speeches, clarifications only.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Clarification, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Yes, please.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, when the Minister criticised the Workers' Party's stand on the announcement by the Prime Minister yesterday, and said we are somewhat self-contradictory. He also says that election is primarily for Singaporean voters to vote for a government, namely, the PAP, he is just letting the cat out of his sleeves. This is what exactly the PAP has been. The system is designed to entice Singaporean voters –

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, carry on with your clarification, please.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: – to vote for the PAP.

Mr Speaker: What is your clarification?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I am clarifying, Sir. Because he is saying that the Workers' Party is –

Mr Speaker: You are not clarifying. You are making a speech.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: No, I am not making a speech, I am clarifying. So, I am clarifying what –

Mr Speaker: What are you clarifying?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The clarification is that, by what he says, it means that he is exposing himself and exposing the PAP.

Mr Speaker: It is not for you to clarify.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, that is clarification. Why not? So, okay, I will go to another part of my clarification.

The second part, he talks about the somewhat contradiction between the NCMP and NMP schemes which the Workers' Party took a different stand. There is no contradiction, Sir. I would like to clarify that, perhaps, because the Workers' Party believes in parliamentary democracy. We believe that Parliament should consist of elected Members and Parliament should not become just a token of airing the people's views, without any significant working of the system.

That was why I proposed that voters should elect Opposition and the only way for the Opposition to be able to play a role is to have elected Members of Opposition in Parliament.

For NCMP, at least there is some basis because they have gone through the electoral system, whether they are losers or best losers. For NMP, it is selected and nominated by a committee of Parliament. So, that is the difference and that is why we have different positions on NCMP and NMP.

The third clarification pertains to the GRC system. We still believe that there is no need to have GRC. I would like to clarify that if you look at the past results before the GRC system was imposed prior to 1984, the PAP had enough minority Members of Parliament here. And I doubt that even if you remain in the same system without the GRC, the number of minority candidates will shrink, and I do not believe that Singaporeans will vote along racial lines.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The objective behind these changes is not to keep the PAP in power. But it is designed to ensure that any future government of Singapore must be one consisting of a party which can put up candidates of sufficient quality to run this place, to reflect the diversity of this place, and to do so honestly and in a way which safeguards our future. So he is right. Our system makes it difficult for parties who are just there to take a position or make some arguments in Parliament, or even just to win a few seats. Our system is slanted in favour of ensuring that only parties which can form strong governments will be serious contenders in our election, and that is something which I see no need to make any apologies for because it safeguards the future of Singapore. In due time, if the Workers' Party gets to the stage where it can actually offer itself as an alternative government to the PAP, it may well win the election. Whoever wins the election in the future will have, hopefully, a decisive mandate and majority and political levers to run this place, and run this place well. So that is what it is about, and it is not to entrench the PAP. We should not make any apologies for operating on this philosophy because we are trying to safeguard the future interest of Singapore.

On the second point, I will accept that the Workers' Party, anyway, has changed its position. In the past, it did not accept NCMP – and today, it accepts NCMP and it is quite happy to welcome the increase in NCMPs. However, I still do not understand why he is afraid of the diversity of views which we will hear in Parliament, even from other people who do not necessarily belong to either the Government of the day or the Opposition of the day. We have had Nominated MPs for quite a long time now, and I do not think they have done any harm to Singapore; in fact, I think they have made a positive contribution. So we have decided that this should be a permanent feature of our electoral system. We are telling Singaporeans that, regardless of the relative strengths of the political parties and the choices that they make, there will be at least 18 Members in this House who are not bound by Party Whip, who are there to express their views honestly and sincerely, and I do not think we should be afraid. The PAP is not afraid to handle diversity of views, both in this House and outside this House.

The final point is about GRCs. Again, he is right. The PAP, in the past, has been able to field minority candidates, and minority candidates had won. But he has been in politics longer than me, and I think heart-to-heart, he would know that there will always be an inherent disadvantage for minority candidates. And I am just asking him, why take the risk? Why take the risk of creating a system where you can end up with really quite an unrepresentative House as far as race is concerned? Given the context of Singapore, I think this is a risk too high to take. If you had some other suggestions to ensure minority representation in this House, then we should debate it and we should discuss it. But in the absence of that, to depend on a dominant PAP who is always being able to field enough minority candidates and having enough cachet to ensure that the minority candidates can overcome the inherent disadvantages to get into this House, I think that is taking a risk for the future. So, we do this in all sincerity and honesty. And I am just asking him to think about it before going back to the old position of the Workers' Party and digging himself into those trenches.

4.51 pm

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): ( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the Presidential Address described what we need to do to deal with the changes. During the last few days, Members talked about change, change and change. How to deal with change? How to reform and change? Although we say that you are poor, you change, and when you change, you succeed. But we must realise that certain things should not change. What are the things that should not change? And that is the foundation or the core values of nation-building, including our commitment to an honest and effective Government. We want a tolerant, harmonious and gracious society. We want to have diligence, unity, self-reliance and the ability to thrive and strive for excellence. Whatever the adversity, this positive mindset of self-reliance is extremely important.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih):

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih): Let me tell the first story - radish, egg and coffee bean. A young man liked to complain a lot. Whenever he was unhappy, he went to see a friend and complain. His friend was a cook. This cook did not say anything and brought him to the kitchen. He prepared three pots and boiled water in the three pots. When the water was boiled, the cook put a radish in the first pot, in the second pot, he put an egg; and the third pot, he put some coffee bean which was pounded into powder form. After boiling for about 10 minutes, the cook took out the cooked radish, and the cooked egg and a cup of coffee in front of this young man. "Now, do you understand?", he asked. The young man thought for some time. Suddenly, he jumped up and said, "Now I understand." The hot water or the boiled water is like our adversity. These three objects represent the different reactions in adversity. The radish was hard to start with but, after being boiled, it became soft. The egg was easily broken, but after boiling, it became a hard-boiled egg. And the coffee was very special. It had allowed tasteless water to become a fragrant and beautiful drink. My friend, if you are the one, would you choose to be a radish, an egg or a coffee bean? I hope, through this story, it will allow Singaporeans not to be beaten by adversity but to change adversity to success.

During the last few years, we have seen many ups and downs. But we have ridden through the crisis because we have a good system, we are efficient, we have a Government that cares for the people and, of course, we have our abundant reserves so that when a crisis appears, we have introduced measures in time to help our people. But water can overturn the boat, or can carry the boat. So we must ensure that in helping our people, we do not allow our people to become overly dependent on the Government. We must have this self-reliance.

Let me tell the second story – the deer and the wolf. In the forest, there were many deer and wolves. The wolf in many fables is a big bad wolf and the story is the same. There was a kind-hearted person who wanted to help the deer, so he went to destroy the wolves. Without the wolves’ presence, the deer could live their lives quietly. After they had finished eating, they slept; after sleeping, they ate. They alternated between eating and sleeping and they became fatter and fatter, and more and more sickly. Some of them died and some of them were sick. So the number of deer diminished. This kind-hearted person asked a wise man. The wise man said, "It is very simple. Let the wolves go back." This kind-hearted person released the wolves back to the forest. Of course, the wolves started chasing the deer. They wanted to eat the deer. So the deer started to run away. Gradually, in running around, the deer became stronger and stronger, and recovered their previous health and increased their numbers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the wolves are not necessarily a bad thing. Pressure and crisis are everywhere. They will always appear. The most important thing is how do we face it. How do we deal with pressure? A certain amount of pressure and a sense of crisis will raise our consciousness and make us more ready to deal with any sudden change. It will increase our ability to deal with it, help us progress and go forward.

Now, my third story – the villagers, New York and Boston. There were two villagers from the countryside, and let us call them Tom and Jerry. Tom wanted to go to New York to look for a job. Jerry planned to go to Boston. When they bought the tickets at the station, they asked around to check what kind of cities they were. They found out that the New Yorker was very cold. If you wanted to ask for direction, you had to pay. In Boston, the people were very kind-hearted and full of love. When they saw the homeless on the street, they felt sorry and they would help the homeless people. Tom said, "Oh, fortunately, I have not got on the train to New York yet." He changed his mind, and wanted to go to Boston. But Jerry had a different idea and thought, "New York is not bad. Even when you help to point a direction, which is such a simple thing, you can make money. It is really excellent." So the two of them exchanged tickets. Tom went to Boston, and he found out that Boston was very good. In one or two months, he did not work and did not get hungry. Jerry went to New York and realised that there was opportunity to make money everywhere. And because he was from the countryside – he was a farmer – he had some understanding of the soil condition. He made use of some soil from the country which was free of charge, and then he added some dried leaves and grass to produce fertiliser. And he packed them into bags which were suitable for New Yorkers who live in high-rise buildings to be used in flower pots as fertilisers. So he started his business providing fertilisers, and became a successful businessman.

A few years later, Jerry went to Boston to tour the place and he saw a shrivelled beggar on the roadside coming to him to ask for money. When they exchanged glances, they stopped in their tracks, because a few years ago they exchanged train tickets.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I want to say is that opportunities are up to us to discover and seize. We must have the resolution and the determination to increase our chances of success. Dr Vivian and some MPs said, "We will come across some people, who will always be unhappy in whatever they do. They always think that the society, the country, and the Government owe them something." How do we deal with these people?

Let me tell you the last story – the captain, the passenger and the old sailor. There was a ship that met with a storm. The ship had a very capable captain. The captain settled down all the passengers and wanted to control the helm, so that the ship could ride through the storm safely. But, at this time, a passenger made a lot of noise. He cried and shouted, blamed heaven and earth and everybody. He also blamed the captain for the storm and the difficult situation. Because he made so much noise, the captain could not concentrate on steering the ship. An old sailor appeared and said, "Let me deal with him. Let me, this old fellow, deal with this passenger."

How did he deal with him? He got a few people and used a rope to tie up the noisy passenger and threw him overboard, into the sea. Of course, the passenger was even more frightened and made a lot of noise. But he continued to let the passenger stay in the waters and then, later on, saved him. Of course, after the passenger returned to the ship, he became very quiet and no longer made noise. So the old sailor said, "When a person is thrown into a difficult situation, the immediate reaction is hysteria. But when he finds that the situation becomes even worse, he will then realise how lucky he was previously."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not suggesting that the Government should throw its people who are not happy with the Government into the sea. I know our Government is kind-hearted and will never deliberately let our citizens suffer a worse fate. Let me use this opportunity to say that we should appreciate our fortune, all the things that we have and what the Government has done for all of us, and not wait until we regret later.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the crisis we face is the worst in the last 50 years since our nation building, and it is not the first time and it would not be the last time that we will face such a challenge. The most important thing is that our people must be united. Together, we will not be afraid of difficulties. We must be willing to face the difficulties to get out of this crisis, so that we will have a better and brighter tomorrow.

I support and thank the President for his Address.

*Cols. 687-692.

Mr Ong Kian Min (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

The economic numbers paint a bleak picture of Singapore being in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. However, there seemed to be few signs of recession out there in the streets. Recently, our newspapers have also carried commentaries that it does not feel like a severe slump and that the crisis will soon be just a memory. I believe these mild symptoms are, in the large part, due to the strategies that we have adopted to tackle this downturn. As our President mentioned in his Address, our best strategy to see ourselves through the present crisis is to ensure that businesses remain viable and jobs are maintained.

A recent survey revealed that Singapore companies were more willing than their Asia Pacific counterparts to opt for salary freezes than axing jobs. CapitaLand, Chartered Semiconductor and Temasek Holdings are among those that have implemented pay cuts, while Singapore Airlines and MediaCorp have instituted no pay leave options. There are also companies that now operate on a four-day week, with commensurate reductions in salaries. The revised Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower, given earlier this month, will give more flexibility to employers to cut costs and save jobs, so that they do not have to resort to retrenchment. The sensible lifesaving "no-to-retrenchment and yes-to-pay cut" approach has enabled Singaporeans to pretty much sustain almost the same lifestyle as before.

But are our people making the necessary adjustments to ride out this crisis? In the US, the epicenter of this financial storm, retail sales, excluding auto-sales, dropped in both March and April. Perhaps more than shoppers in Singapore, shoppers in the US have learnt to stretch their dollar further in order to restrain their spending. Wal-Mart, the US mass market retailer, recently reported that their customers have altered their shopping patterns and are now focusing on thrift. They are, in fact, proud to tell their friends they shop at Wal-Mart.

In comparison, in Singapore, COE prices for cars, which are an indicator of economic sentiment, rose sharply in May with the open category rising to five-figures as a sign of market perception that the economy is picking up. Property new launches are encouraging. The recent stock market rally and talks of "green shoots" have contributed to a heightened sense of euphoria as if the crisis is over. It looks as though the economic downturn barely made a blip in the spending habits of our people. It is as if the economic downturn has come and gone, like the "Cheshire cat" from "Alice in Wonderland" disappearing and leaving only visible its grin hanging in the air as a reminder that it is still around.

However, the worst may not be over yet and, as our PM said yesterday, if our factories have less business and orders do not come in, they will not be able to hold on to their workers indefinitely and at some point in time, they will have to restructure and shed jobs. I wonder what lessons from this credit crunch our young today will learn and pass on to the young of tomorrow?

Earlier this year, our Minister Mentor, who was born in 1923, shared some of his memories of the Great Depression. He said before the Great Depression, his family were well-to-do and lived comfortably. The clothes they wore, in photographs from that time, were imported from Britain. In contrast, after the Great Depression, they had to move to smaller houses and live more humbly. The lesson Minister Mentor Lee learnt from his experience was that it is important to build up reserves while the economy is doing well. What lessons will our young people learn and what will they tell their children and grandchildren about the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression or, for that matter, any of the crises and disasters that had afflicted our region in recent years?

Take, for example, the tsunami that killed 230,000 people, in which year? I believe many have forgotten that it happened in 2004. A museum was built in Banda Aceh to commemorate the people who died. At first, what struck me was the huge sum of US$5.6 million that was spent to build the four-storey museum. US$5.6 million is no trivial sum to build a museum to commemorate the victims who died, while the victims who lived are still in need of assistance.

But, leaving aside the debate as to whether such a large expenditure is justified, I think it is important for us here in Singapore to remember the catastrophic disaster, so that locals and visitors from all over the world and, more importantly, future generations can remember and learn about what had happened in our own region.

Last year, my then 11-year-old son and I went back-packing in Europe. When we were in London, I suggested that we visit some of the museums in London as they have interesting collections. His immediate response to me was that as England has a longer and richer history than Singapore, naturally it has been able to amass more materials to exhibit. From a child's perspective, his observation certainly was not entirely unreasonable. But I wanted to prove a point to him and so I brought him to the Natural History Museum, which has more than three million visitors passing through its doors every year, and led him to the exhibits on the Kobe earthquake and Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruptions. My son was deeply fascinated and spent a long time studying the exhibits, so did many other visitors. I then asked him whether Kobe and Mount Pinatubo are closer to Singapore or to London. Why do people, like my son, have to travel halfway round the world to learn about events that had occurred in this part of the world?

In Singapore, we have many museums that house various art collections and historical artefacts. We have the history gallery in the National Museum that gives an excellent experience of our early history and past major national events. However, apart from a few events that have commemorated the tsunami and SARS and a Tembusu tree planted in the Botanic Gardens to commemorate those who fought and died in the battle against SARS, we have not done much to ensure that our future generations have a point of reference that they may visit to learn more about recent events that have affected Singapore and our surrounding countries.

During the tsunami, our SAF was mobilised to provide rescue and relief efforts. Many companies and individuals came forward and banded together, giving generous donations and travelling to disaster zones. Without any conscious effort to gather, collate and display the necessary information, the memories of the devastation wrought by the tsunami and the relief efforts will be lost, save perhaps for a few sentences in our history textbooks.

Do we need a long and rich history in order to put up an interesting exhibition on Typhoon Nargis, the Szechuan earthquake, volcanic eruptions or the tsunami? Surely not. Our new Marina Barrage is a good start, with its Sustainable Singapore Gallery where we can be educated on Singapore's efforts towards environmental sustainability and discover how the barrage prevents flooding to the city's low-lying areas. More should be done to ensure, through permanent exhibitions, that recent events that have significantly impacted our country and our region may be impressed upon present and future generations of Singaporeans, as well as foreign visitors so that they may have a better sense of our country, our region and the issues that concern us.

This leads me to my next point that we cannot pin our hopes on the highly anticipated Integrated Resorts to bring in more tourists and generate employment. We should not place all our bets on one horse. We should closely examine what attractions we have in our own backyard and have a fresh re-think of how we can re-package them and excite more interest in our own tourist attractions.

Singaporeans flock by the thousands every school holiday to exotic faraway destinations. However, they should also give themselves a chance to experience the wonders that are on their own home soil. There is more room for Singaporeans to be more enthusiastic about their own country. When we visit our friends and relatives in other countries, they seem to be able to rattle on about their culture and history. They can tell us the names of birds, animals and plants around them as they walk the streets. When they point out their buildings, whether old or new, they are able to relate a story behind the architecture. Their environment, their history, how things came about are all very much a part of their lives.

However, when visitors come to Singapore, besides bringing them to see a few of the standard historic or tourist spots, we mostly know where to bring them to eat for breakfast, lunch, tea, dinner and supper, but cannot name them the brown and black birds flying past our heads or tell them much about landmarks around us. Singaporeans who are knowledgeable and passionate about their country, Singaporeans who are proud of their own environment, heritage and culture and Singaporeans who have first-hand experience of all the sights and attractions in Singapore will make the best ambassadors for Singapore.

Having knowledge of the past experiences, recent and not-so-recent, that our country has weathered, and of ongoing issues that we face and having an intimate appreciation of all that our country has to offer will give our Singaporean youths a sense of rootedness and belonging to Singapore. It will also contribute to strengthening our social cohesion.

Sir, I would now like to comment on the ongoing debate about the importance of MNCs and SMEs. I feel that we have not articulated strongly enough a vision of what our corporate world should be. In the case of our standard of living, that everyone is familiar with – in 1984, our Government set a target that Singapore should reach the 1984 Swiss standard of living by 1999. To be more accurate, the target was that Singapore should achieve by 1999, the Swiss per capita gross national product (GNP) of 1984. As a young man of 24 at that time, that vision fascinated me. Under then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, we did indeed realise our vision to reach the 1984 Swiss standard of living in 2000,

missing our target by one year due to the Asian financial crisis in 1997. We are still occasionally referred to as the Switzerland of the East.

Even after so many years since we talked about reaching the Swiss standard of living, aside from its high standard of living, there is much more that we can learn from the Swiss corporate world. Many people in the world may narrowly associate Switzerland with fine chocolates, cuckoo clocks, Rolex watches, and probably mentally picturing them being made in a setting of snow-capped mountains and pristine lakes. But in reality, there is much more that fuel the engines of the Swiss economic growth. Compared to Austria, its Alpine neighbour, the Swiss economy is much more vibrant with many global companies anchored there. Food giant Nestle and the pharmaceutical groups Novartis and Roche are but a few of Swiss MNCs. Foreign MNCs such as Proctor & Gamble also contribute significantly to the Swiss GDP. Although Switzerland is a very high cost country, with the highest wage costs per working hour in Europe, the Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009 released by the World Economic Forum placed Switzerland second in overall ranking after the US. Among the reasons cited for the ranking were Switzerland’s capacity for innovation, its business sophistication, the excellent partnership between its business and academic sectors and the country’s priority on research and development. It is not just the old established MNCs that have made a presence in Switzerland. Google has the largest engineering hub outside the US in Zurich where Zooglers, as the Google staff in Zurich are called, are involved in the design of maps and flight simulators for Google Earth. Singapore and Switzerland share a few characteristics – both are small territories lacking in natural resources, both enjoy a high-skilled workforce with a strong work ethic. What are Switzerland and the Swiss people doing right?

I remember watching an interview with Mr Robert Kuok, the sugar king and the majority owner of the Shangri-la Group of hotels years ago. I cannot quote verbatim but I recall, when asked why so many of his hotel general managers were Swiss, Mr Kuok replied candidly that the Swiss manager takes pride in being a professional and dedicated manager in a life-long career, but many of his local employees, even local talents spotted by him, want to be their own boss and do their own business. In Hokkien, they say zhou seng li . They want to work for a few years in the hotel line, gain some experience, make some contacts, and then start up their own small business supplying goods and services for the hotel. Surely, there must be something we can learn from this.

As the Prime Minister said, we need to build up an entire ecosystem. We should look closely at how Swiss MNCs and SMEs have developed successfully over the years. How did they come about and get to where they are now? Were the Swiss MNCs once SMEs that grew big over time and acquired other foreign companies as they grew? Or were the Swiss able to attract foreign MNCs to relocate their headquarters and control towers to Switzerland and, which through the years, became localised and became identified as Swiss?

Sir, now I would like to move on to the changes to our political system. Yet again this year, Singapore topped the survey conducted by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy as Asia’s least corrupt country. The ranking can be attributed to an honest Government that sets for its members the highest standards of integrity. Our electoral system has produced a strong political leadership that practises meritocracy and respects the rule of law. Our electoral system has worked well for us. However, we must evolve to keep up with the times. We are a small country with a small pool of talent and an even smaller pool of political talent. However, we have big ambitions to improve the lives of all Singaporeans.

To allow for diverse and opposing views, our Government introduced the NMP and NCMP schemes years ago and I am heartened by the changes announced by the Prime Minister yesterday which are to be implemented before the next General Election. The proposed changes are balanced and a refinement to our established system without rocking the boat. I welcome the reduction in the average size of the GRCs, the increase in the number of SMCs and Opposition MPs in the House (whether as elected Opposition MPs or NCMPs), as these would encourage and allow more people with political aspirations to come forward and join the political arena.

At one time when the number of six-member GRCs increased, there was a joke, a speculation, flying around that one day Singapore will be divided into just four GRCs – north, south, east and west, each anchored by a heavy weight Minister. With the average size of GRCs brought down to five at most, there is certainly no truth in that speculation, and such a concern is no longer valid.

Sir, when I mentioned to foreigners that our Constitution guarantees a minimum number of Opposition members in Parliament, they were very surprised as they knew we have a strong Government and wondered why a strong Government would allow its strength to be compromised by letting the Opposition have a foot in the door.

I am sure some sceptics will say that the proposed changes to our political system are but an election ploy to let the voters have their cake and eat it. But that is not a bad thing. Voters can enjoy the benefits of having elected PAP MPs serve them day-to-day in their constituency while having Opposition voices in Parliament. Workers’ Party treasurer, Mr Eric Tan, has expressed his fear that raising the number of Opposition members in Parliament will cost the Opposition votes. However, Prime Minister Lee has made it very clear that the change is not intended to entrench any party. On the contrary, the change will surely ensure or result in the Opposition having an added chance to benefit from having their voices heard not only in this House but to a wider public audience through media coverage in the papers, the television and the Internet of the parliamentary proceedings.

Even if Opposition candidates do not succeed in winning majority support to go past the post, if they do well enough, they can enter the parliamentary arena as NCMPs and use this parliamentary platform to air their views. As NCMPs, they will enjoy a higher public profile and, I must say, much higher and more effective than what some opposition parties get by working the ground, visiting markets and hawker centres on Sundays to sell their newsletters. From their speeches in Parliament, voters will be able to better assess their values, sincerity and abilities. Singaporeans will have the opportunity to see for themselves whether the candidate is worthy of being elected. If the NCMP is able to win over voters with his or her performance, he or she stands a better chance of being elected in future. One can therefore say that the NCMP scheme provides an avenue for new entrants whom the voters may not have sufficient opportunity to get to know during the hustle and bustle of the short GE campaign period. With the scheme expanded, this avenue will be simultaneously broadened. This way, Opposition candidates who fail to get elected but are offered NCMP seats will not have to go into hibernation in between elections and emerge into the limelight again only at the next GE campaign, which may be years away, but can continue to steadily build their credibility and experience through the parliamentary platform.

Sir, I support the Prime Minister’s intention to fine-tune the political system to create greater stability and balance. Over time, I believe the proposed changes to our political system will build a solid foundation for our future. We will have a system that accommodates views from the different segments of our population, each view having the same right to be heard. We will have a system that enables our people to have a better informed choice of the government they want to lead them further into the future.

Sir, I support the motion and wish to thank the President for his Address.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, on 5th June, we will be marking a significant milestone in Singapore’s history: it will be the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s birth as a self-governing state. Fifth June 1959 was a crucial turning point. Singapore took on the status of a State of Singapore with full powers of internal government. Britain retained control over foreign affairs, external defence while internal security rested in the hands of the Internal Security Council. It was a step towards the independence that Singapore had so longed for and worked so hard for.

For 100 years before that, Singapore had been a British colony. In all those years, there was no sense of a national identity among the people, of being united as one people, of Singapore belonging to them, that this was their island, their home. They did not elect their own government; they had no control over the destiny of the country.

In 1959, life was grim. At that time, unemployment was 12%. Economic prospects were poor, made worse by the militant climate of labour unrest. Around this time 50 years ago, end of May, people in Singapore were voting for the first time for their own elected government with full internal powers to run the country. Polling day was May 30, 1959. The People’s Action Party, which was then a small Opposition party, won 43 out of the 51 seats, with 53.4% of the votes cast. It was a rigorous campaign, with 12 political parties contesting.

In the 1959 elections, of about 600,000 voters, only about 270,000 – less than half – were people born and bred in Singapore. As new migrants with no roots in Singapore, their loyalties and worldview were wrapped around their own kin and motherland. Even those born in Singapore were bitterly divided, with the English-educated and the vernacular-educated separated along the lines of social and economic class. Communal pulls were strong. Indeed, several of the parties which contested were communal-based parties, such as the Malayan Chinese Association, Umno, the Malayan Indian Congress, the Singapore Chinese party, and the Pan-Malayan Islamic Party. But the PAP campaigned as a multi-racial party. It stood for justice and equality. Its key message was providing an "honest and efficient government" that would give priority to tackling employment, housing and education. It talked about infusing into the multi-racial society the spirit of belonging to a nation and promoting equality of women in all spheres. A striking feature of the PAP’s 1959 manifesto was its injunction to the people to play their part in building the nation and solving its severe problems. It said: "Let us never forget that self-government is not possible without self-reliance."

When the PAP became Government, it set about to fulfil its promises, against a backdrop of great economic pessimism and political turbulence in the region. It took hard work and determination, with a dash of genius and good luck, to get to where we are today. This is a tribute to the leaders and also to the people of Singapore.

I am recounting this today to remind us how far we have come within the last 50 years, and to ask: Will the next 50 years be as stable? Will we be more united, with a greater sense of belonging to the country as Singaporeans? Will the political system be one that ensures Singapore’s survival and success as an independent state in the future, and not regress to a failed state where it had no control over its own destiny?

When S. Rajaratnam, Singapore's first Culture Minister, introduced our state symbols – the flag, the national anthem, the state crest – in the Legislative Assembly in 1959, he said: "They are expressive of the new spirit of self-reliance and dedication which inspired our people today." Self-reliance, dedication. This spirit of self-reliance and dedication is what we continue to need today and in large measure.

The Prime Minister yesterday said that his most critical job is to find and nurture men and women to be the next generation of leaders. I am sure top of his mind is also renewing the Cabinet team and finding his possible successor for the future.

Sir, there is a sense on the ground that the Government may not be looking at the right places for talent. While CEO types and capable technocrats have their place in the Cabinet, it is important to ensure there is a diversity on the front bench from different fields and with different talents.

In the 1959 PAP team, it was the diversity of the leadership class that was largely responsible for the breadth of political ideas and their resonance on the ground. Very often, it was the interaction of their talents and characteristics that made the policies more persuasive and palatable to the people.

Sir, I welcome the move to reduce the size of the GRCs and to give Opposition MPs up to nine seats in Parliament, whether as elected MPs or NCMPs.

We often hear the Opposition complaining that the PAP suppresses its voice and does not give a level playing field during elections. With smaller GRCs and more single wards, I hope the Opposition will be able to muster up the candidates to contest in all the seats.

Singaporeans want an opportunity to vote. There are too many walkovers in the last election. Now the onus is on the Opposition to present the candidates to contest the seats.

Once in Parliament, it is up to the Opposition to prove itself in debate and to put forward alternative ideas if it opposes the PAP’s policies.

So far, the Opposition cannot be said to be very productive in presenting alternative policies which are well thought-out and detailed. I hope this will change so that our debates can be more useful in finding solutions for the country.

Earlier, the Workers' Party said there is no need for GRCs to ensure minority representation because minority candidates can get into Parliament as individual candidates. Therefore, GRCs should be abolished and all should be single seats. Sir, I wonder if the real reason why the Workers' Party is asking for this is that the Opposition has found it hard to recruit capable minority candidates to stand in GRCs. Because of the GRC system, they are forced to present a multi-racial team. If they cannot get enough minority candidates of sufficient calibre, this affects their ability to contest in GRCs. Sir, we have to make it clear that this GRC system is one that was devised to ensure minority representation. It is up to the Opposition to prove its appeal to the different races of Singapore by being able to put together multi-racial teams to contest in GRCs.

What we do not want to see revived in Singapore is the potency of communal-based political parties. As I mentioned earlier, Singapore had its share of communal-based parties when it had its first elections as a self-governing state in 1959. The fact that their power has been eroded over the years is not a matter of chance, it is not a natural attrition, it is because of the system that we have put in place. If all seats in Singapore were single seats, can the Workers’ Party guarantee that this will not encourage communal-based parties from emerging again and playing the racial card for votes in single seats?

Who will be the losers? It will be the minority races. How will that help us build a united nation?

In his Address, the President called for a fresh re-thinking and creative ideas to the problems we face today.

Sir, before we can do that, we need to gird ourselves with a spirit of creativity and adventure. Eager to explore new possibilities; to conquer new vistas; to see our country and all that it holds for us in new and fresh ways.

To navigate our small island through an increasingly unpredictable world, full of uncertainty and surprises, we need to permeate our society with such a zestful spirit. And we need to celebrate this spirit wherever and whenever we find them and nurture them.

In this regard, two events recently gave us cause for cheer. The first is the historic feat of a Singaporean all-woman team reaching the summit of the world’s tallest mountain, Mount Everest. They overcame tremendous obstacles to achieve their dream. It took more than five years of gruelling work in physical training, team building, fund raising. They had to make sacrifices in their careers and salaries. But few believed in them initially, they had trouble finding sponsors. They persevered. Theirs is not only a great sporting achievement. It is also a testament to their spirit of resilience, determination and adventure. This is the kind of spirit that we should celebrate and promote in all Singaporeans.

The second had to do with our achievements in the arts. In recent years, Singaporean writers and artists have been flying our national flag all over the world, to some acclaim.

Soon, three Singaporean writers will read their work at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the largest International Book Festival in the world. It brings together world-class writers and thinkers from all over the world each year. This year, this will include our very own Edwin Thumboo, who was awarded our first Cultural Medallion for Literature.

When I attended the Edinburgh Book Festival in 2006 and sampled its fare, I immediately shot an email to the Minister for Information and the Arts, then Dr Lee Boon Yang, to ask why Singaporean writers were not represented. I sent it when I was in Scotland, just in the midst of the Book Festival.

And he replied quickly to say that the National Arts Council was working on it and encouraged me to help by sending me a big box of materials and collaterals to promote Singapore as a global arts city in Scotland. Yes, he was that pro-active and supportive. I am glad that this sustained effort by MICA and the NAC have paid off.

There are many other successes in the arts but I want to highlight the literary arts because it is an often under-funded and neglected sector. Yet it adds tremendously to our creative and cultural depth.

I know the new Minister Lui Tuck Yew also supports this view. In fact, just after he became Minister, I also emailed him on the need to do more to develop literary arts, and he had responded to my call with enthusiasm.

Sir, we should promote the reading of Singapore literature in schools and in the community. Singapore literature is a great medium to express our society's values, its history and its uniqueness. It stimulates one’s imagination. It develops empathy.

Through reading, we rehearse the great problems of life, both personal and social, and reflect on the big philosophical questions: How should I live? What is important in life? What is equality? What is justice? What are the values of this island that we call home? Where is home?

We should put together a collection of good poems about Singapore, an anthology for use in schools. Such Singapore poems would help students to appreciate the wonder that is Singapore and to reflect on its social and political background. There could also be field trips to the locations of the poems.

Sir, Edwin Thumboo has just written a poem to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Singapore’s self-governance.

The poem, titled "1959 plus Fifty", is yet unpublished, and I want to thank Prof. Thumboo and the Straits Times for allowing me to share it with this House. I will read an excerpt of it here. You can read the full version in the Straits Times on Saturday.

The context of the passage I am reading is this: The country has rid itself of its colonial masters, then merged with Malaysia, only to be separated suddenly. Then the shock of the withdrawal of the British troops, which accounted for one-fifth of the economy.

Sir, now I read the poem:

"This our City-State,
Rose above withdrawal-symptoms creeping home from
East of Suez, black-white bungalows, Nee Soon bars.
We make again, but ... according to our leaders who
Muster and assess; chew, cogitate; rotate dreams, inspect
Possibilities including base conversion; calculate the way
Ahead; split racist infinitives; re-dress, re-vive decaying
Precincts; re-place Old Lobb and farm; learn to re-learn;
Keep tradition, yet change, move, do. Lick trade unions
Into shape. Lance the Barisan boil, as ten million sing
Malaysia forever, a brief sojourn, a painful parting for
This our island in the sun.

Assemble KPIs:
Labour, Capital, Government; Meritocracy, Equality;
Integrity, Commitment, Skills Development Fund;
And more, to mix and match into a Pledge, a Unity.
Singapura agak agak sudah jadi

Walk down the years between ever taller buildings, cross
Cleaner streets following a small green man who never tires.
Past Copthorne, to that notorious bend which slows our river.
No sulfide air. There are fish. Then backtrack past bridges
Whose names sound our history. See the Merlion, Durian,
Floating Platform, and emerging Double Helix bridge:
Art and design enhance function as in the newer HDBs.

Stroll Marina Barrage. Stop. Hear the waters on either side:
One composed, one rough, two signifiers for our boundaries.
Guard one; watch the other, so sanctify life within our skyline,
As twilight starts to hum, stretch its limbs, as colours move.
This new lake will gradually re-fresh, sweeten, fill sails, sms,
Accost the rising sun, pleasure lovers who hug its shores then
See the evening set in a pair of eyes, gently foreclosing.
Soon moonlight will start to heap.
Guardian hours that pass will come again,
As I remember what fifty years of vision
Un-did and did,
As what was and is, and may have been,
I place in the fifty years to come."

Sir, I think you will agree with me that this is a beautiful poem, with many layers.

You will notice that it referred to how our leaders make decisions – that we do it rationally, calculating our moves, thinking through possibilities.

Another emphasis of this poem is on the word "our" and the prefix "re-":

"Our city state, our leaders, our island in the sun, our boundaries, our skyline."

"Re-dress, re-vive, re-place, re-learn, re-fresh."

Sir, this is the essence of what we have been debating about the last four days.

Singapore belongs to us; we belong to Singapore. We can chart our own destiny. Fifty years from now, I hope our younger generation can say that we have led our country well, and perhaps, also write a poem about it.

The Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): I am afraid I am going to disappoint Members. There will not be any poetry in what I have to say.

Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC). This is a timely move because the last time we did a very indepth strategic review of the economy was in 2001 during the Economic Review Committee (ERC). It has been eight years since then. More importantly, the future environment that we are facing would be vastly different.

The Prime Minister has outlined the tasks for ESC and has identified five areas for us to take a closer look. What I would like to do this evening is to review what has happened since ERC and, in so doing, I will like to address some of the key issues raised by some Members regarding the structure of our economy as well as the roles play by the different players, the multi-national companies, our local companies and the SMEs.

I have asked the Clerk to distribute a set of charts. The first chart shows the performance of our economy in the last eight years, from 2001 to 2008. As you can see, Singapore has in fact grown faster than other developed economies as well as regional economies, while at the same time enjoying lower inflation.

The ERC assessed that the Singapore economy has the potential to grow by an average of between 3% and 5%.

Indeed, we have enjoyed better growth than that, about 6% per annum between 2001 to 2008. If you include the performance that we expect this year, even so the growth rate will be between 4% and 5% per annum over that period.

Our GDP was $153 billion in 2001; now it is $257 billion.

Even though we have enjoyed good growth, let me remind Members that we are still a very small economy, and this is a very important fact which I will refer to later on.

In the next chart, I would like to highlight what happened in the manufacturing sector. The ERC highlighted the importance of keeping manufacturing and services as the twin engines of growth. We made a very conscious decision to keep manufacturing as a key sector of our economy.

Unlike some developed countries which have experienced a hollowing out of their manufacturing sector, we have in fact successfully retained manufacturing at between 20% and 25% of our economy. I think Members will realise that Singapore is not a naturally manufacturing country. It requires a lot of effort to keep manufacturing as a key sector in our economy.

We have made long-term investments in training, skilled science and technology manpower in our schools, in our universities, in our research institutes. We have also devoted resources to developing infrastructure in research and development and we are able to maintain manufacturing. The reason why we have done so, I think many of you are familiar – we do not just see manufacturing as an important sector in itself but also for its spillover effects and its linkages to the other sectors. I do not have to go through that with you.

But I would like to highlight the changes between 2001 and 2008 is the very significant expansion of the bio-medical service sector. This was in line with ERC's assessment that we should diversify the manufacturing sector, reduce the reliance of electronics and build up other sectors, and that we have done. We have grown the bio-medical sector to contribute to a very significant part of the economy.

The ERC recommended that we do not pick winners or losers, but adopt a cluster approach towards developing our industries. It drew experience from the success that we had in building up the petrochemical sector and, in fact, this is the approach that we take. We build up the cluster, we put in place a strategy and, within the strategy, we embrace both local firms as well as foreign firms to come and participate in that sector.

The next slide addresses some of the points which Members have raised and it shows that by hitching on to external demand, it has, in fact, allowed us to enjoy a higher income growth over the last eight years. We have a small domestic economy, and we do external demand to build up our economy. In the last eight years, we have been very fortunate that the global conditions have been very benign. There was very strong global growth and, in fact, external demand has grown twice as fast as domestic demand, 10.6% compared to 5%, and we have benefited from this growth. If we had not pursued an export-led growth model, in fact, we would have foregone a significant amount of the growth over the past eight years Unlike other countries, domestic demand cannot replace external demand in our small economy. This means that we are more reliant on the health of the global economy. Our growth strategy may be more volatile but it also means that it can be higher on average than if we rely entirely on our domestic demand. So our strategy has been to try and capture the growth opportunities when the growth is good so that we have enough resources to ride through more difficult times.

Let me now turn to the fourth slide, which is probably the most interesting slide, showing the changes over the last eight years. It shows that our growth has been driven by both foreign and local enterprises, and by both SMEs and the large companies. You find that the economy has grown, as you have seen, to about $250 billion. In 2007, half of the contributions came from small companies and half came from big companies. Also, half of the economy, the contribution on the value-add came from foreign companies and half came from local companies. What is more remarkable in this breakdown is that, in fact, it is almost equal contribution. Among the SMEs, half of it is local and half of it is foreign; and among the larger companies, half of it is foreign and half of it is local. So our economy, in fact, is diversified as it can be. One quarter of the value-added comes from foreign MNCs; one quarter comes from local big companies, one quarter comes from foreign SMEs; and one quarter comes from local SMEs. This is a huge coincidence. It may not represent the ideal combination but, clearly, for some of the MPs who harp about the role of the MNCs, I just wanted to present this slide to show that conditions have changed quite significantly and that we should not hold on to the old stereotype picture that the economy, and particularly the manufacturing sector, is dominated by foreign MNCs. When you delve deeper into the data, you find that the increased foreign share of the GDP is largely due to our very successful efforts in attracting more foreign companies, particularly, SMEs or subsidiaries of big companies, to set up operations in Singapore. More importantly, these foreign companies do not just come from our traditional sources of the G3 economies, but they now come from a wider range of countries, from other parts of Europe, China, India and the Middle East. So Singapore now has an increasingly diverse and richer corporate landscape.

The next slide requires a bit of explanation. It shows the role of the different companies that we have for the different sectors. So we are trying to drill down on sectoral basis. The first slide I want to show is on manufacturing. Essentially, if the sector is in the upper half, it shows that Singapore companies play a bigger role. If it is on the right hand half, it shows that SMEs play a bigger role. So if you are on the top right quadrum, then it means that the sector is largely dominated by local SMEs. Similarly, if it is on the top left quadrum, then it is the local big companies. If it is at the bottom left quadrum, it is the large foreign companies. If it is at the bottom right quadrum, then it is foreign SMEs.

So in the manufacturing sector, as you can well imagine, the general manufacturing is dominated by our local companies, particularly the SMEs. So, here, you have the food manufacturing, furniture, printing, textile garments, and our local companies are able to hold their own in that sector. If you look at the top right hand column, in the transport engineering, we also have a very strong participation from our local companies, particularly, some of our bigger companies, whether it is the shipyards, like the Keppel and SembMarine, or in the aerospace sector, in the maintenance, repair and overhaul of aircraft, we have SIA Engineering and ST Aerospace, supported by a whole cluster of local SMEs. So that is on the top left hand quadrum. Precision engineering has a combination of both foreign and local SMEs.

I guess what some MPs referred to will be the three other sectors like electronics, chemicals or biomedical sciences where the sectors are dominated by foreign MNCs. Here, the question that we have to ask ourselves is, if we want to promote the diversification of our manufacturing sector and if we are not prepared to embrace foreign MNCs in our strategy, then we must be prepared to lose out in very important competitive sectors such as biomedical sciences or petrochemical where our local companies do not have a strong presence. If we think about the future of the strategy that we want to adopt going forward, and we think of the new sectors that Singapore can compete well in, for example, renewal energy, I am afraid we do not have that many good Singapore companies building up in scale to play in that arena. So, we have been able to attract companies such as REC from Norway in solar panel manufacturing. We have been able to attract Neste Oil from Finland to build a 800,000-ton biofuel facility in Singapore. And these will be the queen bees that can allow us to build up a new sector, a very competitive sector in renewable energy. But if we are to wait for our own local companies to build up to scale, to size, then we may lose out in the opportunities of this sector over the next few years.

The other sector that we are hoping to build up is environmental engineering. We do have significant Singapore companies in that sector. So we are working with them to develop this sector. And the third sector that we are targeting is interactive digital media. Again, we have Singapore companies, but they are fairly small, at this juncture, we need to bring in bigger foreign companies to add capability in that sector.

The next slide I would like to show is on the services sector. In the services sector, I think you see Singapore companies being better represented, being more active. It shows better representation of Singapore companies in the upper half, so it shows more Singapore companies participating in our services sector. Let me just highlight the two which are in the bottom half, wholesale and retail trade, we have seen a lot of Singapore companies. But in the wholesale sector, we have been very successful in the last 20 years in building up offshore trading, and this is the sector where, through the Global Traders Programme, we have now got a trading community of about 260 companies of which about one quarter are local and three quarters are foreign companies. But because of the three quarters foreign companies that we have, we have built up a critical mass, a very competitive trading community that other countries will find it very hard to replicate and is in fact very sticky, and we are able to retain that capability in Singapore. But to do that, you need to bring in foreign companies to build up the critical mass. You just cannot depend on the Singapore companies alone.

Similarly, you look at the financial sector. Despite our very traditional role as the commercial and financial hub for this region and with strong presence of local players, we still need significant foreign banks and financial insitutions. Because of the liberalisation since 1998, we have been able to do so and, today, financial services contribute 11% to our GDP and has very strong potential and good prospects, again, through the combination of both local and foreign players.

The final slide I have is to show, it is a rather crowded slide. It shows, in a nutshell, the challenges facing us and how MTI tackles them. Basically, we have about 120,000 local companies. The vast majority of our companies are small and, at the base, what we need is a very benign, very conducive, eco-system that allows new companies to be started up and how we can nurture them in the early building stages. In the middle of the pyramid, you have about 20,000 SMEs and for the SMEs, if you look at them in the different sectors, we have about 30 to 40 industrial sectors. Each industrial association or each sector has about 300 to 500 members. When we approach them sectorally, we are able to develop the strategy and we plan to develop the sector across the items, whether it is the money in financing support, whether it is marketing in promoting the products overseas, whether it is in training their management, their leaders, or whether it is in building up the technology, the know-how in making available our research and development efforts so that they can take full advantage of new technology in their development. At the peak of the pyramid, we have around 700 very big companies and these are the ones that we want to continue to help them grow and contribute to the economy.

And I guess what many MPs would want us to do in Government is to see how we can target some of the companies in the middle range of the pyramid and try to grow them into bigger companies and we do have a strategy or plan for that, we call them Growth Opportunity Enterprises (GOEs) and how do we provide for and facilitate their growth. So this, in a nutshell, is our strategy and, of course, I have explained this several times, I thought it is useful to explain the challenges facing us. We have a big task ahead of us with ESC and we have to set the objectives. But, more importantly, we need to understand the structure of our economy, the opportunities and also the constraints that we face if we want to develop a pragmatic and positive strategy for Singapore.

I just want to end with a bit of caution that when we hear calls on Government extending assistance to local companies to help them compete and grow, that we do so in a way that do not make us appear protectionist ourselves. Members of Parliament here have warned or alerted the risks of protectionist actions by other countries, so let us not indulge in such protectionist policies ourselves. As we all know, some countries have argued for national champions and, under that guise, they have adopted protectionist policies.

Singapore clearly cannot win in such a strategy. In addition, we have Free Trade Agreement (FTA) obligations. Whenever we sign an FTA, we fight very hard for our companies to be given most-favoured-nation treatment or national treatment. By national treatment, it means our companies are treated the same as the local companies in the countries that they operate. By most-favoured-nation treatment means that our companies are given the same treatment as other companies from other countries, so if they extend privileges to other companies from other countries, we get the same privileges. When we sign such FTAs, we are expected, in fact, to have the obligation to reciprocate accordingly. So, similarly, let us make sure that we do not end up out-of-bounds with our agreements.

Finally, let me take the opportunity to respond to Mr Low Thia Khiang's question yesterday about the buy-American provision and also on the American tax measures. As we are all aware, the buy-American provision was implemented on 17th February 2009 when they brought in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Because of the very adverse reaction from the international community and from some of the US business groups, the buy-American provision itself went through several changes. The final formulation requires that it be applied in a manner consistent with the US obligations under international agreements, both under the Agreement on Government Procurement under World Trade Organization (WTO), as well as bilateral agreements. But as you know, agreements are only as good as you are able to enforce them. Recently, we already have reports from some of the states in the US which are implementing buy-American policies in their state procurement actions and this has caused Canada to be very concerned, and Canada and other countries are now taking action against some of these states.

With regard to the proposal to tax US multinational companies' offshore income, I think, again, this proposal has raised a lot of concern, particularly from the US multinational companies. This is under review, so we will continue to work together with our partners in the US business community to make sure or to try and get the message across that changes like these will put the US companies at a great disadvantage. But it is still in the early days and we have to monitor this very closely.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, I would just like to ask the Minister for a clarification. I wonder whether the Minister is able to provide comparative statistics in terms of the number of jobs created in these various clusters?

The reason I am asking for this is because I have spoken about the need to push for inclusive growth, a point which I believe Prime Minister himself also mentioned in his speech. So notwithstanding the value-add that is created by some of these clusters, the point I want to make is: should the Government consider growing some of these clusters which inherently create more jobs, which in turn will benefit more Singaporeans? And, if so, can we put more resources and have a deliberate strategy towards growing these clusters?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang: I am very conscious that I stand between Members and their going home, so I did not want to load them with too many charts, but that is a very important question the Member has raised.

If you look at the share of employment – I will just read it out – local SMEs is about 45% share of local offered employment; local non-SMEs – meaning local big companies – is about 26%; foreign SMEs is about 12%; and foreign big companies is 16%.

So Mr Seah Kian Peng is absolutely right, our local SMEs employ far more workers but remember, if they employ far more workers but they contribute the same value-add (VA), it means their productivity is much lower and, therefore, their wages are much lower correspondingly. And that is the key point that I want to emphasise – the VA of our manufacturing sector jobs are much higher than many of our service sector jobs. The VA of the big foreign companies and the foreign SMEs are much higher and if we curtail those jobs, in fact, we are not doing Singaporeans any favour at all.