DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

Debate on the Address:

(Third Allotted Day): Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [8th November, 2006],

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

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.".' – [Mdm Halimah Yacob].

Question again proposed.

Column: 429

The Minister of State for National Development (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion.

Principles of market efficiency

I agree with the President that Singapore now stands at a turning point. Globalisation has brought about greater competition between companies and between countries. The lure of China as a manufacturing base has caused many manufacturing jobs to move out of Singapore. Jobs in the service industry such as IT programming, call services, are also being outsourced and exported. We, in Singapore, have felt the impact of globalisation. Some of us have lost our jobs. Some of us have found it hard to look for a job, especially when age is not on our side, and even if we do, we were not able to command the same pay as we used to. It is indeed a painful period for us and we have heard the cries of pain and hardship from those who have suffered. This is market forces at work. There have been calls from the people to protect Singaporeans from the impact of globalisation. But can we slow down the impact of global competition? Can we hide from foreign competition? Can we resist the change by erecting walls around Singapore?

Looking back, Singapore is the benefactor of the free-market economy model. Being a small city-state with no hinterland and no natural resources, an economy opened to foreign investment and free trade was our only option. After independence, we inherited an economy that has an unemployment rate of 14% and a stagnant economy. We were grateful for jobs, any jobs. Labour intensive industries like toothbrush, garments, transistor radios gave us our much-needed jobs. MNCs came and invested in us because of our low cost labour. More importantly, they came also because of our pro-business and pro-

Column: 430

investment policy. We welcomed foreign investment with our policy of open economy and free trade. Unlike many other nascent countries, we did not impose import duties to protect our local companies. Neither did we impose exchange controls nor foreign ownership restrictions. As a result, our local industries have learnt to compete with exports from other countries. As a result, we were spared the huge subsidy, poor services and inefficiencies that plagued many countries who have chosen to protect their local industries.

As we attracted more investment, we created more jobs for our people. With growth, our wages rose. By policy design, our manufacturing sectors moved up the value chain, progressing from labour-intensive, low-skilled production to higher value products such as electrical appliances and precision engineering. The next phase saw investments in refinery, pharmaceutical and petrochemical. Besides manufacturing, we also developed a strong service sector that encompasses financial services, IT and more recently biomedical research. In the development process, our GDP has grown and our wages have also increased. We invested in areas where we have a competitive edge in the world and pursued better paying jobs for Singaporeans.

The path to development has not been a smooth one. Along the way, we confronted several recessions - the oil shocks in 1973, recession in 1985, and more recently the Asian financial crisis in 1997, September-11 followed by the end of the Internet bubble in 2001, and SARS in 2003. Each time when we faced a challenge, we restructured ourselves and adjusted our policies. We learnt new skills, took up new jobs, fought hard against adversity and emerged stronger than before.

Over the last 40 years, we have allowed the pace of economic

Column: 431

restructuring to be dictated by market forces. Areas where we could no longer compete effectively, we allowed companies to exit. The principle was a simple one but the process was not easy. Strong leadership from a stable Government was critical to providing continuity in policy. This gave foreign investors the confidence to invest for the long term. Singaporeans understood that we had to compete for investments. Singaporeans knew the value of hard work and learnt the virtue of self-reliance and determination. We enjoyed sustained economic growth and job creation so long as we remain competitive. We understood that we have to look after ourselves as no one in the world owes us a living. In other words, as one of my grassroots leaders commented, survival of the fittest applies.

Interestingly, the concept of the survival of the fittest had originated in the study of economics, not evolution. British economist Herbert Spencer introduced the phrase "survival of the fittest" in 1851 (150 years ago) and he said this in his work in 1884:

“Companies which offer better goods and services survive better in the marketplace and tend to accumulate an ever-growing market share. Poorly-adapting companies will be forced out by better-adapting ones: "killed" by the competition.”

His theory has been validated over the last 150 years. In the market place where the fittest survives, Singapore has indeed been fit. We have survived and survived well.

Personal experience

In my career, I have experienced in close range the forces of the market at work. Until about three months ago, I have been managing a port. Competition in the port business was so intense that not one day would pass without some excitement in the market place. I felt

Column: 432

compelled to share my observations here because I fear that many of our constituents do not fully appreciate the fact that the right to survive is not served in a platter before us. The right to survive has to be fought and fought aggressively. Please allow me to draw lessons from the one place that I am passionate about, the port.

To describe the development of the port, it is best to borrow a tagline which goes, “The story of the port is the story of Singapore”. Spotted and commercialised by the British, it was the backbone to the development of Singapore into a vibrant entrepot and trading hub. Over the last 40 years, the port has gone through several transformations. From handling loose cargo in the form of cartons and bags, we are now moving containers that carry 40 tonnes of goods at one go. From labour gangs of “ coolies ”, our workers are handling highly mechanised machines and sophisticated computer systems. From a labour-intensive industry, we have become a knowledge-intensive industry.

More importantly, we created a new business by providing transshipment services to shipping lines that needed a hub for moving cargo from one part of the world to another. Last year, we became a global leader by handling a total container volume of 23.3 million TEUs, a volume disproportionate to our population and our domestic economy. Imagine, a small country like Singapore, with a population of four million handling the most number of containers in the world! China handled about twice the number but her population is 200 times that of ours!

But the journey to being a global leader has been a difficult and turbulent one. New ports emerged with the same ambition of developing a transshipment port. We are not short of copycats. Shipping lines were under pressure to cut price. Competition was intense. As a

Column: 433

service provider, labour is a big component of our cost. Unlike companies that export goods, outsourcing our operation facilities to countries with lower cost was not an option. Instead, we have to compete against ports in Malaysia, China, and other Asian countries with our costs in Singapore - our cost of labour, cost of land, and our cost of capital. We had to overcome our high costs to beat our competitors. Our workers are paid three times that of the workers in our nearest competitor. If we want to continue commanding this pay, we will have to be three times more productive. We have to compete with our knowledge, our productivity and our efficiency. Our customers have no sympathy for our high operating costs as they face the same expectation from their customers - that is, to provide the best service at the best price. If we price ourselves out of the market, they will bring the business elsewhere. This is not ruthlessness. It is just plain commercial necessity to be the fittest to survive.

Mr Speaker, to be ahead of competition, we have to innovate and improve continuously. While it is commonly acknowledged that the only constant is change, the pace of change has indeed quickened dramatically. Many countries are also adopting an export-led economic model and are opening up their market to foreign investors. The most notably being China, India and Vietnam. Since the opening of its economy, China has become the manufacturing hub of the world. In a short span of 15 years, their GDP per capita has increased from US$312 to US$1,714, and that is a 12% compounded growth. Ports in China, like many of the other industries, learned very quickly. What we have achieved in 40 years, they did in 10. When I first visited a port in China in 1996, workers operated a crane in pairs. The rationale then was that the crane, being a huge machine,

Column: 434

required a driver and an assistant to keep a lookout for the driver. After privatisation of the port, a review was made to improve the productivity at the port. After some negotiation, and a handsome 50% pay rise to the driver, the workers agreed to eliminate the need for an extra person. 50% increase in pay for the worker but 50% savings to the employer too. As the case has shown, with the right incentive, the productivity of Chinese workers rose quickly. Today, Shanghai is the third busiest port in the world when 10 years ago, they were not even in the top 10. So it is not just the magnitude of change, it is also the speed of change.

In this competitive environment, PSA has overcome several challenges. The loss of two major customers and the advent of SARS led to retrenchment and wage cuts in 2003. That was a very difficult time. Customers were unsettled and worried about the impact of low morale and shortage of workers. Workers were dispirited as, until then, the company had maintained that retrenchment would be the last resort. Tears were flowing. Prospect was very uncertain.

Several months after the retrenchment, with management taking the lead, we cut our wages. From top to bottom, the more senior you are in the hierarchy, the steeper the cut. While none of us are happy about the wage cut, we understood that we have to bring our cost down aggressively to remain competitive. Our workers, despite being dispirited from the effect of retrenchment and wage cuts, understood that the only way forward is to be more productive.

Their commitment to their job was clearly demonstrated when on the day of retrenchment, service level remained just as high as before and no ships were delayed. Workers and union leaders offered suggestions to improve productivity and lower cost. Having understood that the business volume

Column: 435

comes in peak and trough, depending on the arrival of the ships, workers accepted a rostering system that was more flexible to the company and thus less convenient to themselves. The whole company, workers, unions, management and the Board pulled together, united as one, and met the challenges head on.

Our efforts have not gone to waste and we are now reaping the fruits of our hardship. In the year of the retrenchment, we handled 8% more volume with 800 fewer workers. In the same year, we won the award for Best Terminal Operator in Asia, an award particularly sweet for us. It was a clear endorsement of our quality service. The following year, we achieved a growth of 14% with no additional staff. PSA is now employing more people. Because we made the right decision at the critical point, we can now grow.

These achievements were only possible with a workforce that is committed, tenacious and hardworking. Having gone through the tough times together, our workers and the company emerged stronger and more confident than before. The trust between the workers, the unions and the management was sealed with the payment of good bonuses in reward for the stellar performance. On hindsight, we could not have chosen a better code name for our retrenchment exercise - we called it Project Phoenix. Like the mythical bird, we emerged from the fire stronger

and more resilient than before.

Are the port workers a unique group of Singaporeans? I do not believe so. I talked to several union leaders of the Metal Industries Workers’ Union recently. One of them Mr Loo Say Thong works in Seiko, a company that has been long associated with Singapore. Mr Loo has been working in Seiko for 30 years. He has witnessed Seiko’s transformation from manual assembly of watches to a highly automated production process.

Column: 436

Through the transformation, he has upgraded his own skills. He is fully aware that higher wages do not come about merely by seniority, it has to be accompanied by productivity gains and greater skill content.

Another union leader Mr Bernard Tay works in Crown Beverage Cans which produces drink cans. He told me how the company has to compete with cheaper alternatives from the region. He also told me that the workers and the management joined hands to increase the production capacity from 400 million to 700 million per year to bring down the unit cost. The understanding of a manufacturing worker on market economics is commendable!

Mr Speaker, because of my experience, I believe that we have a workforce who understands the virtue of hard work. They have witnessed an improvement in their standard of living through work and that has earned them dignity and self-respect. My own experience has also shown that with the right conditions, workers and employers can work hand in hand to overcome difficult times together. I am confident that our people are able to ride out any challenges and hardship that may come our way.

Tripartism

Needless to say, a company requires more than a united and motivated workforce to succeed. I would like to offer some of my observations based on my experience.

As managers, we balance the needs of the workers with those of the shareholders of the company. On one hand, we have the interest of the workers who want more pay and better working conditions. On the other hand, shareholders require profits and returns to sustain the business. Unrealistic wages and terms of employment will burden the

Column: 437

company and erode the competitiveness of the company. Ignoring the interest of the workers, on the other hand, will result in low staff morale, low productivity and staff turnover. A proper balance through sharing of the fruits of success is needed for long-term sustainability of the company.

The same can be said about a country. As a country, we have to balance the needs of the workers, employers and the Government. The strong symbiotic relationship between NTUC, employers and the Government has been critical to our success as it provided a stable labour condition that was necessary to attract investments. Because of the close relationship, our union understands the business reality that Singapore is facing. As we underwent each phase of change, be it mechanisation, automation or computerisation, the workforce understood the need to keep advancing, to raise productivity and to upgrade themselves. Workers in Singapore are cooperative, hardworking and motivated. Our enlightened labour unions are able to provide leadership in times of trials and tribulations. Having invested and operated in many other countries, I can safely say that our state of industrial relations is a competitive edge for businesses such as PSA.

Going forward, uneven income growth and a new generation of workers will pose challenges to our tripartism framework. Job opportunities and wage increases are likely to be uneven across segments of our people. The knowledge-based workers in the emerging industries will have different aspirations and needs from their conventional peers. Our unions will have to remain relevant by reaching out to them effectively and connecting with them. We have to manage the expectations that will be increasingly disparate. We have to give workers an

Column: 438

equitable share of their profits. We also have to inculcate a strong work ethic amongst the generation that has grown up in prosperity.

As we face a population with longer life expectancy, there will be pressure on the Government to extend mandatory retirement age. Any change in mandatory retirement age will have a significant impact on businesses. Some jobs may be too physically demanding for the older workers. We have to be mindful that we do not solve the societal problem with a blunt policy instrument that may erode the competitiveness of our industries. As our economy diversifies, the cost structure and factors affecting different industries will be very different. The cost structure of the pharmaceutical industry will be different from the ship repair or rig building industry. Even within the pharmaceutical industry, the high value R&D sector in Biopolis will have different concerns from its manufacturing counterpart on Jurong Island. As our economy is going through transition, we, as Government, have to remain prudent in changing our legislation.

The issue of foreign workers has been raised several times. Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the Members that foreign workers have served us well in our journey of economic development. Our ability to tap foreign workers to fill the low value jobs has allowed Singaporeans to move to higher paying jobs. Foreign workers are also filling jobs that involve harsh working conditions which Singaporeans shun. Without foreign workers, our cost would have been significantly higher. Or worse, our capacity could have been hampered because of shortage of workers.

Some MPs spoke on the need to reduce the number of foreign workers to cater to local workers. While I do not disagree that some Singaporeans could benefit from such tightening of control, I

Column: 439

would like to reiterate that we should avoid a blunt policy but be pin-pointed in our policy application. To illustrate my point, consider the domestic workers that are providing the much needed help in our households. It will be futile to reduce the number of such workers with the hope of enticing Singaporeans to the job. Over the next few years, we have several major projects such as the IR, Orchard Turn and Shell cracker plant in the pipeline. We will need more hands to build for us. We have to seize the opportunities offered and not be constrained by the lack of workers. Without foreign workers, our capacity will be constrained and we will lose business - not marginally but in chunks.

Having said this, I am acutely aware of the concerns raised by Singaporeans over the issue of foreign workers. This tension between local and foreign workers has to be managed and the needs balanced carefully.

Investing in the Future

Next, on the need to invest in the future. To ensure its competitive position in the long run, a company has to invest in the future, be it in the form of new production capacity or the development of new product.

Several strategic decisions taken in the past were crucial to the success of the port. In the early 70s, our leaders saw the potential of handling containers as a new business. We were the first and only one in the region. When we sought financing from the World Bank to fund our construction of a container port, we were told that Singapore, at the stage of development then, did not require a container port. Our leaders, instead of being discouraged by the decision, took the bold move and proceeded on our own even though the Government budget was small and money was scarce then.

Column: 440

That decision has proven to be a correct one. Another example was the Government’s push towards computerisation in the late 80s. TRADENET and PORTNET were created when the port and the Government agencies invested in computer systems to automate document processing and trade permit application. That decision made Singapore a paperless port with high level of accuracy and efficiency. It has given Singapore a competitive advantage for a good 10 years as no other country was able to go paperless until recently. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, because of my observations, I am a firm believer that to be successful in the long run, we must invest now for the future.

But investment involves risk. If you want risk-free investment, we should use fixed deposits, and even that is not entirely risk-free. All the more now than before, we have to take bold courageous investment decisions for the future. In a recent trip to the US, which I was part of a delegation, MM Lee was asked by US politicians and business leaders, on two separate occasions, about our progress in biomedical research. Most recently, in the 30th October issue of Time magazine, with a cover title of “Asia’s Science Revolution”, Singapore’s effort in R&D was compared with that of China’s, and I quote, “If Singapore is the test-tube baby of Asian science - enjoying a perfectly controlled environment and regimented doses of cash - China is the hungry teenage with far grander dreams.” My point here is that our effort in biomedical is attracting attention in the US which suggested that our efforts are creating tractions and we are on the right path. The attention, however, has attracted competition from other countries, in this case, China. This pattern of investment life cycle is repeated ever so often - we invest in a new industry, grow the industry, reap the returns, which in turn attracts other countries to enter the foray,

Column: 441

crowding us out and leaving us having to look for the next new wave. To continue to grow, we have to keep searching for our next blue ocean and keep investing for the future.

Training our people is another form of investment and

one can argue that it is the best form of help a government can give to its citizens. The question is not whether to train, but how to train. Life cycles of product and technology have shortened dramatically. Skills and knowledge will become obsolete faster than before. Training modules would have to be updated and refreshed more frequently to remain relevant. We have to invest our training dollars more judiciously to ensure that we provide relevant training for our workers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have thus far been expounding the virtues of the free-market mechanism. While we must subscribe to the need to be the fittest, we cannot allow the law of the jungle to rule our society. Even in the animal kingdom, acts of kindness to its own are being displayed. Wolves and wild dogs have been observed to bring meat back to members of the pack who are not present at the kill. Walruses have been seen adopting orphans who lost their parents to predators. As human beings, all the more we must look after each other, ie, our young, our aged and our weak. As a Government, we have a social responsibility to our people. In the global race for jobs, we have to ensure that those who are lagging behind in the race are taken care of. I am happy to note in the President's Address that the Government will be doing more for the low-income group. Besides extending the various financial assistance schemes, I feel that we should address concerns over the rising cost of living.

The public service in Singapore is quite unique in the world. Allow me to explain.

Column: 442

As a newbie in the public sector, I am amused that public transport is not provided by the public sector. Our bus service operations have been privatised, while our taxi service is not considered public transport. Public Utilities Board supplies water but not electricity nor gas. Wholesaling and retailing of electricity have been privatised but the former is a competitive industry while the latter is not. Public health services are restructured and privatised. Medical insurance is progressively being outsourced. Our cleaning and refuse collection services have been outsourced, and law enforcement now is also being outsourced. In short, we have outsourced many aspects of public service.

As an advocate of the free-market mechanism, I appreciate the benefits of such a decision. We have seen how other governments are being bogged down by a huge bill of public service. The public sector, where market mechanism is inherently lacking, can be prone to problems of inefficiencies and poor services. By privatisation and outsourcing the delivery of public services, we have eliminated much of the inefficiencies. At the same time, we have given the private sector a bigger slice of the economic pie. However, we must not forget that, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that good basic public services are provided at affordable prices to its people. Where the market is not effective, such as when there is a lack of effective competition or when the objective is not properly addressed, we must be prepared to exercise our regulatory obligation and, where necessary, adjust the industry structure.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in Mandarin now.

(In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, the widening of our income gap will create an impact on our society. The

Column: 443

present public service management style may not be relevant in the future. In the past 40 years, the income of our Singapore people has generally risen steadily. The standard of living of our people has risen to a certain level. Our cost of living has also risen correspondingly. All the public service and facilities have improved. Under such circumstances, the cost of living has risen. This is an inevitable trend and is perfectly acceptable. But the fact remains that our wage increase has surpassed inflation. In the past 40 years, we have enjoyed as much as a 4.5% net rise in income, after providing for inflation. Singaporeans are living better. Their incomes have increased year by year and, of course, their demand for public services is getting higher and higher, and they want better service - better bus services, better schools and quality medical care. This is understandable.

However, because of the economic restructuring, we would face the challenges brought about by this huge income gap. Under such circumstances, the Government would have to have a new plan to deal with this matter. We must effectively contain the rise in the cost of living so that inflation would not be faster than the increase in our wages. I would like to stress that I am not advocating that our public service should be stagnant and not progress. I am just reminding everybody that we must first of all consider the impact brought about by the rising cost of living on our people before we proceed to undertake plans to upgrade our public service. For example, is it necessary to air-condition all our bus interchanges or convert our MRT carriages to be like aircraft cabins, or building air-conditioned hawker centres? These are some of my own thinking. But our Government departments have many creative civil servants and they have a lot of ideas. But while they are upgrading all these facilities, should they not take into consideration the needs of the people?

Column: 444

Our people want us to contain the cost of living but not financial handouts. This is because they want to be self-reliant. I think what the Government should do is to have proper control and to avoid unnecessary infrastructural improvements.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have mentioned just now that under the survival of the fittest, even animals have this communal style of living. Allow me to illustrate my point through the animal world. I understand that polytechnic students are also very concerned with the question of procreation, just like Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng. DPM Wong is concerned with the birthrates of our people, but the polytechnic students are concerned with a fish. They are interested in the fertilisation of the Arowana, a very expensive species of fish. To my amazement, they have observed that after the female fish has produced the eggs, the male fish will take in the eggs and keep them in its mouth for two months before the eggs are hatched. Perhaps this is something that we human beings can learn from the animal world. I am sure if we can do that, it will alleviate the burden of the female fish and the female fish would be more willing to produce more eggs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the open-market economy has done us well and we are the benefactor of a free-market economy. After a few rounds of economic restructuring, our people are more resilient and willing to face the challenges, and we would be able to survive under the worst conditions. But we should not prey on the weaker of our society. We should look after our young as we look after ourselves and our older people also in our society. All our people are hardworking. They are united. I am sure that we will be able to attain the targets set by the President, ie, to respond boldly and creatively to our challenges to make Singapore a secure, prosperous, harmonious and convenient country. I am confident that we can definitely do it.

Column: 445

Sir, I therefore support the motion.

*Cols. 569-572.

2.10 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, I agree with the Government's policy to strive for an all-inclusive society in Singapore. I believe this policy also means that the Government shall give fair and equal treatment to all Singapore citizens. But, as an elected Opposition Member of Parliament, the Opposition has not been included in the inclusive society in the treatment of the Opposition in Singapore. I have not received equality of treatment in relation to even the PAP candidate, let alone the PAP MPs. The PAP's candidate at Potong Pasir gets better treatment and facilities than I, the incumbent Member of Parliament for that constituency. I have not been given an office in the void deck for my MPS work. I have to carry out my MPS work in the open at the void deck. There is no privacy, no protection from the elements and no air-conditioned comfort.

Since the Government wants to strive for an all-inclusive society, it should start by giving the elected Opposition MPs fair and equal treatment comparable to those given to its own PAP MPs. After all, the funds are not from the PAP but are public funds, and they should be disbursed fairly and equally to both PAP MPs and the elected Opposition MPs. It is quite obvious that the Opposition MPs have been much marginalised and are not given the benefit of the proclaimed inclusive society policy. Opposition grassroots leaders are also not invited to the annual National Day celebrations at the Istana grounds, whereas all PAP grassroots leaders are automatically invited every year to attend the function. This is another example of a Government not

Column: 446

including Singaporeans in its so-called inclusive society. It seems that the Government's desire to promote the all-inclusive society in Singapore is a practice which is very selective. This policy does not cover all Singaporeans. It only includes citizens who shall benefit the Government. I have been elected to Parliament six times and I have yet to receive an invitation to hear the Prime Minister deliver his annual National Day Rally Speech. Why is the Opposition so ostensibly snubbed? Why is the ruling party so afraid to give recognition to the Opposition? Is this how the ruling party carries out its nation-building?

The Government intends to rejuvenate old HDB estates and give life to those estates. I call on the Minister to release the $80 million budgeted for release to Potong Pasir to upgrade the HDB flats there so that the HDB estates in Potong Pasir can be rejuvenated, as intended by the Government.

I applaud the Government for wanting to promote a cohesive society. This is important because Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society. Getting the different races and religions to co-exist in harmony is not only important for the purpose of social defence but also for maintaining security against terrorist attacks, which is a real thing in this present age. No nation can now claim that it is immune from the scourge of terrorist bombs. Many of our neighbours are victims of terrorist bombings. We have seen the terror of the Bali bombings where over 200 people were killed, many of whom were Australian tourists. Then there are the bombings in southern Thailand, India and Pakistan. Terrorists fight a war without a front. They attack indiscriminately. They feel no remorse killing innocent victims,

non-combatants like children, women and the aged. For this reason, we must be continually vigilant. Our army and our police force must be on the alert at all times and our

Column: 447

citizens must be educated to cooperate with our armed forces and the police. Even tourists must be encouraged to help if they can. Fighting terrorism is an all-out war. Therefore, the cohesiveness of our society is paramount. Civilians must be thought to be fiercely loyal to Singapore and they must never fall prey to the lure of fanatics and be dragged in as volunteers to be trained as suicide bombers.

We have seen what happened in England not that long ago. The three terrorist bombers were home-grown lads. We must never let that happen in Singapore. Singaporeans must all unite. The whole nation must unite to make sure that not even one terrorist bomb is exploded within our borders because our economy shall be jeopardised as our burgeoning economy depends heavily on foreign investors. The confidence in the stability of Singapore should not be shaken.

At home, we must strengthen the cohesiveness among the different races. We must do more to enhance the cohesion, trust and confidence within the different communities. May I suggest that the different racialist based self-help groups like Mendaki, SINDA, CDAC and the Eurasian Association be merged and act as one body instead of maintaining the dichotomy of these self-help groups which, for the purposes of maintaining racial harmony and cohesiveness in Singapore, is unhealthy.

These different racial groups should follow NKF. NKF is multi-racial. It accepts and treats patients from all racial groups. It does not distinguish whether one is a Chinese, a Malay, an Indian or others. Dialysis is given by NKF to anyone who needs it regardless of race, language or religion. I would urge the four self-help groups to merge and if that is not possible, for the time being, to take

Column: 448

steps to accept members and applicants for aid from outside their own racial group.

I would like to mention another Government policy which highlights communalism. I am referring to the formation of the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). At every General Election, the minority candidates of GRCs must appear before a race committee to certify that he or she is an Indian, Malay or Eurasian, which means that the issue of race is brought up at every General Election. I think this is taking a step backwards in Singapore's attempt to build cohesiveness amongst its citizens. This is one of the reasons why the Opposition calls for the scrapping of the GRCs and maintain only Single Member Constituencies (SMCs).

It has been said that education can break the poverty cycle of the poor. If we believe that, then we should help the poor kids by making tuition not only available but also affordable. Tuition fees must be kept low. Poor children also have diverse interests. Various programmes must be made available to those poor children in our schools to pursue their interests. I would call on Government to keep the cost of tuition fees low and affordable for all students who would like to pursue their diverse interests and to develop their creative talents. To alleviate the plight of the poor, more should be done to caregivers and make dental and medical fees more affordable.

The President, in his speech, welcomes foreigners to live and work in Singapore. My concern is: would foreign workers widen the income gap? Foreign workers are willing to accept lower wages than those paid to Singapore workers. Would the wages in the bottom end be further pushed downwards by these foreign workers? Due to the introduction of foreign workers into our workforce, a

Column: 449

sweeper today working full-time is forced to accept $600 a month. I am uncertain whether that rate of pay attracts CPF contributions. Even at the low level of pay, a Singapore worker who needs a job has no choice but to accept a low pay. If a Singaporean rejects that job, the cleaning contractor - this is my experience in Potong Pasir - can easily fall back on foreign workers. Foreign workers maintain the income gap between the high and low wage workers.

The Government should think of ways to alleviate the low wage plight of our uneducated workers. I know the Government abhors minimum wages but I still contend that the Government should take another look at the introduction of minimum wages for Singaporeans only. Singapore is a first-world country. Let us aim to make it a first-world country in terms of dignity and to show respect for our working men and women. We should earnestly explore the possibility of introducing minimum wage schemes in our country so that we can confidently tell the world that we are a truly first-world country.

The President's speech seems to have left no stones unturned. He appeared to have covered nearly all the problem areas that confront our nation-building. I just hope that all policies that the Government proposes shall be fruitful and beneficial to all Singaporeans in all walks of life.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I would like to assure you that you will receive equal treatment from this Chair.

2.24 pm

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I am honoured to begin my third term as a Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC. First of all, I would like to just take up the two issues that Mr Chiam raised. First of all, he said

Column: 450

that PAP grassroots leaders are invited to national functions like dinners at the Istana. I think he is confused, as always he has been, between grassroots leaders and activists. I actually do not know of any of my PAP activists who have been invited to Istana functions like National Day dinners. But I know that the grassroots leaders who are appointed by PA get invited. I hope he is not asking that we change this and I hope he is not expecting his Potong Pasir activists from his Party to be invited by the Prime Minister or that the Cabinet starts inviting PAP activists. I think we should be the first to be invited if ever this policy is changed.

He also asked for $80 million to upgrade Potong Pasir. I hope that the Prime Minister will not give him that money for Potong Pasir because I need that money in Ang Mo Kio. We have so many more flats in Ang Mo Kio that deserve upgrading and if there is $80 million extra, I ask the Minister for National Development to please give it to Ang Mo Kio first before Potong Pasir.

Sir, like every Member in this House, including Mr Chiam and Mr Low Thia Khiang, I also would like to echo the closing part of the President's speech last Thursday. He said, "Let us build a competitive economy and an inclusive society." And this therefore must be the vision and direction for this House for the next five years.

Sir, in his speech, in summary, he hit the same touchstones as the Prime Minister's National Day Rally address in August this year and outlined the vision and way forward for Singapore. And these are, first of all, the goal of making this a thriving, vibrant business and lifestyle hub that attracts top businesses and creative talent from around the world where Singaporeans can also choose to start businesses. Second, the goal of making this place that Singaporeans

Column: 451

choose to identify with and a place where Singaporeans feel at home and where everyone feels that they are important, including the new Singaporeans that we are attracting to Singapore. In other words, the visions are focused on both economic and social vibrance.

Increasingly, the issues are more people-centred than economic-centred. So how can we achieve the vision that the President had spelt out for us? In one word, we should aim for confidence. First, confidence in our economy and, second, confidence of our people and of those that we attract to our shores. Our greatest challenge will be how to continue to inspire and develop a sense of confidence in Singapore and among Singaporeans.

Sir, to succeed, we must develop in Singapore both emotional confidence or the heartware of Singapore, and, secondly the economic confidence, which is the hardware or the nuts and bolts.

Sir, in the last few years, I feel that we have done well to re-model the economy, and that is the hardware portion. But we have lagged behind in the social and emotional aspect, that is, the heartware portion, and many Members in this House have already very passionately pointed out to this House. So, let me now also join the chorus then about the heartware portion that almost every Member has spoken about in the last two days.

Sir, the on-going debate about foreign talents surfaced the fear in the minds of some Singaporeans, that the immigrants will deprive them of opportunities at home. Sir, far from it, it shows a lack of self-confidence and confidence in our future amongst Singaporeans. We attempted but have not yet succeeded in instilling this sense of confidence when we tried doing so through the S21 in 1997 and then through the Remaking of

Column: 452

Singapore initiative in 2001. We have yet to build a strong heartware amongst Singaporeans. Sir, heartware, as I have mentioned, is essentially about the confidence in society. Once we can build a stronger sense of confidence amongst Singaporeans, many of our rootedness and emotional issues amongst Singaporeans will be resolved. We must all feel confident of our future in Singapore. And I would like to deal with the need to develop confidence amongst three groups of Singaporeans: the first group facing the widening income gap and the skills deficit to deal with loss of employment; the second group, the older Singaporeans and addressing their new concerns; and the third group, inspiring the new generation.

Sir, first, the widening gap and the skills deficit to deal with loss of employment which many Singaporeans face today. It is, of course, difficult to maintain confidence in the face of financial hardship. The group that is most vulnerable to loss of confidence in our society is the group most affected by the widening income gap and economic dislocation.

Sir, we saw a chart yesterday in the House - I believe Mr Lee Yi Shyan provided that chart - that shows that in the last five years, there has been either a decline or a flat level of income earned among the lower half of Singaporean income earners. But yet, in the last five years, we have seen many increases in expenditures like transport charges, utility charges, university fees and quite a few more charges. For the group that I am talking about, which many of us may also call the sandwich group, they are already living hand-to-mouth and any such increase of expenditure becomes a huge burden for their family. This is not a small group and we should worry about their predicament.

Taking the last five years' experience and then projecting into the future, this group of Singaporeans will

Column: 453

see little hope and are losing confidence about their future at home, because they see their income and expenditure gap becoming unbalanced.

Then, we have another group of Singaporeans who have been forced to sell their HDB flats because of their inability to service their mortgage. I am sure many Members in this House see this group every week. I saw a few yesterday at my MPS. Sadly, many of them were in negative equity position in the first place and lost money when their flats were forcibly sold. For them, projecting into the future, what confidence can we give them about owning another HDB flat, which has been one of the important principles of being Singaporeans that we are trying to promote?

What is the best role for Government then? Sir, we must, as we all agreed to, teach Singaporeans to fish so that they can feed themselves for life, and not just keep giving them fish. But more than teaching them to fish, we need to teach them to fish effectively, maybe to catch crabs, prawns and even sharks, so that they will know that they have attractive options here to make their life better and still confident about their future. They must feel that they can be adequately re-equipped to face the coming challenges and to get through tough times ahead. We have seen some success stories - thanks to the WDA and NTUC. We now need to effectively reach out to everyone who needs help. This confidence will alleviate their fear that non-Singaporeans are taking away their jobs and show them that foreigners are not merely replacements for Singaporeans but complementary and are necessary to keep driving our economy.

Without departing from our basic principle of everyone helping himself first and the role of the family to support

Column: 454

members in need, the new social compact must also include some of the economic gain from attracting the best into Singapore to help this vulnerable group to fit into the new economy. If we strike the right balance of support without undermining the will to work, it will make us a more compassionate, giving and inclusive society that all of us want Singapore to become, knowing that in times of need, they will get the necessary help, understanding that such help will be a short-term help for them until they can get back on their feet. They will develop a greater sense of confidence that life will be bearable, and that they can survive the most difficult of times, and this will not necessarily make us a welfare state.

While the Government has helped on an ad hoc basis from time to time with things like the Progress Package, which many Singaporeans are thankful to the Prime Minister, it helped them during that difficult period, or through the New Singapore Shares, Utilities Save, and many of these programmes that we have done over the years, as I mentioned, are ad hoc measures. They are not permanent and systematic set of help measures that will give comfort to Singaporeans that help is not far away or difficult to get when they really need it. I am not asking for a welfare system like what we see in the western countries, but still the Government must be prepared to spend more money and make it a norm more than an exception when it comes to helping Singaporeans in need. We have yet to find that balance of support, and this is reflected in the fear and anxiety among Singaporeans, especially over the foreign talent issue.

Second, the heartware of older Singaporeans. Like any developed nation, we have an ageing population with new needs, and we must face this issue head on. Can Singaporeans grow old confidently? If each one of us feels that we can eventually retire comfortably here,

Column: 455

with enough savings to have a reasonably good quality of life and that healthcare remains affordable, then we can develop that confidence. We do not want to hear any elderly Singaporeans saying that it is better to die than to be hospitalised because of their fear that they may not be able to afford the medical treatment or the fear that it will be a big burden on the family because of the cost of medical treatment. Of course, the move by the Government to keep healthcare affordable and accessible to the elderly, and to make our living environment more elderly-friendly, should continue. Our elderly population must know that they will have enough support from the Government and society. Then, even those who are young now will confidently look forward to old age.

But I believe, today, we have yet to convince Singaporeans that growing old will be a comfortable experience for them. Issues we have yet to address include enough savings for retirement. Some Members have pointed out that CPF is no longer sufficient to cater for their retirement. Actually, we have a very big gap here which needs to be urgently addressed. Future healthcare cost, while affordable, they see this going up. Our old may have an HDB flat as an asset, but they may have no cash to enjoy a better quality of life. Without doubt, this is going to be a major preoccupation for the Government in the coming years.

Sir, third, heartware and the new generation. There is a global demand for both our highly mobile Singaporeans, especially the younger and more educated and those that are well travelled, and also the cream of talents that we have successfully attracted into Singapore. We must therefore make Singapore a more interesting place to live, work and play, as the President mentioned. This is, of course, easier said than done.

We have done well in addressing the "work" part with economic incentives and

Column: 456

opportunities and global connectivity. For the "play" part, we have made Singapore a hub for arts, culture, sports and entertainment. I believe a few days ago, there was a report that says that we are the second best for night-life type of entertainment, and that is good news. A major mindset shift was also taken with our decision to develop the two integrated resorts. But we still need to work on the "live" part, which is perhaps more difficult because it is harder to pin down.

Making this a better place to live is more than just about the physical environment, which is no doubt one of the best in the world here in Singapore. But it also has to do with giving Singaporeans greater emotional space.

Sir, considering the recent incident of the blogger known as "mrbrown", he made comments about the Government withholding information from the people. The Government saw the need to respond firmly, and it had to do so, because it had to respond to this kind of allegations. But what happened next worries me. Lee Kin Mun, the blogger, swiftly found himself axed as a columnist of the paper that he wrote for.

Was his sacking because of a perception that the Government required this blood-letting? This perception must be broken now, because I know that the Government does not require that. If we do not change this perception, it will be much more difficult to develop confidence among our young generation of Singaporeans, that they will have the emotional space which they know they can get in other developed countries, and they are mobile enough to go wherever they want. Sir, increasingly, the mobile and vibrant Singaporean or foreigner who is based here will want the space to express his or her views more freely. We must be ready to accept such a society to be a vibrant home we want for all.

Column: 457

Sir, I believe that had we successfully followed through the S21 and the Remaking of Singapore initiatives and sustained the momentum of engaging the public, we would have addressed many of these issues. But, sadly, this emotional confidence part has not been successful for us. I hope that we are not thinking of forming another committee to address these issues, because we know what we need to do. Now, we just need to go and do it.

We have had greater success in building economic confidence among Singaporeans. Let me now move to the economic or hardware part of my speech. Frankly, I wanted to end my speech here and join in the chorus about emotional confidence and people issues. But I feel that what has been greatly lacking and that Members have not addressed is the economic or hardware portion of the President's Speech. He said two things - a vibrant economy and an inclusive society. Being the Chairman of the GPC for Finance and Trade and Industry, I thought it is my responsibility to address these issues.

On hardware, globalisation is the order of the day. No country is immune to it. Reinventing our economy will remain a constant occupation for the Government as we face these new challenges. The Government has instilled confidence in its ability to keep Singapore's economy relevant. And the latest exercise of the Economic Committee headed by the Prime Minister was a very successful exercise that showed us that we know how to handle the changes in this coming environment. We now need to move from dependence on the Government to all stakeholders - the private, public and the people sectors - taking the initiative to push the economy.

Sir, I see the following changes for Singapore in the years ahead. First, the

Column: 458

potential hollowing out of the economy. If multi-nationals accelerate their move to countries like China, Vietnam and India, and if our local enterprises cannot move fast enough to fill the vacuum and create the jobs, the problem of employment will remain. I dread the day that Singapore becomes a net exporter of labour because of our inability to provide jobs here.

Many question whether the hollowing of the economy is a real threat. It is not today, but it is a potential problem. Let us consider this. Today, we are already seeing a two-speed economy. One consists of the larger multi-nationals and mostly Government-linked companies which are mainly export-based and are doing very well. The other group of companies are local smaller enterprises contributing mainly locally, but lagging behind in moving up the value chain and in embracing technology and innovation.

If our local enterprises do not catch up, they will become the weak third pillar of the economy behind the multi-nationals and the GLCs. Ideally, all three pillars need to be equally strong for a successful economy, as is the case in most developed nations around the world. The experience of GLCs in their overseas business acquisitions has been a mixed bag. The recent Shin Corp fall-out is a worrying one. I have raised a Question on this in this House and I hope it will be discussed on Tuesday and on what went wrong. Therefore, notwithstanding the obvious strengths of the GLCs, we cannot afford to continue in the mindset that the bulk of the responsibility for growing the external wing of the economy lies with the GLCs. Local entrepreneurship and local enterprise potential for this also must be pushed.

So, what must we do to achieve this state of balance among the three pillars of our economy? The answer lies in entrepreneurship and local enterprise development. This must now go on a very

Column: 459

high key. The Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE), which is mainly a private sector driven movement, has achieved a lot in a short period of time, in both trying to promote entrepreneurship and also helping local enterprises, especially in areas of financing. But it is time that the Government needed to give ACE better tools and resources to do even more. We are all private-sector volunteers and we need a lot more support from the Government to do a better job.

I will briefly touch on how we can improve the support for local enterprises, and these are the type of issues that the GPC for Finance and Trade and Industry will be focusing on in the years to come.

First, for existing companies, we need them to move up the value chain of activities. Our local companies must quickly start looking like the multi-nationals that we know of. They need to better adopt innovation and R&D.

Second, we need to catalyse the start up of a new breed of innovative and technology-based companies here in Singapore. We need the right ecosystem for this to happen, so that the Googles and the Nokias of the future will emerge from Singapore.

Third, local enterprises must benefit more from Government procurement. The Government must be an early adopter of developmental work, as in the case of US, even until today with the much developed economy than us, the Government continues to remain an important customer for small and emerging companies.

In this regard, I applaud the Yellow Pages rule set out in the Economic Review Committee's Report, and it is a move in the right direction, but I think the Government needs to be bold enough to do a lot more and not be afraid to support

Column: 460

local enterprises, because this is done in most other countries.

Fourth, local businesses must also expand into overseas markets, especially into China and India more successfully. We have had some success but we need to see a lot more than what we have seen. So, to prevent the hollowing of our economy, we need therefore to level up the playing field and create an environment for local enterprises to develop into multi-nationals of the future. We are already late in doing so.

The Government has always allocated a lion's share of the budget for economic development for the support and attraction of foreign direct investments. The EDB has always gotten a very big budget but agencies supporting local enterprises have been getting a very small fraction of what EDB gets. I am not asking the Government to steal from EDB and give a bigger pie to agencies supporting local enterprise development, but rather the Government to give additional resources from its own funds.

I am glad that the Government has confirmed its seriousness about local enterprise development by creating a full-time Chairman for SPRING. I think this is a move in the right direction. And, more significantly, by appointing Mr Philip Yeo as the Chairman. Therefore, it gives me confidence that we are serious about this. And I am quite confident that we will do a lot more for local enterprises with this new change. Of course, I hope that Mr Philip Yeo believes that it can be done, as many of us believe in it.

Second, riding the China and India wave. First, was local enterprise development; the second challenge for us is the emergence of China and India. This has made it necessary for companies to accelerate regionalisation. China and India can be viewed as opportunities or

Column: 461

threats for us. The second mindset is a useless one and will not lead us anywhere that we want to go. Our local enterprises must therefore lead the charge. We must quickly develop them into successful companies that can tap these new opportunities in these markets. These markets are very challenging. Companies can no longer wait to become big locally before launching overseas. They need to think global right from day one. And I believe that the Government can play a useful supporting role here by shortening their learning curve and facilitating their jump overseas.

Sir, the third challenge for us is going to be the tight labour and talent market. This is a huge challenge for Singapore, and the sooner we become a magnet

for talented people the better we will fare in our economic development. Clearly, the heartware issues which I talked about will be a great help in attracting people who want to come to Singapore.

Sir, in securing skilled and semi-skilled labour, Singapore companies compete with companies in the major commercial and financial hubs around the world. Even China and India are competing for talent from around the world. So our policies to attract foreign talent are not off the mark. We must all support this effort so that we do not lose the global battle for talent that we are facing. In this respect, I cannot agree with Mr Chiam's point of restricting the import of foreign talent to help companies continue their activities in Singapore. What he is trying to say is that we stop foreign talent or for that matter foreign workers, and the end result will be that companies will relocate themselves to countries where they can get the type of workers that they want. The net impact is going to be a loss for all of us. We will lose the companies and we will lose the other many more jobs that Singaporeans could

Column: 462

have done. Neither can we win by trying to protect salaries for Singaporeans. A minimum wage system is a losing proposition because, today, the economy is global in nature. I can put a factory in Singapore, in the Philippines, in China or in India, and without any problems I would be able to operate these factories in a global manner. If we want to raise salaries, it would be very natural for our companies to just relocate to places where they can find the labour that fits the activity that they want to do. So I think that is a losing proposition too and we should not adopt that suggestion.

Sir, greater flexibility is needed in the number and type of foreign workers that companies can hire. We have the quota system and labour divided between traditional and non-traditional sources. The pool of workers comes from around the world these days. I suggest we be less prescriptive and give companies the responsibility and accountability for their hires. Let the companies do the business and let us not try to impose too many restrictions. If they feel that they can bring the labour from any part of the world and still succeed here in Singapore, I think we should let them do it without problem.

Our challenges, therefore, are quite clear, and I am sure that we will be able to address these economic challenges and develop the economic confidence that I talked about. We have done it before and I think we can do it again.

Sir, in my speech and those by most Members in this House, we have asked the Government to do more and more. We need more spending to help Singaporeans who are in need of help because of financial difficulty, which is the root cause of all the anxieties that Singaporeans face today, and therefore all the speeches that the Members made about what we need to do for Singaporeans. On the other hand, the

Column: 463

Government cannot shy away from spending money to create the right infrastructure and support for further development of local enterprises. I also know that the Government has had its hands tied because of the almost deficit or deficit budgets that we have had year after year. What I am going to ask might not be something that the leaders would like to hear, but I am going to ask for it anyway. While we cannot suddenly create a surplus budget year after year without major impact on the economy, I believe that the Government does have reserves and funds in Temasek and GIC and also funds sitting in the statutory boards that we could tap. I hope that the Government will be willing to utilise some of these funds, the reserves and returns from the reserves, from Temasek and GIC to fund all the activities that we have spoken about. We must be willing to creatively utilise more returns of the Government funds, including the reserves, so that we can have a more predictable set of measures to help Singaporeans and companies, and not develop measures depending on whether or not we have surpluses for the year. If we all agree on a certain trajectory of help measures that we want to take over the years, then we just have to be prepared to dig into the reserves---

Mr Speaker: Mr Singh, you may have to speed up your questions. You have 4 minutes left.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, in conclusion, I would say that I fully support the President's call for a vibrant economy and an inclusive society. If we can let Singaporeans fish more effectively and create the right support structures, and if the Government is willing to spend more money, then I think we can succeed and we will achieve the vision that we want for Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to clarify the two points

Column: 464

mentioned by Mr Inderjit Singh as regards the grassroots people attending the National Day celebration dinner. The other point is on the $80 million promised. On the first point, I did not quite get his point. The information I got from those who attended the National Day dinner was that they all said that they were grassroots of the MPs. Therefore, I just repeated what they told me. I did not know that many of them were in fact guests of the PA. Anyway, if I appeared to have misled the House, I apologise for it.

As regards the $80 million, that sum was promised to Potong Pasir to upgrade the flats there. I do not think Mr Inderjit Singh has that promise.

Mr Inderjit Singh: Sir, the grassroots leaders are not grassroots leaders of the MPs. They are grassroots leaders of the CCC of the constituency and they are grassroots leaders that support the advisers in those areas and not supporting the MPs, whether they are PAP or otherwise. But I thought we have clarified this many times.

On the $80 million, I hope that the Prime Minister would still reserve it for Ang Mo Kio, because the voters rejected the $80 million carrot that we have given to them, but they did not reject it in Ang Mo Kio.

Mr Speaker: Have a quick clarification, Mr Chiam. We have to get on with the debate.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I think Mr Inderjit Singh is wrong on the point of the $80 million. It was not wholly rejected by all the residents of Potong Pasir. In fact, 45% voted for the PAP.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion by Mdm Halimah Yacob to thank the President for his Address.

Column: 465

The President touched on several themes and I would like to focus on three of these - population, immigration and rooting Singaporeans.

Singapore population

Sir, the Government's history of dealing with population has been rather colourful. There was a recent past when family planning was paramount. Singaporeans even got financial incentives to sterilise themselves. Now, the Government has realised the dangers of Singaporeans not producing enough babies. By 2030, 20% of Singaporeans will be over 65. The economists tell us that an ageing population is less dynamic, results in skills shortages, and it is a strain on public expenditures such as health care. To respond to the population challenge, one of the key ideas of the Government is to welcome immigrants to churn the economy and to naturalise them as citizens.

Clarity and calmness needed on immigration policy

Sir, let me state categorically that the Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party. We welcome foreigners who are able to contribute to our society and want to make Singapore their home. However, Sir, I believe that for immigration policies, clarity and calmness are needed. The Government has made some general statements about foreigners' contributions, such as creating jobs here and making Singapore vibrant. But it has been short on the details of this liberalised policy. What specific desired outcomes are we aiming towards? The Government should be transparent with Singaporeans on the rationale for the changes and their impact on Singaporeans. As it stands now, there is anxiety among Singaporeans about how living in Singapore will change in 10 years' time or even five years' time.

Column: 466

First, as far as I know, we have not been told what target population we are aiming towards. We know that we are seeking to have more than 4 million people here, but how many more? The Government has said that it has no fixed target in mind but this seems somewhat shoddy to me. Should setting a target not be the first step from which we work backwards to determine how many new immigrants we want?

Secondly, Sir, what kind of immigrants are we interested in? The Prime Minister has said that we would recognise talent using more flexible criteria. While, in principle, this makes sense, how flexible we become is another matter. Since late 2004, the Government has broadened the criteria for assessing citizenship applications to include how the rest of the applicant's family can integrate into Singapore society. This has apparently helped to increase the number of citizenships granted last year to nearly 13,000, which is a 70% increase from the previous year. This poses an interesting question. Even if people can integrate into our society, how much do they contribute to Singapore and do they have a net effect of benefiting us or becoming a cost to us? I believe the Government should carefully track these cases and inform Singaporeans of the cost-benefit of the policy change.

Thirdly, Sir, the prospect of a more crowded Singapore should be carefully planned. Every new person fights for resources, takes up space and disposes of waste. The demands on healthcare services, public transport and the police will increase. How much investment do we need to make to cope with this influx? What would the island be like if we had a population increase from four million to six or eight million? As it is, Singapore is already the fourth most densely populated region in the world at more than 6,000 persons per square kilometre. Thus, although population growth will result in

Column: 467

more economic activity, it does not necessarily lead to well-being.

Next, Sir, if ageing population is our concern, will bringing in more immigrants to Singapore help the situation in the long run or perpetuate the problem? After all, everyone eventually grows old, including the immigrants. I believe it is well known among policy makers that immigration cannot compensate for population ageing unless immigrants are brought in in very large numbers to replace the existing population, which once again leads us to the question of what kind of numbers we are talking about.

Will immigrants have more children and help raise the fertility rate?

There are foreign studies which show that fertility is directly related to optimism in the future and economic security. In other words, people tend to have children if they are confident that they can afford it and that the future of the society is bright. Based on what Singaporeans have said so far, local parents too have similar concerns. Can they afford to raise a child? What future will the child have?

Assuming immigrants become integrated into Singapore society, they may, over time, have similar worries as locals. The fertility rate for new citizens may become just as low. This would mean the problem of ageing population will continue, and we may have to keep bringing in more and more new immigrants to churn the economy! Is this feasible?

Alternatives to solve ageing problem

While we recognise that we have to address the ageing population, is there a need for us to panic and liberalise immigration overnight? It may be worth the Government's time to propose what our optimum population should be and

Column: 468

focus on more sustainable policies. To address the low fertility and ageing population, the Government should focus on increasing fertility by making the choice to have children easier, for example, by facilitating parents to combine career and parenthood. This may take longer than immigration but it is a more effective response to an ageing population. The Government could also develop many alternative solutions to ageing population, some of which it is already doing, such as increasing fertility, encouraging work beyond retirement, increasing the rate of return on CPF savings, or even promoting the adoption of children.

Double whammy

Mr Speaker, Sir, any easing of immigration policies will naturally lead Singaporeans to question the value of being Singaporeans. As things stand now, and my colleagues have said before me, Singaporeans are losing jobs to foreigners here. We know that employers in Singapore have been employing foreigners in place of Singaporeans. This may not be because they are more talented than Singaporeans but simply because they are cheaper to hire. This is affecting even skilled workers and professionals. The former Chief Economist of the World Bank, Mr Joseph Stiglitz, notes that due to globalisation, it is no longer enough for governments to tell their citizens to accept lower wages because their lives will improve later, as this simply may not happen.

Singapore workers are feeling vulnerable with the double whammy of globalisation and liberalising immigration. The Government should clarify how it will watch out for Singaporeans as it allows more foreigners in. Minister Mentor has honestly told Singaporeans that they would lose jobs to foreigners. What is the Government's answer to these people?

Column: 469

Sir, lower-income Singaporeans cannot afford to have their wages depressed further. The statistics show us that 40% of households do not earn enough to meet their monthly expenses, and the lowest 30% have seen their incomes fall over the last few years. Yet the cost of living continues to rise. The cost of utilities has gone up by 30% in the last two years. Public transport charges have risen. If foreign competition depresses

Singaporeans' wages further, this will surely have dire consequences for many families.

Rootedness

Sir, in the last part of my speech, I would like to concentrate on the issue of rootedness. The Government has listed rooting Singaporeans here as one of its priorities in the new term. The public has also discussed what it means to be Singaporean, with most people talking about landmarks and, of course, the food. But these are surely inadequate answers for why we should be rooted to Singapore.

Linda Lim, a Professor of Strategy at the University of Michigan, recently gave a talk at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies entitled, "Singapore: Place or Nation". She says that if one treats Singapore as a place it is a choice of convenience. One chooses to live in a place because it offers a certain standard of life, only to leave for another place if it gives a better offer. The choice is purely utilitarian - one of cost-benefit. In applying this logic, I see the act of attracting foreign talent as something which tends to encourage foreigners to see Singapore as a place because we too assess the benefits that they can bring us. We cannot blame some immigrants for treating Singapore as a place. Immigrants would generally be mobile and may not see Singapore as their final destination.

Column: 470

On the other hand, treating Singapore as a nation would entail a sense of ownership, a feeling that you are rooted here to defend the place against external threats, a sense that you should try to improve the lives of citizens even if it calls on you yourself to make personal sacrifices. You do not carefully weigh the pros and cons before acting. Your heart tells you that you must do these things. As I hear the Government seeking to root the P65ers here, it is basically saying that it would like them to treat Singapore as a nation rather than a place.

Sir, this can only come about if Singaporeans feel that they can make a difference - that they can be agents of change in the society and on their own terms. My belief is that if the Government wants to see people rooted here, there is one thing that they can do. No, I am not asking for another Government campaign. Instead, the Government should repeal the restrictive laws and policies such as restricting outdoor meetings and exhibitions, making a political film and political expression from citizens. There are already criminal laws in place which criminalise rioting and acts of sedition and there are laws against defamation. I believe that if the Government does repeal those restrictive laws, it would be pleasantly surprised that Singaporeans are capable of being loyal, yet critical. Let the police concentrate on counter-terrorism and murders rather than to investigate school girls selling T-shirts with white elephants on them. Let there be an environment which encourages Singaporeans to express themselves about current issues and even make jokes about the Government.

Sir, at the recent General Elections, a friend of mine attended a Workers' Party rally, and I believe that this is the rally that the Prime Minister's son also attended. And this friend of mine overheard a conversation between two groups of strangers in the crowd. The

Column: 471

topic of ministerial salaries had come up and one group was expressing disbelief at the figures being cited. "It cannot be true", they said. Another group standing nearby was obviously from a different social background, told this group that it had to be true, otherwise these things would not be said at the rallies. Then ensued an exchange of views among strangers about whether such salaries were justified, where Singapore was heading and what was good or bad for Singapore.

Sir, let us not underestimate the value of such exchanges in building a collective identity and rooting Singaporeans here. Let this be part of our unique culture and another reason why Singapore will always be special to Singaporeans. In short, Sir, let us become as First World as we claim to be.

Sir, I support the motion.

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Sir, I could not help but hearing hon. Member Sylvia Lim asking about freedom of expression, where she said we should encourage Singaporeans to also make jokes about the Government. I wonder whether she will also agree that, in encouraging freedom of expression, she should also encourage Singaporeans to make jokes about the Opposition - the Workers' Party.

3.05 pm

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines): Sir, to take off from hon. Member Zainul's point, I suppose when we talk about loosening up and not restricting people who are expressing themselves, we should also be more relaxed, in terms of how our party members post blogs or Internet views. As PAP MPs, we do not restrict our activists from posting whatever they want to say on the

Column: 472

Internet. And we seem to be a more liberal party than perhaps another Opposition party.

Sir, I just want to take up two points from the Opposition's point of view. One is from Mr Chiam. He asked for an office, saying that the PAP MPs have an office but he does not have one. Perhaps, he might want to know that, for PAP MPs, we do not have an office in our constituency and we do not ask for one. All our MPSs are held in PCF centres. During the day, we run PCF kindergarten and childcare. During the evening on Monday, or on specific days for different MPs, we hold our MPS. Actually, we do not use public money for an MP's office.

On the point that Ms Sylvia Lim raised, I just want to say that some of her concerns are shared, especially by the labour movement, on the low-income workers, and we work very hard - we do not just talk about it - to make sure that our lower-income workers are taken care of with their pay increases, and that their pay is not depressed. We do the Job Recreation Programme, we talk to employers, we cajole the Government for more funding for training, and 10,000 jobs have been recreated a year. We make sure that every year, the lower-income workers - the cleaners, the gardeners - can look forward to better pay, better job prospects. If I may give an example, I am the Adviser of the Amalgamated Union of Public Daily Rated Workers. They are really the lowest paid workers - cleaners, gardeners - and they used to get paid about $600 or $700 a month. But with JRP, with the NTUC working closely with the tripartite partners, we managed to raise their salaries to about $1,000 to $1,200 by recreating their jobs. I think it gives them a certain pride. They are doing a better job, more productive, better value. It is better than giving them a minimum wage, in terms of 'you are worth $600, this is the lowest you can

Column: 473

go. This is the value of your job.' Instead, what we are doing is the harder route to improving the life of our workers, which is recreating jobs, training them, and making sure that there is more to look forward to than just the minimum wage.

Sir, when I heard the President sketching out the Government's plans for the next five years, I felt a frisson of pride and excitement in being Singaporean. There is so much to look forward to.

We will be a kinder and more compassionate society, with the Government and the better-off doing even more to help those who need help. We will be a more vibrant society with Singapore transformed into a dynamic global city that hums with great people and great ideas that will improve life for all of us.

Sir, Singaporeans, whatever their social and economic backgrounds, have so much going for them, and we should not lose sight of this even as we grapple with the issues of the day. I was particularly inspired by the Government's promise that "Singapore will become the best place in Asia to live, work and play". That arts and culture will add a creative buzz to Singapore, and that Marina Bay and the business district will be transformed to create something special that will attract visitors and create a sense of pride and belonging in our people.

Sir, related to this, my speech will focus on two issues. First, what it means to be the "best" place and the crucial role of the arts and culture in achieving this vision of being "special". Second, whether we should consider anew with fresh eyes the usefulness of dual citizenship for overseas Singaporeans and immigrants, as more Singaporeans fly overseas and more immigrants flock here.

Column: 474

First, on the role of arts and culture. Sir, if I may relate a true story. Once, there was a divorced, single mother who had an infant daughter to take care of, stayed in a tiny flat in public housing, could not afford to pay her bill, but there was one thing that she could do and that was to write. So she wrote. While her baby slept, she began to write her book. But she could not get by, so she applied for a writer's bursary from the Arts Council where she stayed and although she was not a published author, no track record to speak of in writing, she received financial support to write her book, and that gave her the encouragement to carry on. So she completed her book several years later.

But today, she is an international phenomenon, her books have been translated into many languages. Indeed, she is a millionaire. She is J.K. Rowling, the author who wrote the Harry Potter series. Rowling was born in London, wrote all her books in Edinburgh where she moved to in 1994, and the Council that awarded her the writer's bursary was the Scottish Arts Council.

Sir, in one interview, Rowling said: "Without the challenge, I would have gone stark raving mad." I suppose she would then have qualified for Dr Fatimah Lateef's POT scheme for psychological disorders. But Rowling was fortunate to stay in Edinburgh. As she said of her adopted home: "It's impossible to live in Edinburgh without sensing its literary heritage everywhere."

Sir, I was in Edinburgh recently on a fellowship with the Edinburgh University and know precisely what she meant. The city has statues dedicated to its great writers, like Sir Walter Scott and Rabbie Burns. It places literature at the very heart of its community and makes it accessible to every citizen. It invests in writers and writing and takes risks with them. Indeed, it is home to the largest

Column: 475

International Book Festival in the world and uses it as a platform not only to engage the Scottish public in conversations about books and ideas but also to launch new books and to introduce its exciting new writers to the world. I am not sure, but chances are, if Rowling were to live in Singapore, we would have sent her to a CDC for public assistance for being a divorced single mother, encourage her to get a job and say, do not be choosy, maybe a secretary or something might do the trick.

The point of this story is to highlight that, while we should rightly do more to help our lower income group with more safety nets, we should recognise that what some need more is a springboard to pursue their dreams and to achieve what they think they can achieve in life. They may be down and out now, but they should not be made to feel like losers or a burden on society. Even if we process their cases and we ask questions, we should be careful to preserve their self-esteem and self-respect.

Sir, one powerful way that we can transform the lives of the disadvantaged, create new opportunities for people and to increase their quality of life is through the arts. Too often in Singapore, we tend to equate the arts with the elite, or something that you do only after basic material needs are met. But in fact, the arts have the power to transform ordinary lives in many different and unexpected ways, and are an essential component in shared humanity.

If I may give an example. There was once a group of youths in my constituency that enjoy breakdancing and they made a lot of racket because they were practising in an open space to loud hip-hop music and residents were complaining. They made several calls to the police. The police came down, warned the group, "Please do not make so much

Column: 476

noise." They were a group of dancers who were very enthusiastic. And the Residents' Committee, when I met them, also complained about this group of youth dancing in the open space and making so much noise that they could not take it. I told my grassroots leaders,

"Look, they would like to dance, they need space. Let us give them a dedicated space in our community centre where they can practise and be better at what they do." So they took a room in our CC and we invited them to perform at our functions. They became so popular with my residents that my grassroots leaders suddenly opened their eyes and realised that this is a talented group of performers. They dazzled the crowd with their head-spinning, back flips and daredevilry. Not only that. Today, they are making waves even on the national stage. A few months ago, they represented Singapore in a regional competition and came in third. I think, with community support, we can indeed transform the lives of ordinary people who want to do more and achieve their dreams even in the arts. This is what embracing the arts can do for us with community support - from public nuisance to public stars.

And the story does not end there. The leader of the group is Muhammad Riduan. He is 23. He used to work in Cisco as an auxiliary policeman, and then for a short while as a shop assistant. Life for him was dreary, no challenge, and he would have gone stark raving mad, I presume. He enjoyed dancing. So, last month, he decided to give up his job to become a full-time instructor in dance even though he has no formal dance training. So we helped him to get registered with the People's Association as an instructor. He is giving his first workshop in my CC on 19th November 2006 for hip-hop. So, P65 MPs, you know where to go, if you need to have any further training to improve your vast talent in hip-hop.

Column: 477

Sir, we have many talented Singaporeans. We just need to give them the connections and the opportunities and, yes, the funding as well, to make a mark on the Singapore and the global stage.

Sir, on a deeper level, arts and culture underpin identity and what makes a people or a city special. This is worth reiterating as Singapore becomes increasingly cosmopolitan with more immigrants from diverse countries. Ms Sylvia Lim, and to a smaller extent, Mr Chiam, were concerned with foreign workers, with immigrants coming in and giving the impression that it might dilute the value of being Singaporean. I would have thought that, if more Singaporeans embrace immigrants and the fact that more immigrants want to take up citizenship, the cachet of a Singapore passport, that to be Singaporean is something to be proud of, that you would want to be part of the Singapore family, to contribute to it, to make sure Singapore progresses for many more years to come.

It is in this spirit that I ask that we put renewed efforts to develop in our people a sense of belonging and identity even as we open our doors wide for more immigrants to join us. If we do not have a strong and stable cultural core that we call our own, immigrants will find it harder to assimilate into our whole, even if they wished to do so. In such a circumstance, they are more likely to maintain their former national or cultural attachments and not identify with Singapore as their country. Compared to a decade ago, Singaporeans today are also better travelled and are able to compare their life here with the life that they live in other choice cities in the world.

Sir, we want to build a confident Singapore where the richness and vitality of our cultural life draw our people to

Column: 478

contribute to it and to be proud of it, and draw people from around the world to experience it and to talk about it. We have been making great strides as a global city. Recently, the Global Country Brand Index listed Singapore as the second most exciting place to be in, just behind Italy. We have a bustling night life, with hip clubs and excellent dining. Singapore also came in No. 2 as a shopping paradise in the world. But in the areas of arts and culture, we fell off the radar screen. We were ranked poorly. This is a pity, as we have much to showcase.

This was clear from the Singapore Biennale. It is our first. I was impressed by the imagination that went into it. The Biennale highlights how Singapore embraces people of diverse ethnicity, religions and languages. It provides new platforms for our people to be exposed to different art forms and to think about our beliefs and our way of life in Singapore. In few other urban cities can you find a Buddhist temple, mosque, Hindu temple and synagogue, all clustered around one street, with the devotees of all faiths worshipping their own Gods almost cheek by jowl and at peace and at ease with one another.

I must confess that I would have no occasion to enter the Sri Krishnan Temple, the Kwan Im Thong Temple, the Sultan Mosque or the Church of St Peter and Paul, had it not been for the Biennale. The choice of the diverse religious venues for the arts installations was inspiring, and projected creatively our multi-religious facets which make Singapore unique. These arts projects offered a safe space for exploration, a place where individuals from different backgrounds could meet and learn about one another.

Sir, the Biennale made me look at Singapore with fresh eyes and to fall in love with the city all over again. It renewed my confidence in its ability to reinvent itself to take its place as a

Column: 479

globalised city that can truly inspire. May I say that the National Arts Council did an excellent job in this and should take a bow.

Singapore is making good progress in developing its arts scene, but we should be bolder in our aims. The population survey of the arts in 2005 showed that more Singaporeans are embracing the arts in their lives. Thirty-three percent of Singaporeans have attended an arts event in the past year, compared to 11% 10 years ago. From all accounts, people derived great pleasure from being involved in arts activities, and it added greatly to their quality of life. Indeed, studies in various countries on the impact of the arts on communities have shown that improved health and well-being was one of the outcomes of arts participation. This outcome was indicated by people "feeling better or healthier" or "feeling happier".

Sir, we should be bold and aim for at least 80% of Singaporeans to attend at least one arts event by the year 2011, ie, in five years. This is not beyond our capability. We have invested so much in our arts infrastructure, such as the newly-renovated National Museum, the new National Arts Gallery and the Esplanade. But they cannot be sustained without a growing audience. We should do more to create an environment in which the more creative among us not only survive but also thrive. Such an environment has reaped handsome rewards for Edinburgh. It has only a population of five million and it is dense. If Ms Sylvia Lim were to visit it, she could see how a dense city can thrive and build on its excitement to make life for everybody, including residents and foreigners, such an experience.

Two years ago, Edinburgh was named by Unesco as the world's first official City of Literature. The idea for such a title was the brainchild of Scotland's literary world and was funded by the Scottish

Column: 480

Arts Council. This recognition is estimated to be worth about 2.2 million pounds or about S$6 million a year to Edinburgh, and another 2.1 million pounds to the rest of Scotland. The cash would come from staging major new festivals, events and conferences in the city, as well as attracting extra visitors and book sales. They hope to lure the Whitbread and Booker Prize award ceremonies, as well as the Nobel Prize for Literature, to Edinburgh. It has its annual Edinburgh International festival, its attendant Fringe, Book, Film and Jazz festivals, all jamming together at the same time in August and September. All of that is worth about 100 million pounds a year bringing that all to Edinburgh. But more significant than the economic part of the equation is the effect on the Scottish cultural life and on the spirit of the city.

I was also struck by the overwhelming support that the entire cross-section of the Scottish media gives to the gamut of arts activities, with thick sections, thicker than The Straits Times' Life Section, devoted to thoughtful reviews and artistes' profiles. In this respect, perhaps our local media can play a more pro-active role in supporting our Singapore artistes and their work and the various festivals held here. The media plays a powerful role in promoting the development of the arts and artistic talents in Singapore.

When I was in Edinburgh, I was scratching my head and wondering how this small city, almost medieval looking, of 1.5 million people, can sustain all these mega arts festivals with hundreds of events together. In Singapore, we worry all the time about half-filled halls, about concerts not being taken up, tickets not being sold. Hence, our shows rarely run for more than a few days and we try not to have too many things going on at the same time. So, how does Edinburgh do it? It is by developing a people across all classes and ages. It does not matter if you a cleaner, housewife, retiree or

Column: 481

scientist. People from all classes of life regard the arts as an integral part of life and as a celebration of the creative spirit in each one of us, and by promoting its arts festivals to the world and establishing a global brand name for the arts that few other cities can rival. Sir, if we can create this cultural buzz in Singapore, then we can say that we have arrived as a global arts city and, indeed, will become one of the best places not only in Asia, but in the world, to live, work and play.

Sir, finally, I want to touch on the idea of dual citizenship, as the world environment changes and Singapore becomes more globalised.

We have more than 140,000 Singaporeans living overseas. This number is likely to grow as more Singaporeans join the internationally mobile workforce. The biggest group of Singaporeans is in the UK, with about 38,000 Singaporeans there, followed by Australia with about 36,000 Singaporeans. They are often required to acquire citizenship overseas, eg, to obtain employment or to reside with non-Singaporean citizen spouses. There is no evidence to suggest that they are disloyal to Singapore or that they want to renounce citizenship. But because of our laws, which require them to renounce, they have to. But we should not shut the door on them by insisting that they renounce Singaporean citizenship. Benefits of the overseas experience of such people will be lost to Singapore if they are discouraged from returning through loss of citizenship.

Sir, there is an international trend towards dual citizenship. More than 150 nations - and that number is rising - allow their citizens to hold passports of more than one country. It is important to underscore, however, that the specific rights and responsibilities that accrue to

Column: 482

such citizens vary from country to country. There are no firm or comprehensive rules concerning dual citizenship, and each country works out its own definition, according to their needs and their own comfort level. Some countries allow their citizens to become dual citizens but baulk at immigrants to their country doing so. Some countries specify which countries their citizens are allowed to take dual citizenship. For example, India has a list of 16 countries of which Indian citizens can hold dual nationality and no more. Some countries confer on their overseas citizens limited rights and duties, and they do not enjoy the same privileges as resident citizens. Several countries do not allow certain categories of citizens to take up dual citizenship. For example, Members of Parliament or high public office-holders are not allowed to become dual citizens of certain countries. Yet others specify where dual citizenship should be required to be relinquished, eg, in time of war.

My point is that we need not reject the idea of dual citizenship outright just because we hold certain reservations over some aspects of it. We can fashion our own definition of dual citizenship with some creative policy-making, which has always been our hallmark.

Sir, for a long time, I have also held reservations about the idea of dual citizenship. The key concern has always been whether Singapore, as a relatively young nation, has a strong enough identity to evoke the loyalty and sacrifice of our citizens, especially in times of war, if they hold two passports. I must confess that this concern has not completely gone away, but I would think that one way to address this is to work harder at strengthening our identity and to promote a sense of belonging, rather than preventing Singaporeans from holding two passports. You can hold a Singapore passport and still not feel a sense of belonging or loyalty.

Column: 483

Sir, we should be more confident in our ability to retain the loyalties of our people, wherever they are, or no matter how many passports they hold. It is not so much a function of history, ie, how long the country has been in existence, as much as a function of how well we inculcate in our people a pride in being Singaporean, that they want to be identified as Singaporeans, wherever they go.

Sir, we have also not been entirely consistent in how we address this question of loyalty in times of war. We have a rising number of the children of Permanent Residents who serve National Service. They are, by definition, dual citizens. We train them up to take up arms to defend Singapore even though they are dual citizens. We do not question their allegiance or loyalty. We do not allow them to relinquish their Singapore citizenship until they have served their National Service.

Sir, as for immigrants, as we woo top global talent, we should recognise and accept that not all want to give up their country of birth, even as they want to stay here and contribute to our growth. Some of our colleagues, such as Mr Christopher de Souza, are rightly concerned if some just want to use Singapore as a springboard. I am sure there are many Singaporeans out there, as expressed by some of our hon. Members here, who worry that foreign talent will only take their place in terms of jobs or who will threaten their sense of identity. But I suppose that, while these are populist views and you find them in every country - even in America and Australia the debate is raging - it is for us to decide for ourselves where we see Singapore going down the road. We have done our sums and looked at the statistics, and our Government is one that thinks long term, many years ahead. And when we look at our fertility rate, that we are not replacing ourselves, we have to have an option of

Column: 484

getting more immigrants in, and it is not to take away the jobs of Singaporeans but to

grow the Singapore pie, to make sure that the Singapore family is strong and that it will continue to make a mark on the global stage even as the world becomes more competitive and globalised.

Sir, it can be argued that immigrant dual citizenship facilitates integration into our community by encouraging them to naturalise. By doing so, they share in the cause of Singapore, and feel a psychological and emotional stake in Singapore's progress, beyond the material benefits.

Sir, given today's different context and new imperatives, I would like to propose that the Government set up a Committee to examine contemporary issues in Singapore citizenship policy to be addressed as we move into the new millennium, including dual citizenship. We should also look into how to promote greater awareness of the significance of Singapore citizenship for all Singaporeans, resident and overseas.

Sir, we have every reason to be proud of being Singaporeans and to be confident of our place in the world.

Sir, on that note, I support the motion.

3.31 pm

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports and Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan): Mr Speaker, I would like to ask the Workers' Party to clearly state its stand on immigration. The Non-Constituency Member of Parliament has asked for clarity. Let me state for the record, the Government's position on immigration.

What is the difference between the fishing village of Temasek and Singapore

Column: 485

that we have today? What is the difference? The difference between the two, Temasek, a fishing village, maybe 400 fishermen, and the modern metropolis of Singapore today is the fact that we were and must continue to be a beacon that attracts talent, that means, people, because there are no natural resources, there is not even enough fish or water here. It is all about people. But people alone do not constitute Singapore. It is the system of Singapore in which people have a fair deal, can make the best of their lives, have children and can build a better future for their families. So really, the point I am trying to make is that the most critical ingredient behind the idea of Singapore is people, it is talent. And when you understand that it is all about people, then you also understand that in the case of Singapore, there are only two sources of people - the wombs of our women and immigration.

Let us talk about local native born Singaporeans. These are the facts. Our total fertility rate in 2005 and 2004 was 1.24. It has not increased. We have managed to stabilise it. 17% of men between the age of 40-44 are single; 15% of women between the age of 40-44 are single. You do not need to be a doctor to know that at that age, your biological clock is running against you. And even if they were to get married, the chances of producing Singaporeans of the next generation are very low.

Hence, we need to understand that we need to apply leverage on both channels. Do we encourage our own Singaporeans to get married and have children? The answer clearly is yes, and we have been doing for the past two decades. Yes, we are swimming upstream but not for lack of effort, not for lack of investment. Several hundred million dollars of my Ministry's budget is spent on the marriage and procreation package

Column: 486

which we passed two years ago. It is too early to say whether it will be successful, too early to judge whether we need to do more, but do not let anybody accuse us of not being prepared to put our money where our mouth is. Having local born Singaporeans is important. We will encourage, and we will do everything possible. And if Members of this House have got other ideas, I will be happy to take them on and to see how we can make them work. Which then leave us with immigration.

The Non-Constituency MP asked what is our rationale. The rationale is very simple - the future viability of Singapore. She asked what is the target. Well, the target is something which is not easy to specify because circumstances change. Let me give you an example. Before NEWater came about, and water was a major constraint, that would have been a limiting factor on the size of the population that could be sustained on this island. But with new technology, with the possibility of recycling water, water no longer becomes the limiting factor.

The truth is, it is a moving target because it has to vary according to circumstances and according to the opportunities. What we are trying to do is not to aim for some magical number. What we are trying to do is to shape a population profile, a pyramid that works, a pyramid that is viable and self-sustaining.

In our particular case, at this point in time, what we need most of are young people. We need young people to do work and young people who can do even more work for the future. So the profile of the people we are looking for are people who will be assets, not liabilities, not people who are going to depend on MCYS in the future, but people who will make a good living, pay good taxes, bring jobs here, bring companies here and keep Singapore afloat. That is really what it is about and that is our approach to

Column: 487

marriage, procreation and immigration. It will change with time but what does not change is the fact that it is about the future viability of Singapore, our nation, Singapore, the idea of Singapore.

Let me now move on to reflect on the many speeches that have been made by Members of this House on the social safety net. I only want to make three points. First, I want to say, and I want to state categorically, that we have and will do more to help Singaporeans who need help. The second point I want to make is that the "many helping hands" model may not be perfect and we may have problems with implementation. But I believe it is still the most viable working model that we should work on and we need to improve on.

The third point I want to make later on is to share some ideas on how we can improve the coordination and communication between all the stakeholders in the social service arena so that we can deliver services where they are needed.

Before going further, it is worth us reiterating the Singapore social compact. Before we talk about the net, let us talk about the Singapore social compact. The Singapore social compact goes something like this. First, all of us must work for a living. Second, save some money - that is why we have CPF. Third, build assets for a rainy day, build assets for your old age. That is why we have the world's highest home ownership rate. That is why we subsidise home ownership because we are trying to make everybody, including those who are least well-off, build assets. Third, get an education. Fourth, even after being educated, because of globalisation and a short half life of knowledge, get retraining. That is why we spent $100,000 on average per child in education. That is why we are going to spend more money in the future on

Column: 488

retraining our workers. The fifth aspect is healthcare and we have got the 3Ms.

Let me tell Members about healthcare from the point of view of a provider. I used to run the Singapore General Hospital. And I can tell you, as the CEO, if a poor patient came in and chose to be admitted to C class ward, I would never worry about that patient being a bad debt because the combination of his Medisave, MediShield and finally, Medifund, was more than adequate to cover all his medical fees. The angst and anger which we are hearing on healthcare - I do not want to speak too much on it because I am not the Minister for Health - come a lot from the fact that people do not want to go to C class. They want to go to a higher class, they want to choose their own doctor, they want to choose the latest "in fashion" medicine and then, want it all to be covered. But the truth is, if you go to the United Kingdom - if any of you have ever been admitted to a UK hospital in the NHS - the standard of physical care you get there is that of a C class ward. And I will tell you that the timeliness of our service, the quality of our medical care, is far superior to that which you get in NHS. So even in healthcare, we have got a system that works.

Having got all these pillars of the social compact, then we talk about the social safety net. I want to turn your attention to the handout which I believe you would have received by now. The first point I want to make is that in one term of office, between the year 2001-2005, social assistance spending has gone up by 300%. It should make you pause and to start asking what would it be like in 15 years' time when the number of people over 65 is doubled. I put this down so that you understand that when I say we have done more and we will do more for people who need help, we are putting our money where our mouth is.

Column: 489

The second thing you will notice in the chart is that the biggest increase is in that of additional support for children for needy families. And we have increased the budget for children from $4 million to $18 million over the same period. That is more than a four-time increase. We look at the HOPE scheme - and I believe Seah Kian Peng talked about HOPE yesterday - we have increased our spending on HOPE from $1.9 million to $8.1 million. And because HOPE has a very long tail, the amount of money that we will spend on it will go up. But let me clarify for Mr Seah that the HOPE scheme is not just an assistance scheme. It really is an incentive scheme. It is an incentive to encourage people who have difficulty making ends meet, who are less educated and have difficulty getting on to the job ladder, to have no more than two kids so that they can focus their attention, time and resources on these two kids. Once you understand that it is an incentive scheme, rather than just an assistance scheme, then you will understand that this scheme must therefore be more generous than the assistance schemes that we provide for other families who, for their own reasons, have chosen not to restrict the size of their family despite their social constraints.

I want to turn on next to Mr Ang Mong Seng's excellent suggestion yesterday. He suggested raising funds at the community level and he was not just interested in big donors. But he said that he wants lots of small donors. Putting aside money, this money would be eligible for a double tax deduction which frankly today, anyone who donates money to the CDC or the CCC Welfare Fund, can claim a double tax deduction anyway. He went on further to ask for matching funds from the Government. I have looked at it and I realise that actually today, we have already given $4 million in the CCC ComCare Fund and I did not even ask him

Column: 490

to raise funds to match it. I think it is an idea which we can consider. That means, you raise funds, we will also try to put in our share out of ComCare. But really, the issue is not money. The more relevant suggestion that Mr Ang had yesterday was the fact that having raised those funds, what we want are local committees, to be able to reach out, to investigate to see who needs help and then decide on the disbursement of funds. Because really the point is that it is all about people.

Talking about money, I also want to add that what you see here is just the tip of the iceberg because the Community Chest, on average, raises $43 million a year. But that is not where the real biggie is. Are you all aware that Singaporeans donate between $475-$644 million a year to Institutions of Public Character - half a billion dollars? And this excludes money donated to religious organisations - money that goes on altars and offering bags is not included.

The point I am trying to make is that we have a compassionate and generous society. Yes, money is important but even more important than money is the involvement of volunteers and grassroots and people with the heart so that the system works better, which leads me on to my second point on the many-helping-hands.

I agree with many parts of Ms Denise Phua's speech.

Yes, there are problems with implementation. Yes, there are gaps. Yes, there are duplications. But I ask her to be very careful about slaying that sacred cow of many-helping-hands, because we might actually slay the cow which is producing the milk of human kindness.

Let me explain what I mean. When we think of delivering social services, there are three different models. One is we can nationalise the whole social

Column: 491

service. Let my Ministry develop a big bureaucracy. It will bloat. I will have lots and lots of staff. But I am not convinced that the money will necessarily be better spent or, more important, that money will come with the mind and the heart that truly cares for people receiving them. So I do not believe a total Government delivery of social services is the way to go.

The second alternative is to privatise the social services - let the private sector do it. But then I always remember this advice which my previous Parliamentary Secretary, Dr Mohamad Maliki, gave me. He said that the problem with social services is that the people who need help do not know that they need help, may not know where to go and may not want the help that is being given. If we leave it to the private sector, yes, people will make money, but we may not really achieve the outcome that we want. So we end up with the many-helping-hands model.

I want to make the point that we are not having the many-helping-hands model because we are trying to save money for the Government. That is not the reason why we have the many-helping-hands model. The reason why we are having the many-helping-hands model is that we want commitment, we want passion, we want dedication. We want people whose hearts and minds are truly resonating and in sync with the people they are trying to help. Hearts and minds like that cannot be bought, cannot be employed. Ms Denise Phua would never work for my Ministry, I suspect, but she can be made to volunteer for a cause she believes in passionately.

What we need then is to get the right model and to get the relationships right. There was one point in her speech when she said that NCSS is the overseer of VWOs, and I think that is the wrong model. Let me explain why. NCSS is not part of the civil service. NCSS is not a statutory board. In fact, NCSS is meant

Column: 492

to be a membership organisation. Its members consist of VWOs. I do not need NCSS to be a watchdog. I have got the Commissioner of Charities to do that. NCSS is meant to be an umbrella organisation representing the interests and ideals of the VWOs. It is meant to help the VWOs build critical mass, as she said, give advice when advice is needed, give guidance, give mentorship and give leadership. That is why half the board of NCSS is elected by VWOs. And for the other half, if you make enough noise, I will be happy to appoint Members to it and it then becomes their problem, and they fix it. But the point I am trying to make is that we need all hands on board. We need the hands to be connected to hearts and minds which think systematically, and as she said, a system integrator role.

What will the Ministry do? What we will do is that we will confine ourselves to the big picture - to identify needs and sharing those needs with the community. We will ask VWOs, what is it you care about? What is it you want to do? What help do you need? Do you need help with building infrastructure? Do you need help with training? Do you need help with funds? We can help, but it is a co-funding and co-helping model. Because once I do that, then I do not need to have a whole big bureaucracy to check on what they are doing. If every dollar that they spend, 50 cents of it is money which they themselves have raised, I can then assume, most of the time, that they will be spending the money honestly, and they will be spending the money in a directed way. So, Ms Denise Phua, I want to say to you and to all the others in the social service sector that I hear you. We have to make improvements, but do not slay this sacred cow, because remember the milk of human kindness is what this sector needs more than anything else.

I want to end by talking about some ideas on how we can improve

Column: 493

communication and sharing in this sector. We realise that there are many stakeholders. If we look at any constituency or district, we have got the CDC, the grassroots organisations, the Family Service Centres, voluntary welfare organisations, churches, religious organisations, self-help groups, a whole gamut of them. What the CDCs will roll out in the next few months is what we call the ComCare local networks. This will be a system in which all the stakeholders in an area can come together, share information, collaborate on joint projects and help look after the people who are under their fold.

Basically, what we want to ensure is that there will be no wrong door, no wrong hand and nobody slips between hands. It is very easy to say. I would say, however, that it is difficult to work in practice, because we have to overcome ego, boundaries and all those other things. But I think if we can get everybody on board, we can improve communication.

The second thing, which we have already done but we want to roll out further, is the ComCare database, ie, every household that receives help from any of the stakeholders in the social service sector will be recorded, with proper protection, of course, for their privacy, so that we have early warning signs. I will give Members an example. If one child has dropped out of school, the chances are that there is another sibling who may be in a similar risk. Probably there is a family that is dysfunctional behind that. There may be a breadwinner who has lost his job. There may be a mother who needs some work, perhaps in a social enterprise. By having a database in which all the stakeholders can share information, I believe we can make that social safety net more closely meshed,

Column: 494

and make sure people do not fall through the cracks.

But having said all this, let me come back to politics. I checked the Workers' Party's website today. Their manifesto is still there, and it says, "an unconditional permanent needs-based welfare safety net". That is the big difference between the Workers' Party and us. We do not believe in an unconditional permanent needs-based social safety net. We do not believe in that because I believe that, firstly, it is unsustainable - we will be bankrupt sooner or later; secondly, we are not doing the people we are trying to help any favours; and, thirdly, we erode the work ethic that is at the heart of the success and the identity of Singapore. But I am very glad to know that both in Mr Low's speech which he made two days ago and the speech by the NCMP today, none of them talked about permanent unconditional needs-based social safety net. Perhaps they have changed their position. And if they have, I welcome them to the club and we will certainly work with them to improve our social safety net. At the end of the day, I believe it is possible to create a society which is both competitive and compassionate, but we need all hearts, all minds and all hands on board.

4.40 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Clarification, Sir. First of all, I would like to clarify that the Workers' Party has not banned any member from participating in Internet forums. I would advise Ms Irene Ng not to fire such a cheap pot shot on every opportunity at the Workers' Party.

With regard to the position of the Workers' Party on immigration policies, I would leave it to my Party Chairman to clarify later, Sir.

The Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports has noted

Column: 495

that we have not spoken about a permanent social safety net, and whether we have changed our mind. No, we have not, to his disappointment. We believe that people need some certainty, and we have got to give people that certainty, especially in the structural unemployment situation and under the condition of non-permanent nature of jobs now, because a lot of jobs are on contract. We should provide people with the confidence that the Government will help them if they are in trouble. I still believe that we need some permanent social safety net, though in my speech I said that we have to be careful. It is not the Workers' Party's wish to see people become dependent on welfare.

Sir, it is quite familiar to me, and I think to old Members of Parliament, that almost in every budget debate, MCYS will provide answers on the services they provide, who are in charge and so forth. The Minister has mentioned that he looks at the big picture, as a Ministry, and let the VWOs carry out what they are supposed to do and provide funding. I would like to ask him how is he going to track the desired outcomes of the social services. In particular, I note that a lot of assistance is actually under the CDCs. Is he satisfied with the performance of the CDCs? What are the performance indicators? How do they respond to people who request for help? Are the front-line workers - the volunteers and the social workers - properly trained to handle and to manage people who request for assistance? Instead of helping, are they hurting people who are seeking help?

The other feedback that I have is that I understand ComCare has been managed by CDCs as well as the CCCs. Is it possible for part of the ComCare fund to be managed by voluntary organisations on the ground, like Family Service Centres, because they are also the front-line people who actually come in touch with the needy cases?

Column: 496

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I thank the Member for those questions.

He is quite right. We are working on a decentralised model, and we will leave the first level of decentralisation to the CDCs. The CDCs, through the local ComCare networks, will work with the FSCs, the VWOs and all the other organisations on the ground.

Do we have KPIs and are we monitoring and keeping track of their performance? The answer clearly is yes. If the Member wants detailed results, he can file a Question on that later. But, obviously, if I am spending taxpayers' dollars, I need to make sure that it is being well spent and that the people are actually benefiting from it.

Social work is a very difficult job. Social workers see many people, not all of whom are grateful, some of whom are even trying to take advantage of them. So I would not cast the first stone at any social worker, because of the intense stress that they are under. Having said that, however, I think we can improve the professionalism of social workers. We are looking at means to elevate training, refresher courses, perhaps even sabbaticals, so that we make sure we recharge and sharpen the saw of social workers.

I want to come back to the Member's speech, the point which he made in his speech and this is from the translation, obviously. He said that the Government should not ignore the people who need help, just because of the fear of abuse. On this point, I want to say that I totally agree with him. This Government will not ignore people who need help simply because of a fear of abuse. At the local level, in my own constituency, my instructions are for anyone who needs help urgently, we will give help first and we will ask questions later. Because, if he is going to cheat me, he can only

Column: 497

cheat me once. That is the attitude I operate on the local level, and I am sure all my fellow MPs do it on that basis.

What I am still trying to persuade the Member is to move away from this "permanent unconditional needs-based social safety net", because that erodes the fundamental pillar of our society. He is absolutely right. People do need some assurance. The assurance is that so long as they are trying to be self-reliant, we will help them. Their fellow Singaporeans are generous and compassionate people. Both inside this House and outside the House, all of us can subscribe to that. I think we can, as I said earlier, create a society which is truly both competitive and compassionate. On that point, I am trying to persuade the Workers' Party to join us to make it better. That is the way we can ensure Singapore's survival. And more important than that, we can ensure that the social safety nets are sustainable in the long run. That is what all of us are really trying to create.

Mr Speaker: Ms Denise Phua, can you make your intervention short, please?

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Sir, I am not an anchor debater. So I will just try my best to address the points.

First of all, I just wanted to clarify that I did not ask to slay the "many helping hands" sacred cow. I just asked it to be sent to the vet for review. And I believe that there is also an attitude that we should all adopt as we face the multiple challenges of the world, that we should always question our assumptions from the time we first had it.

Second, I understand that the purpose of the "many helping hands" approach is to involve people, to build an inclusive and kind society, and to milk human kindness and so forth. But I do believe that it must

Column: 498

never be done at the expense of the people we are trying to help. A few years ago when I was a new volunteer, I was to ask my students who were in the special school to attend a surprise birthday lunch for a very important donor during class curriculum time. I refused that because I said that these children were also sons and daughters of citizens of Singapore who also deserved a normal education and they should not be pulled out just because they were seen as CIP projects, corporations or other donors. I do believe, therefore, that we need to question some of the ways that we see people receiving help under the "many helping hands".

I think the only two things that I ask to look into are: how is the "many helping hands" approach and how should it be actually deployed? I have never figured out what the status of NCSS was. Thank you for clarifying that. But, basically, I think we should deploy resources such that the best party should do the best and do the right job. For instance, in the special school or the early intervention centre that I run, we have NCSS. I think most of its employees are social service people. They are the ones who are assigned the task to assess education, just like they assess day care centres, elderly homes, old folk homes, and so forth. I think they might not be the right party to be deployed to do that. So I would ask the Minister to look into this.

My last point is this. I think some functions are really quite important, like what Mr Michael Palmer and my other parliamentary colleagues said, early intervention and so forth. If the functions of looking after the young kids who have special needs are so important because it improves the prognosis of their future, and if the elderly disabled are becoming a bigger population, then should the delivery of taking care of these people only be left to VWOs? Our VWOs, by its very nature, are being led by people who are

Column: 499

mostly part-time board members who might be very competent in their normal careers, but they might not have the time and focus to do so. Are they the right people therefore to lead them? So I would just ask the Minister to look into these. And I just want to state I do not disagree with "many helping hands", after all, I myself am a full-time volunteer, but I just ask that this be studied carefully and that the people who receive help are receiving the best help we can provide; money is not everything.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: The Member has my assurance that I will look at this carefully although I am not a vet, I am only an ophthalmologist.

Ms Sylvia Lim: I would like to respond to the Minister's statement about the Workers' Party's stand on immigration. As we have said earlier, the Workers' Party is not an anti-immigration party and we welcome foreigners to contribute to Singapore so long as we are satisfied that they are indeed doing so.

Sir, my speech was actually made in response to the Government's announcement that we are liberalising the immigration policy. The point which I was making was that it should be something that is clarified to Singaporeans. As the Minister says, they cannot confirm a firm target at the big picture, but things are subject to change, I think Singaporeans would still appreciate what are its interim plans, even if it is annual or every two or three years, and what is the target number it is looking to attract and why. I think this will go a long way towards enabling some clarity to be given to Singaporeans about how their lives will be affected by this liberalisation of policy. And I believe that the Government should not be averse to being more transparent to Singaporeans even if they are interim targets.

Column: 500

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I am happy that the Member is not against immigration and all that she is asking is that we share more information and more of our considerations as we formulate these plans. In due course of time, we will.

Mr Speaker: Mr Seah, a brief one, please.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the clarification. I just wanted to say that after my speech yesterday, I had a few MPs who came to me to say that this was the first time that they were aware that there was such a scheme called HOPE. What I would like to suggest is that we go out of the way to publicise this scheme, that this is available, and to make sure that of those who qualify, we make an effort to get them, rather than for them to apply. If they qualify for it, make an attempt to get them into the scheme.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: I think to be fair to him, it illustrates that I have not succeeded in putting this message out well enough. It is good advice, but I am grateful for his speech and the fact that he has reported. I think now more people will be aware of it.

Mr Speaker: Last intervention, Ms Ng.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: I thank Mr Low for his clarification that the Workers' Party does not restrict its members from putting their views on the Internet, but I got this impression from the media. Perhaps the Workers' Party should clarify, not so much with the House but the two Workers' Party members who gave those quotes to the media and gave that impression.

Mr Speaker: Order. I think after all that, we need a break. I suspend the

Column: 501

Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.25 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.08 pm until 4.25 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.25 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]: Debate resumed.

Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to thank the President for his Address.

Sir, I intend to speak first in Mandarin and then in English.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Speaker, Sir, some time ago I went to Hong Kong. I met a young taxi driver who was friendly and chatty. I asked him about his work. He told me that he worked eight hours a day and could earn only about HK$8,000-$9,000. He felt that being young and energetic, he should work harder. So, he volunteered to work an additional shift of four more hours to raise his takings to HK$13,000-$14,000 a month. Then we talked about his housing. He told me that with his income it was very difficult for him to buy his own home in Hong Kong. As he was an able-bodied person and young, there was no way he could be allocated a rented flat from the government. Under the circumstances, he had to find some way out. So, he bought a very old hut in a squatter area so that when the squatter area was resettled, he would be allocated a flat. His plan worked. He now lives in the resettlement flat which is about 16 square metres with a small kitchen, a bathroom, a bed and a store. It was about one-quarter the size

Column: 502

of a typical 3-room HDB flat in Singapore. This was his living space.

Very soon, we arrived at my destination. When I was alighting from the taxi, he told me, "Miss, we must always think for ourselves. No one else will make any arrangement for you. But I am happy because I am depending on myself."

Mr Speaker, Sir, this young Hong Kong driver taught me a very important lesson that day, that is, we do not need to have a lot of wealth to be happy. So long as it is something that you work hard to achieve, you can feel a sense of pride, no matter how little the achievement may be, and that self-respect is priceless.

Last week, when I listened to the President’s Address, I was reminded of this young man in Hong Kong. The President highlighted the three pillars of our social security net, ie, the CPF to help Singaporeans save for their retirement, the 3M framework to keep our healthcare affordable and the HDB's “Home Ownership for All” scheme. In fact, we do have quite a good system. Compared to the young man in Hong Kong, our young people in Singapore can aspire for better living conditions in Singapore. In healthcare and for retirement, they have better protection. Apart from depending on themselves, we could also help each other in Singapore.

There are still some Singaporean workers who fell through this social safety net. They are the contract workers. In the contract, it is clearly stated when they will start work and when their job will end. So, upon expiration of the contract, there is no assurance that he will get a job again. This model is getting more and more popular, because more and more enterprises are outsourcing their non-core functions. When they outsource, they will be more flexible in their business but it also causes hardship to the workers.

Column: 503

In theory, the contractor will try to improve the efficiency of the organisation and quality of service so that he is in a better position to win new contracts. In so doing, his profitability improves and he can better reward his workers. Everyone benefits. But in reality, competition sometimes leads contractors to undercut one another in terms of pricing. In order to save cost, they will lower the price of their bids at the expense of the workers' wages and benefits. Some workers did not even get their CPF contributions, not to mention medical benefits or training.

Under the circumstances, these contract workers are like the young man in Hong Kong. Although they work very hard and have self respect, there is no security for their future. I think this is something that we have to look squarely on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to urge the Government that, while building up a more inclusive society, we should also protect the interests of our contract workers. I would be making specific suggestions in this aspect in future Parliament sittings.

I will now speak in English.

*Cols. 573-576.

( In English ): Mr Speaker, Sir, in yesterday's Straits Times report, a piece written by journalist, Mr Peh Shing Huei, caught my attention. Mr Peh shared his observations having sat through the entire debate on Wednesday afternoon, and he referred to my esteemed colleagues' exhortations to Government and I quote:

"After years as champions, Singaporeans have been grown by this Government to demand only gold and not silver or bronze. When they train their sight on how to foster an inclusive society, it can be sure that the social safety nets are scrutinised and turned over many times to see how they can be made bigger and steadier."

Column: 504

Mr Peh went on to say, "However, some questions that must be answered are these: Where will the funds come from? Will there be enough? How much help is too much help? Can all of the MPs' demands be met?"

Sir, I believe Mr Peh has taken the trouble to remind all of us, in the gentlest way possible, that as MPs, besides raising the concerns of our constituents, we also have a duty to exercise collective leadership on their behalf. And that duty includes setting priorities, deciding how best to allocate our resources, and making sure that things hold together going forward.

Therefore, in discharging this duty, I would like to touch on three areas. The first area concerns non-negotiables. In other words, these are things that we cannot and must not compromise on. The first thing that cannot be compromised on is safety and security. Defending our little red hot and deterring potential aggressors is a never-ending challenge. I have never served NS and can claim no credit in helping in the defence of Singapore but I have seen enough elsewhere in the world to know that we must not take our safety and security for granted. We can only enjoy the fruits of our labour if we live without fear for the lives and well-being of our family and friends.

The second non-negotiable is economic survival and job creation. We need jobs because it provides the means for our people to lead dignified lives, to grow their families and to prepare for the future. It is quite clear that Singapore does much better than survive economically. True, there are trouble spots - retrenchments will still exceed 10,000 this year, structural unemployment continues to be a problem, not enough mature workers are meaningfully employed and we have a growing pool of contract workers who risk being excluded from the social safety net.

Column: 505

But by and large our economy is doing well. So in many sectors, workers have experienced better bonuses and increments this year. Some are being asked to do so much over time that they say, "It's enough. I want to go home and spend time with my family." It is therefore sometimes easy for us to want to focus our attention elsewhere. As my former boss, Mr Philip Yeo, used to remind us, young officers in the EDB, "Don't forget, there's always someone ready to eat your lunch." So while I understand that we do not want to be obsessed about economic competition, it is still an area Government cannot afford to lose sight of.

The third non-negotiable is education because it is our hope for the future. In the past, our education used to focus on preparing our citizens for jobs. Today, with greater prosperity, we are able to do much more, and this is right. The Chinese say, shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren - it takes 10 years to grow a tree and 100 years to grow a person, although most of us do not live to 100 yet. We can never do well enough in educating our young. There is always room for improvement. And it is something we cannot compromise on. I will have more to say about this, but, not today, in the future.

So, Sir, in my view, those are the three non-negotiables - national security, economic survival and education.

Let me turn now to the second area of concern, the potential divide in our society, which many of my esteemed colleagues have spoken on. It is almost second-nature to us human beings to want to think in terms of "us" versus "them". So, in Singapore, we are conscious of the "young" versus the "old", "local" versus "foreign", "haves" versus "have-nots". But we are not always one or the other, we are both. Let

Column: 506

me explain. "Young" versus "old". Two years ago, when my daughters were celebrating their fourth birthday - they were turning four years old, they are twins - they asked me: "Mummy, how old are you?" When I told them I was 36, they said, "On dear, mummy, you're so old!" Sir, I believe age is a mindset and is also relative. Must we think of ourselves as young or old? How about both young and old, but at different times in our lives, and compared to different people? I am "younger" today, and I will be "older" in maybe another 30 years, and so I have some worries - how long will I live? Good health? Enough money? Will my children forsake me? By the same token, those we consider "old" were once young - they felt strong or stronger, able or abler to conquer the world, and irritated or more irritated by rules and traditions. So, is it really that difficult for us to understand one another?

"Local" versus "foreign". When I work in Singapore, I am local. When I go overseas for work or travel, I am foreign. As a local, I understand the resentment we sometimes feel when we have to make adjustments to accommodate foreigners. And having worked overseas, I also understand the feelings of loneliness of being different, of being talked about behind my back, and having to adapt. So, as a society, that is far more open than others, can we learn to be less focused on differences and more focused on similarities between peoples of different origins?

The "haves" and "have-nots". One of my favourite songs is titled, xiao ren wu de xin sheng , which, loosely translated, means "Voice of the Man in the Street". In it, there is a verse that goes like this, " wo cong lai jiu bu zai hu zi ji bu shi ge da ren wu, yin wei ping fan ye shi yi zhong xing fu, kan dao ming ren zong shi mang mang lu lu, wo de shi jian you wo kong zhi, ping fan ri zi yi yang hui chong shi. " It roughly means that "Famous people are

Column: 507

always so busy. Me, I get to control my time, and though mine is an ordinary life, it can be just as enriching."

Sir, we have a tendency to group people according to material possessions. So, you have a Mercedes, I have a Nissan. You must be happier. I have semi-detached, you have HDB. I must be happier! But I have a silly problem with lizard-droppings and a leaking roof. Sir, I am by no means belittling the problems faced by others. Rather, I am saying that whatever positions we are in, we all have our own problems.

Sir, I hope that as our society matures, we can learn to see beyond our differences. We need to empathise with one another, whatever jobs we do, whatever houses we live in, wherever we are born, whatever age we are. And let us honour the talent in each one of us and recognise the potential in everyone to make his mark. Let us learn also to love ourselves, love our own lives, not the lives of someone else's.

Sir, my third area of concern is the attitudes that we hold as a people. Fifty years from now, if we do not make it as a nation, my guess is that it will be due to three failures. The first is the failure to be optimistic. We have every reason to be confident about our future, our ability to achieve economic success and our ability to help the less privileged. And yet we sometimes talk as if we are near the end of the world. And Mr Peh, the ST journalist, whose article I quoted from earlier, also made the amusing observation in his article that if an alien sat in on Wednesday's Parliament sitting, he or she would probably go away thinking Singapore is not the happiest place on earth. Who can blame them?

I sometimes fall into that trap too, and when I do, my husband reminds me to snap out of my "doomsday" phase. Sir, optimism as a people is important because it channels our energies into doing things that can make a positive difference, rather

Column: 508

than to dwell on things we cannot do much about. Sir, I am not saying we should not try to tackle the difficult problems. What I am saying is, "When we do tackle problems, let's do what can be done first and remain hopeful that we can solve the other problems as we go along." We must never lose heart.

The second failure, in my view, would be a failure to accept and accommodate one another. We tend to be very critical of ourselves and others - our children, our staff, even our leaders. We need to remember that we are not in their shoes, and we do not know what constraints they face, not completely anyway. Also, no one is perfect. We all come as a package.

That is not to say we should not expect high standards of one another, but as I always tell my 8-year-old son, "Mommy does not accept it if you have been lazy or you have not done your part to revise your work. But if you have tried your best, I accept whatever test results it is that you get." Well, maybe only because he is in Primary 2 and I am still a little bit more relaxed about it. I might change over time. But as it is, that is the position I take.

But my point is this, as a very small nation, our ability to hold together as a people is critical. We are just like a family. And in family, we learn to accept and accommodate one another. From time to time in a family, there will be differences. But we never allow the differences to tear the family apart. Members of a family must all do our best to contribute, whether it is household chores, bringing home the bacon, or whatever it is. But if we have difficulty, we all chip in to help one another. That is what family is. But members of a family must be careful also about making demands that everyone else has to adjust to. It is better that we each make small adjustments to accommodate one another.

Column: 509

So the same in our society. We need to ask if sectional interests can be met. If they can, let us do so quickly and without delay. If they cannot be met, without great cost to the rest of society, we must still have the courage to say "no", and still be able to live with one another in harmony.

Sir, in my view, the third and most worrying failure is the failure to appreciate how far we have come as a nation. If you ask my residents in Toa Payoh, many of them would remember the days when food was scarce, no one had running water in their homes, and the toilet referred to a bucket in the ground, already filled with night-soil. Frankly speaking, having been born in post-independence Singapore, I used to cringe when my grandmother talked about the hardships in the old days. I thought to myself, "Not again. Must our elders always tell us how lucky we have it?"

Well, the truth is, they are right. We are very lucky and we are reminded exactly how lucky we are only when we travel and make comparisons. And the reason our elders tell us is to remind us to treasure what we have. But our elders are slowly leaving us. So, will there come a time that so few remember, and the voices of those who do remember are drowned out by the cacophony of criticisms and demands of those who do not?

Sir, I hope not. And that is why I support the call by some of my colleagues that we rethink the way we teach our children our history, and that we preserve the evidence of our past through art and architecture so that, as a people, we will never forget. I believe that if we focus our attention on the non-negotiables, are careful to avoid deepening the potential divides in our society and avoid the three attitudes that can lead to our downfall,

Column: 510

we will indeed be able to build a more inclusive society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in closing, I would like to share a phrase that has touched my heart. The National Geographic Society publishes a monthly magazine filled with beautiful pictures. Today, NatGeo also has a television channel. So, if you have had a bad day at work, NatGeo is a very good channel to watch, just to lift your own spirits. According to one of NatGeo 's photographers, Mr Dewitt Jones, the Society's mission is "To celebrate what is right with the world."

Sir, in supporting the motion to thank the President, let me also call on all of us "To celebrate what is right with Singapore". We have so much going for us. For ourselves and for the sake of our children, let us build on what we have to make Singapore a better place for all.

4.48 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Mah Bow Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion.

The President has outlined his vision for Singapore and I quote: "Secure and prosperous, harmonious and cohesive, a country that Singaporeans are proud of and love, and that other nations respect and admire." Just a few words, very carefully chosen, each one its own, as well as collectively, full of meaning and inspiring us to achieve and move ahead together as one nation.

Such a nation must first get its fundamentals right: to be able to feed, clothe and house its people properly, able to educate its children, take care of the less well-off and, most importantly, to be able to generate the wealth to do all of the above.

Sir, I join this debate to talk about one fundamental aspect, ie, public housing. It

Column: 511

has a key role to play in realising this vision and also to take us back and to see how it has played such a fundamental role in nation-building since independence 41 years ago.

Members who are old enough may remember the Singapore of the 50s and 60s when many families used to live in over-crowded squatter colonies without electricity or proper sanitation, were prone to disease and fire, and I think many Members in this House would be familiar with what I am talking about. The challenge then for the new PAP Government was to build as many HDB flats as quickly as possible to get these families out of the slums and into proper housing. They did not care whether they had lifts on every floor or whether there were covered linkways. All they were interested in was: "Give me basic amenities, electricity and running water." And the PAP delivered. As I was listening to Mrs Josephine Teo just now, she reminded us not to forget how far we have come as a nation. I think it is necessary for us from time to time, in debates such as this, to sit back and take stock of what we have achieved.

Our public housing programme has exceeded all expectations. Today, more than eight out of 10 Singaporeans live in HDB towns and estates across the island. More remarkably, 95% of all HDB residents own their flats. We have, to date, the world's highest home-ownership rate. I used to try and get statistics to see whether we were one of the highest, second, third, etc. The fact remains that we have actually the highest home-ownership rate in the world. This is something that many countries really respect and admire.

By providing a physical stake in our country, our home-ownership programme has strengthened our sense of belonging

Column: 512

to Singapore. It has made Singapore citizenship mean something tangible and to fight for. A typical HDB estate is like a microcosm of Singapore society, because this is where Singaporeans from all walks of life, races and religions live, work and play. So, HDB living is a shared experience which has become an emotional reference point for Singaporeans. We eat in the neighbourhood coffeeshops or hawker centres, watch our children play in the precinct playgrounds that we walk or, for those who are more energetic, we jog in the neighbourhood parks. We also share the frustrations of inconsiderate neighbours who decide to hang their mops when they are dripping wet so that they drip over our freshly washed clothes, or neighbours who decide that lifts are also public toilets. When young couples say, "Let us register for a HDB flat", Singaporeans know exactly what they mean. If you want to feel the pulse of Singapore, go to the HDB heartlands. There is where the Singapore heart beats.

Home ownership has also provided Singaporeans with something very valuable, an asset, and not a small asset. The Department of Statistics did a study last year and they found that, on average, each HDB household has a net equity of $154,000, ie, the value of the home less the outstanding loan. As the President pointed out in his speech, public housing is one of the three key pillars in our social security system. It is a major transfer of wealth from the State to our citizens to share the fruits of growth so that no one feels left behind. As a result of this, HDB residents have this valuable asset, an asset that they can cash out of in times of need, and I will talk about this a little bit later on.

Sir, as we stand at the turning point in Singapore's development, I want to reaffirm our Government's commitment to the home-ownership policy as a key pillar

Column: 513

of our public housing programme. The Government will continue to support and subsidise home-ownership for eligible Singaporeans. This will contribute to the building of a Singapore that is secure, prosperous, harmonious and cohesive. How do we do this? The three approaches that have served us well are:

(1) Ensure the affordability of HDB flats;

(2) Promote social mobility; and

(3) Sustain the quality of the living environment in our HDB estates.

Firstly, let me talk about the affordability of HDB flats. The Government will ensure that HDB flats remain affordable to 90% of all Singaporeans. HDB will offer new HDB flats at heavily subsidised prices to eligible first-timers. Those who choose not to buy a new flat for whatever reason can choose a resale flat. If they do so, they will enjoy the CPF Housing Grant which is either $30,000 or $40,000. On top of that, HDB will also provide loans at concessionary rates to help them buy the flats.

In 2004, HDB resumed the building of new three-room flats to provide Singaporeans with a choice of smaller flats. In March this year, I announced that HDB would start building new two-room flats to provide even more affordable housing options for low-income families. These flats are priced so that they are affordable to households earning about $1,000 a month, which is roughly equivalent to the 10th percentile of households.

To date, we have offered for sale about 200 new two-room flats in Sengkang and Jurong West, and the response has been very good. About 95% of the two-room flats in Sengkang

Column: 514

have been sold and HDB has received more than 200 applications for the 100 two-room flats that were offered in Jurong West. In view of this good demand, HDB will proceed to build more such flats. For 2007, HDB plans to launch about 4,000 new HDB flats, and half of these would be two-room and three-room flats and studio apartments.

To specially enhance the affordability of low-income families, we introduced the Additional CPF Housing Grant in March this year. First-timer families earning up to $3,000 a month can enjoy an additional grant of between $5,000 and $20,000. So, if they were to apply for a resale flat and they qualify, say, for the $20,000 additional grant as well as the CPF Housing Grant of $40,000, we are talking about a total grant of $60,000, which is equivalent to about half the price of one of the smaller flats, which is a significant sum of money. However, there is a condition attached to the new grant, ie, that the applicants must have worked continuously for a minimum of two years. Why do we do this? Because what we want to say is: "You have to try your best, and if you have already tried your best and you need that extra boost or leg up to buy your first flat, the Government recognises your effort and will help you to achieve this goal."

I am happy to note that the scheme has benefited about 1,500 families to date, and I expect more to do so in future, especially as more smaller flats are being built and more people are familiar with the scheme. By building more affordable flats and targeting additional subsidies to those who need it, more low-income families will be able to become home-owners. We will continue to monitor the situation and we can adjust our policies to keep our promise that 90% of our people will be able to afford their own flats.

Secondly, let me talk about social mobility. HDB policies promote social

Column: 515

mobility. Citizen families upgrading to a larger flat are eligible for another housing subsidy. This is in the form of a second concessionary loan. A recent Department of Statistics' study on housing mobility which traced the movement of Singapore resident households in the 10-year period from 1995 to 2005

showed that 350,000 households changed residence during this period. And of these 350,000, more than 60,000 upgraded to a larger house type. This trend was particularly evident among the smaller flat owners, the one to three-room households. Over 80% of them upgraded to larger house types. This shows very clearly that our policies on social mobility have had an impact.

To provide more housing options for first-time flat buyers and upgraders, we have introduced new forms of HDB housing. For example, we introduced the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) recently. Under this scheme, private developers undertake the entire public housing development process - from the bidding for the land to the development of the flat, to the sale of the flat at market prices. The developer of the pilot DBSS flat chose to market its flats with premium features and designs. The response was overwhelming despite the higher prices. And given the demand, HDB is considering to release more sites for DBSS projects.

Sir, at this stage, I would like to sound a word of caution. While we encourage social mobility, we must also ensure financial prudence. Why? So that home buyers do not end up over-stretching themselves. It is no use to buy a flat if you are not able to keep up with the mortgages. And for our home-ownership policy to be sustainable, and for homes to be a meaningful investment, the buyer must be able to do his sums and must be able to service the mortgage so that he can hold on to the flat over the long term.

Column: 516

For this reason, HDB has implemented various measures to encourage financial prudence, that is, credit assessment and financial counselling. Then, from next year onwards, HDB will also require new flat buyers to get a letter, either from the HDB or from the bank if he is getting a bank loan, certifying how much loan he is eligible for before he commits to the purchase.

There are also households who have downgraded to smaller flats because of financial hardship. I empathise with their difficulties and indeed, I am heartened that what they are doing is actually quite sensible. It is financially prudent and a practical thing to do. For deserving cases, I have asked HDB to exercise maximum flexibility in acceding to appeals for an additional concessionary loan to buy a smaller flat. I know that many Members in this House have raised this matter several times: why is it that we do not give an additional concessionary loan to those who wish to downgrade when we do for those who upgrade? I have explained why, for purposes of social mobility, we are prepared to grant the second loan for upgraders. But for those who downgrade, generally speaking, they would have a stored value which is unlocked from their first flat and they are actually quite financially capable of buying a smaller flat. However, there are cases that fall between the cracks. For whatever reasons, they are unable to finance that second flat and, for those cases, we will be flexible.

Thirdly, sustaining the quality of living environment in HDB towns. HDB does this through a systematic rejuvenation of HDB towns through the many upgrading schemes that we have - MUP, IUP, LUP, SERS, etc. This way, the value of Singaporeans' investment in their HDB flats will be upheld. The Government has stated its mission to develop our city into a distinctive global city. Within the next 5-10 years, Marina Bay, Orchard Road, Bras

Column: 517

Basah and Bugis areas - all these will be transformed. It would be unrecognisable. There will be a whole host of new developments that will come up in these areas.

But beyond the downtown areas, a quiet transformation has also taken place in HDB estates over the years as a result of HDB's upgrading programmes. They have collectively brought about a quantitative and a qualitative focus to the HDB living environment. They are very expensive programmes. If we add up the bill so far, they have cost the Government about $7 billion to-date. But it is worth doing because if you do not do this, the older HDB estates are going to fall behind the newer ones and this is something that we want to avoid.

The transformation in our HDB heartlands is no less exciting than what is happening in the city. If you go to Toa Payoh, if you go to the HDB Hub over the weekends, you will see what I mean - crowds of people shopping, auditioning for Singapore Idol, playing football, etc. The Toa Payoh Town Centre has been totally transformed. The estate itself has been rejuvenated with new upgraded flats. And what this means is that you attract younger residents to come in and they in turn help to revitalise the town. So what we will do is to draw up comprehensive rejuvenation plans for other estates, taking into account the residents' profile, the age of the estate and existing facilities. Regardless of whether the estate they live in is old or not so old, residents will have something to look forward to. We intend to do a make-over, in some cases, you could even call it an extreme make-over to our HDB estates. Our ultimate goal is to redefine the living experience for HDB residents. This will be the next major phase of the development of our public housing programme.

Column: 518

Sir, in implementing the upgrading programmes, we will pay particular attention to the needs of our elderly residents. The aim is to make the HDB living environment conducive and comfortable so that they can be encouraged to remain healthy, active and involved in their communities. The upgrading package for senior citizens consists of several components - the Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP), Barrier-Free Accessibility (BFA). Then, we have recently introduced something new called Universal Design (UD) and I would elaborate on that later on. And last, but not least, to make sure that senior citizens keep fit and healthy, we will be introducing more senior citizens fitness parks. So these are the four components of the upgrading package for the senior citizens. Of course, the most important component and the most look-forward to is the Lift Upgrading Programme. For obvious reasons, it improves mobility for the elderly and it keeps them connected to community. That is why the Government last year stepped up the Lift Upgrading Programme and made this commitment to extend lift access to every floor of all eligible HDB flats by 2040. I am pleased to inform Members of this House that the programme is progressing on schedule and we expect that by the end of this financial year, about 65% of all eligible blocks will be selected for LUP. So we are on track for achieving the target that we set.

The Government has also committed to specific timeline to achieve Barrier-Free Accessibility and this is to do so in all HDB estates by 2011. To achieve this, HDB cannot do it alone and this is where it has to work with other agencies such as the Town Councils, NParks and LTA. The aim really is to enable our senior citizens to move about with ease, not just within the block but also in between blocks and down the precinct. We carried out a pilot project in Bukit Batok East and I believe the feedback from the advisor,

Column: 519

the MP and residents was very positive. So I encourage other town councils to draw up similar plans for their precincts for the benefit of their residents.

To make our new flats more user-friendly for the elderly and the physically handicapped, what HDB has also done is, for new flats, they have adopted a new standard of design called Universal Design (UD). What UD does is that it ensures that the design of the flats can cater for the ageing-in-place of the residents. So the corridors will be wider to facilitate wheelchair movement. The steps, if there are any steps in the flat, will be chamfered so that there will be stepless interiors. The switches, the taps and all that will be accessible and will be easy to use, bearing in mind the frailty of the elderly.

Finally, to encourage senior citizens to exercise regularly and stay healthy, we have introduced senior citizens fitness parks that are equipped with special exercise machines. I must tell Members the story about how these fitness parks came into being. I was in Shanghai a few years ago and my wife and I were taking a walk one early morning. We saw these elderly Shanghainese exercising away happily in their public parks and they all look so fit and healthy. When I came back, I decided we should be building such parks in Singapore. So I tried. I wanted to build one in Tampines. HDB told me, "No. There is no budget for it because this is not a standard item." I am sure you all have heard this before. So I said, "Okay. I am going to raise my own funds." I did that. And here, I must acknowledge the contribution of Mary Ann Tsao from the Tsao Foundation and Lee Foundation. They helped me to raise the funds. We built it. It was a huge success. I was so surprised that it was full from morning to night. And where were the people coming from? Some of them were coming from as far away as Pasir Ris, Bedok and some even came

Column: 520

from Hougang. So I said, "We have hit on something here." Since then, we have installed such parks progressively in many other HDB estates and we will do more for the benefit of our senior citizens.

We have not forgotten private estates. The upgrading efforts in our HDB estates have been complemented in recent years by the upgrading of private residential estates. Since 2000, we have implemented what we call the Estate Upgrading Programme (EUP) and 23 private estates have been selected so far, including Serangoon Gardens, Thomson Gardens and Sennett Estate. What we do is that we improve the footpaths and the lighting. We upgrade the neighbourhood parks, fitness corners, playgrounds as well as the connectivity and the accessibility of the estates. So we are going to do more of this and I expect to announce the private estates for the next EUP batch early next year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in implementing our public housing programme to pursue the goals that I have highlighted, we have to be mindful of the challenges we face. I think the House is familiar with these challenges but let me reiterate them. First, ageing population; second, the income divide, how do we help the lower income to move forward together with the rest of the society, even as we have to accept the harsh realities of globalisation; and the third challenge, how do we build cohesive HDB communities as part of the inclusive society?

Let me first touch on the challenges of an ageing population. By 2030, one in five Singapore citizens will be seniors aged 65 and older. And one of the biggest worries in their retirement years is financial security, as Mr Inderjit Singh mentioned just now in his speech. That is the reason why we have put in place several measures to help the elderly to monetise or to unlock the value in their

Column: 521

flats to overcome this asset-rich cash-poor syndrome that MPs have talked about in this House to enable them to enjoy a comfortable retirement.

I mentioned earlier that the average HDB net equity is about $154,000. One way to unlock this value is for the elderly lessees to sell their flat and to buy a studio apartment. A studio apartment is purpose-built for the elderly. The facilities are there inside the flat and there are also facilities in the vicinity of the flat, sometimes in the block itself. So this is a very good option for the elderly.

Alternatively, they can downgrade to a smaller flat, such as a two-room flat. If, for example, a lessee has a three-room flat and he decides to sell it in today's market and buy a studio apartment, he can actually have about $80,000 in cash and CPF proceeds to supplement his other income. HDB's studio apartments have been very well-received. We offered over 1,000 units to-date and so far, close to 95% of them have been taken up. In September this year, we offered the first studio apartments in Bishan. We offered 176 units, 1,000 applications came in.

To allow more elderly households to stay in our studio apartments, HDB will launch more studio apartments. We will also incorporate the studio apartments in our new SERS projects as part of the SERS replacement flats. In this way, we will be able to roll out the studio apartments at a much faster pace. Another option for the elderly is to move in with their families for mutual care and support, to either sell their flats or to rent them out, either the whole flat or one or even two rooms.

Since 2003, HDB has progressively relaxed its rules to facilitate the subletting of whole flats.

And to date, about 12,000 flat lessees have sublet their

Column: 522

whole flats. There are many others who have sublet rooms. We do not have statistics on that because we do not ask them to register. Today, if a person has a 3-room flat and he sublets the whole flat, he can get a monthly rental of about $1,000. If he wishes to continue staying in his flat and he chooses to rent out a room, the going rate for a room is anything between $250 and $500, depending on the location.

There is also the option of committing one's flat to a reverse mortgage. Since March this year, HDB has relaxed its regulations to allow the elderly to commit to a reverse mortgage. Not many have chosen to do so. I believe this is because they are not familiar with the scheme. Maybe there are also certain cultural objections or hurdles to it. Whatever it is, this is another option for them, if they wish to take up this option.

Ultimately, what we want to do is to put in place a whole range of options for the elderly to be able to cash out, unlock value, monetise, or whatever you call it, so that they can then support a comfortable retirement. It is not just the CPF balance alone that represents the stored value for the elderly. Do not forget the value that is in their flat. And if we can do more of this, and if we can persuade and encourage our elderly residents to do this, I believe that the retirement years for many of them will be that much more comfortable.

Each household, of course, will have to decide what is the best option for them, how best to unlock the value, based on their own lifestyle needs and their own preferences. But let us have the options in place on the table for them to choose.

Between January 2003 and June 2006, some 18,000 HDB households, with at least one lessee 50 years or older, have chosen to monetise their flats by

Column: 523

selling or subletting them. We will monitor the take-up rates of the various options and we will refine our policies further, where necessary, so that we can support them.

Let me now turn to the low-income group. Globalisation is a boon for many Singaporeans but we know that there are some households who find it increasingly difficult to cope. So one of the priorities of my Ministry is to help these families in a sensible and sustainable way. I think many of the suggestions make sense from the point of view of the residents. But is it sustainable? I think this is something that we always have to bear in mind.

I have spoken about many of the measures that we are putting in place to ensure that home-ownership remains an attainable goal for those in the low-income group - small flats, additional housing grant, etc. We do recognise that in every society, there will be some among the low-income group for whom home ownership is not a viable option. In recognising that, HDB currently provides very heavily subsidised rental flats.

To further extend our help to such needy households, HDB has decided to increase the supply of subsidised rental flats. Currently, we have something like 40,000 rental flats in stock, but we believe that the demand for such rental flats will increase, and I have asked HDB to start the process of increasing the supply of such flats. For a start, what HDB will do is to convert some of the original 3- and 4-room rental blocks in Boon Lay and Woodlands, and this will give us about 1,000 units of 1- and 2-room rental flats. HDB will also build new rental flats, starting with around 1,000 units in the next few years, and we will locate these new rental flats in mature as well as in new estates, so that we ensure a balanced social mix, not just within the estate but across the island. Together with the additional housing grant in the

Column: 524

building of 2- and 3-room flats, this increase to our rental capacity forms part of the spectrum of housing assistance that we are putting in place to provide targeted special assistance for the less well off in our society.

We cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all approach in providing accommodation subsidies to the low-income families. Whilst some will need a little encouragement and financial boost to own their own flats, others may have to depend on subsidised rental flats as their own option.

HDB's rental flats are very heavily subsidised, as I mentioned earlier. Households earning below $800 a month currently pay a monthly rental of $30 for a 1-room flat and $60 for a 2-room flat. How heavily subsidised are these flats? Just to give Members an indication, recently, one household was found to have illegally sublet his 1-room flat for $500 a month. He paid $30 a month and he sublet it for $500 a month. Where was he staying? I do not know. But that is a rough indication of the rental value of the flat and hence the level of subsidy that we are talking about.

The incomes of rental tenants do not remain static. They improve over time, and this is a good sign. HDB has 2-year term tenancy and they have gone round to do surveys on incomes. One of these households, the family was staying in a 2-room rental flat, they have been there since 1986. When they first started, the household income was $700 a month. Today, the household income is close to $5,000, but still staying in the 2-room rental flat paying $60 a month. It is good that household incomes have risen. I am sure that many who have lived in our rental flats have actually done well for themselves, and this is really a desirable outcome and we are very happy for them. But we also need to ensure that those who are ready for home-ownership - the

Column: 525

family that I quoted earlier is certainly ready for that - that these families do not overstay in their rental flat. They should be encouraged to move on and not deprive more needy households of that rental flat.

Therefore, to ensure that our housing subsidies are targeted at those who need the most, we will align our rental rates to household income. For the tenants whose household incomes have grown over the years, their rates will be adjusted to take into account their current household incomes. In this way, we hope to encourage them to move towards owning their own flats. It may be a small flat, it may be something larger if they can afford. If necessary, we will help them with whatever housing subsidies if they are eligible.

Sir, even as the Government is committed to help the lower-income, we are faced with a dilemma. How many times do we subsidise them? How much help is enough? Some of the rental tenants have previously sold their subsidised flats, sometimes more than one, and made substantial cash profits. We have decided, in the interest of equity, that new rental tenants who have previously sold one or more subsidised flat will pay higher rates, taking into account the fact that they have benefited from an earlier housing subsidy. I would like to assure the House that over 80% of existing tenants, including all those with monthly incomes below $800, will not be affected by this rental rate alignment exercise, and they will continue to pay their current low rates. HDB will announce more details in a few days' time.

I want to stress that the aim of this exercise is not to recover cost. Because if we did, then the rentals would be bumped up many, many times. But it is

Column: 526

to avoid abuse of Government subsidies which are really meant for the lowest income. In this regard, I want to urge some Singaporean families not to think of subsidised rental flats as a cheap place to dump their elderly parents. This is an abuse of Government subsidies meant for the needy and a misguided approach towards fulfilling their responsibilities towards their parents.

I had a recent appeal to HDB for a rental flat. The children said, "Please give a rental flat to our elderly parents. They are of ill health. However, we undertake to hire a maid to stay in the rental flat to look after them." Sir, I encourage families to have their elderly parents stay with them as far as possible for mutual help and support. Similarly, extended families should turn to one another for help in terms of hardship. In this way, we can keep our heavily subsidised rental flats for those who are really in financial hardship and who have no alternative housing options.

Finally, I want to talk about the challenge of building inclusive and cohesive HDB communities. An inclusive Singapore society needs inclusive communities within our HDB towns. Over the years, we have paid special attention to make sure that our HDB estates are suitable platforms upon which we can build an integrated and cohesive community. So we have implemented policies, such as the ethnic integration policy, to make sure that every HDB estate is racially mixed. We have shaped the physical environment. We have provided void decks for people to come down and gather, RC centres, playgrounds and so on and so forth. So it is not just the building of the flat itself but the building of the community space. A lot of thought has gone into that.

The President has spoken about the challenges of globalisation, the ageing population and a new generation of

Column: 527

Singaporeans with higher expectations and with views that they want heard. Many Members in this House have echoed these sentiments.

In the light of these structural changes, I believe that it is timely for us to review the state of community building and to consider new initiatives to strengthen community ownership. We must ensure that the HDB living experience that I talked about continues to be a glue that bonds Singaporeans together to their country and to their fellow citizens. Therefore, I have asked my Minister of State, Ms Grace Fu, to lead a public consultation exercise with a group of MPs over the next few months to see how we can better build HDB communities. I hope that Singaporeans from all walks of life, all ages and all persuasions will come forward with ideas on how we can strengthen rootedness, community ownership and mutual support in housing estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the vast majority of Singaporeans have benefited from our public housing programme over the last 40 odd years. Our home-ownership programme has not only successfully housed a growing nation but it has also strengthened social cohesion. It has provided Singaporeans with a valuable asset for their retirement. We will build on this strong foundation. We will upgrade our flats, build cohesive communities, rejuvenate our estates, transform our city to create a Singapore that is secure, prosperous and cohesive. Government will work hand in hand with all Singaporeans to make this a reality, and I am confident that, together, we can build a Singapore that we will all be proud of, that we love to call home for ourselves, our children and all others who share our vision.

Mr Charles Chong: Sir, I am delighted to hear that the Minister is in the process

Column: 528

of reviewing the HDB policies to make them easier for low-income families as well as for the elderly to own homes or even be housed in rental units. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister if he would also consider reviewing the debarment period for families who are unable to afford instalments of the larger units because their circumstances have changed and now need to downgrade to smaller units or even rental units.

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Sir, let me explain the rationale for the debarment period. I think the Member is talking about the 30-month debarment period.

What the debarment period does is that it discourages all those who have already got a flat, either a subsidised or a resale flat, or even a private home, from joining the queue for HDB flats. In other words, you already have a place, you have already enjoyed the subsidy, if you were to decide for whatever reason to sell and you want to come back to the queue, there is a 30-month waiting time. This is the genesis of that policy. However, I know where the Member is coming from. The Member is saying that there are some of them who have to give up their existing flat because of financial hardship, mortgage arrears, or whatever. Can we remove the debarment period? My answer is for such deserving cases, yes, we will do so. But I would not change the whole policy so that we can accommodate not just these cases but also all other cases. Because if we do so, then I think the queue for HDB flats is going to grow and balloon again, and we will end up with the same situation that we had earlier. Those who really genuinely want a flat will have to compete with all the others who are not really in need of a flat and, as a result, the waiting time gets extended. That will totally distort the HDB market.

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, a brief clarification.

Column: 529

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, the Minister spoke about the value of the HDB flat and how the owner can unlock the value. I wonder whether he is aware that there were many who would end up with negative asset because they bought the flat at a high price and they took bank loans; as a result of which the bank is coming for repossession because they cannot pay. How would they cope with a situation like this?

The other supplementary clarification is about Mr Charles Chong’s question. The Minister has clarified that perhaps he would look at the cases on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps he did not want other people who already have a flat to join the queue. But many of these people are facing problems; their flat was repossessed by the bank and they have no place to stay. But I understand many of them were not even considered on a case-by-case basis. Can the Minister clarify what are the basis and rules in which he would say who is entitled and who will get it?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Yes, I admit that there are people who are currently in negative equity. And these are the people who bought the flat at a very high price; today, the market value of the flat has come down. Are there a lot of cases? Our current records show that the numbers are less than 1%. These are the people who generally have bought more than one flat. They had a subsidised flat earlier, they sold it at a profit and went into the market again at the peak in the mid-90s. And as a result of that, they are now in negative equity.

Sir, we cannot prevent people from making decisions and arising from those decisions, having to suffer these consequences. But what we can do - and this is what I elaborated in the speech - is to provide them with financial counselling, make sure that the amount of loan that they get is commensurate with

Column: 530

their household incomes and make sure that they do not over-extend themselves. If we provide all these and if they still decide that they want to proceed, if they suffer the consequences, then I think it is really something that they have to take responsibility for. But I am fully sympathetic to those who are in financial difficulty, who are in negative equity, and who have to sell their flat, who have no means, jobs have been lost, sickness in the family, misfortune, etc. These are the cases that we look at very closely and decide whether we should help them or not. That is what I mean by on a case-by-case basis, whether it is people coming for a second concessionary loan – those who are in negative equity – or people who come to us for rental flats even though they do not qualify, or people, like what Mr Charles Chong mentioned, who are affected by the 30-month debarment rule.

He asked what are the criteria. The criteria are very simple. Is it a deserving case or not? Have they fallen into financial difficulty through no fault of their own – they lost their job, they were retrenched, had a salary cut? Or, they made money from their first flat, they went on holidays, they renovated their flats, they bought jewellery, they had a wonderful time, and then they bought a second flat, they stopped work, and the banks came after them. Is that a deserving case? I think this is why we have to look at each and every case rather than having blanket rules – rules that are so broad that they actually create more problems for us in the future.

Mr Speaker: Ms Lee Bee Wah, last one.

Ms Lee Bee Wah (Ang Mo Kio): The Minister just mentioned that those families with monthly income below $800 will not be affected by the rental rate alignment exercise. I look at the chart that was distributed yesterday. Over the last five

Column: 531

years, those families with an income of $1,700 and below have not experienced any increment in their salaries. So, is $800 too low a cut-off?

Mr Mah Bow Tan: We have two tiers of rental currently because, in 2003, we extended the eligibility for rental flats from $800 to $1,500. Actually, we have two rental rates – the first is for those below $800, which is $30 a month; and those between $800-$1,500, $60 a month. So for those below $800, the $30 a month will remain. For those above $800 and less than $1,500 for the first phase of the renewal, they will also not be affected. But I think these are the details that will come up. So we will actually phase in the realignment very gradually for the next group that the Member is talking about.

5.39 pm

Mr Chan Soo Sen (Joo Chiat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I also rise to support the Motion of Thanks. All of us know that with a globalised economy, competition is going to be very fierce, and it will get fiercer. But we also know that we shall prevail, and we must prevail. We know that we will prevail because we invest in our future, we have taken long-term views, we prepare our people and we have a solid social compact.

Mr Chan Soo Sen (Joo Chiat): However, this is not going to be smooth-sailing. It is going to go up and come down, like the Hokkien song says wu si kee, wu si low ( buay sai buay hia kee buay hia low ).

Sir, our state of mind must be able to deal with these ups and downs. When the going is good and when we are up, we should not be complacent and go and buy jewellery and spend it all. We want to invest and keep some for the future. Maybe we should give to others to promote a spirit of giving in our society.

Column: 532

When times are bad, maybe somebody would give to us. And when things are down, we should not despair. We should have this spirit of par see buay chow or par chow buay see , that we will always be able to bounce back. We must have this high spirit - never say die! Therefore, I would say that if there is one thing that I want to call on my fellow Singaporeans or our fellow Singaporeans-to-be, I would say discover happiness and be upbeat, and help others to also discover happiness and be upbeat.

Happiness is a state of mind. It does not depend on whether you are wealthy or not. I know of very rich people who cannot sleep at night, very unhappy. I know of relatively poor people who are very happy. Frankly, if we are talking about a nation, people say that our happiness index in Singapore is not very high. The place with the highest happiness index is this country called Bhutan where, until a few years ago, there was not even television. Their pastime is archery, maybe climbing mountains, and they are happy. We will never have enough money - money always not enough. But how to discover happiness and always be upbeat, I believe, is the key to our sustainability in this marathon run.

In fact, "happiness", lest we all forget, is one of the important word mentioned in our National Pledge - the last sentence says so, “… so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation”. We achieve prosperity, we achieve progress, forget about happiness. So I think it serves to remind even in our National Anthem, the word “ bahagia ” if we are to define a bit more broadly, “ bahagia ” must include happiness. I hope Mr Hawazi and Mr Masagos will agree. I am no Malay expert. Therefore, pursuit of happiness and be upbeat is a very important objective in our national psyche. In fact, all the Asian civilisations had a lot of things to say about happiness. I am

Column: 533

not very familiar with our Malay culture and also our Tamil culture when it comes to proverbs. But I can start with some examples among the Chinese proverbs. Happiness, firstly, if they come from the individuals, from inside, you will find something that you are passionate about, then like Confucius said: “ san yue bu zhi rou wei ”. There was a stage where he found something that he was very passionate about in researching, so in the three months, although he lived relatively well and he ate meat every day, he did not know what meat tasted like. I suppose that must be very, very happy. I suppose we can learn from that too. If we want a more contemporary example, consider what Mrs Josephine Teo cited just now, " xiao ren wu de xin sheng ". She said, " ping fan ye shi yi zhong kuai lei ", just be ordinary, be happy too. But I would disagree in that particular song that says VIPs rushing around, they are not happy. Maybe they are also happy. Each one of us has our own formula to be happy and there is no need to measure happiness using a single yardstick.

Like just now, Mr Chiam said, because Malay set up the Yayasan Mendaki, Chinese set up CDAC, the Indians set up SINDA, therefore it shows that our society is divisive. I do not know whether Mr Chiam knows that when I took over as the first CEO of CDAC, what was the first thing I did. I called up Mr Zainul to make an appointment to see him, to learn from Yayasan Mendaki. Then I called up Mr Iswaran who was then CEO of SINDA to say, “Look, would you want to teach me how to run a self-help group?” We learn from each other and yet we do not measure using a single yardstick because different communities have certain specific problems that can be better addressed using their community’s commitment and passion.

So there is no need to measure happiness using a single yardstick. Today,

Column: 534

it is CDAC, Yayasan Mendaki, SINDA, and I think the Eurasian Association, you are happy ever after. Happiness is also about interacting with people. Again, the Chinese says that " du le le, bu lu zhong le le " - if you are happy on your own, you include others, you will be happier. Happiness shared is happiness multiplied. It is just like depression. Share the depression half, the other way round. If you share happiness, it becomes endemic – everybody is happy.

There is also a saying that " you peng zi yuan fang lai, bu yi le hu " . I think Confucius said this. When friends come from far away, it is really a happy moment. Of course, in the old days, only when friends came, you had the excuse to kill the only chicken that you had and shared. Therefore, there is hospitality. But to be able to meet people, it is a great source of happiness.

I want to mention this point about people. Because my concern is when I look at our younger generation, my children's generation, if I want to see him, he will not come and see me. I call him, there will be no answer. I SMS him, that fellow has not replied. If our interaction is going to be less and less personalised, we are going to be a less happy society. When we call a certain department or agency, even the private sector, you are referred to press "1" for this, press "2" for that and press "3" for that. And at the end of it, it says, if you really want to talk to us, press this number, and when you press, it is engaged. Why can we not engage some senior citizens to run more helplines? I do not think they are asking for very much. They are very, very good in handling this type of situation. In fact, when we first set up the CDC, I have a CDC helpline. We got volunteers. We gave them some small allowance and they run the helpline for 1 1/2 years. A lot of people called, and that group feels very happy because they have been able to help others. So this is generating employment opportunities for older

Column: 535

persons, maybe like me, giving happiness to everybody - those who call as well as those who receive calls. So why not?

And very importantly, happiness is about giving and about helping people. The Chinese say, " zhu ren wei kuai le zhi ben ", helping others is a fundamental of happiness. I think all cultures believe that it is more blessed to give than to take. I think I see this in the Holy Bible and, certainly, you see this in other cultures. So to be able to help shows people that you are useful. To feel useful, you feel happy. You help others, others feel happy. Happiness is multiplied. So we have a happier society.

All this seems to sound very obvious. But I fear that if we do not remind ourselves and we just plunge into globalisation, it may not be very obvious in the heat of the moment. When people suffer further setbacks in work, and if work is the only thing that they have, then the world will collapse. And they cannot get up again because they have lost everything. They have lost even their identity which is purely with work. But if their identity consists of three parts - it consists of work, it consists of their hobby as well as their spiritual belief and it consists of their circle of people, their family and friends - then, perhaps, if they temporarily lose their job, they have two other worlds to return to. Maybe they spend more time with their family for a little while. They give them encouragement, so they bounce back. Maybe they go back to work in their church or temple for a little while to seek some spiritual peace, and they will be strong enough to bounce back again. Maybe the few months of quietness are good for them overall as a person. When we want to plunge into a marathon race on globalisation, these are the important considerations.

Over here, I would like to pay homage to a group of people who are always

Column: 536

happy. These are the volunteers. By definition, they give. I know many of them are very ordinary people. They do not have a lot of income. Some of them may not be working. But when they go and do their voluntary work, they spring to life. They work very hard. Just look at some of them, they help people organise the events. For three or four nights, they do not sleep. They keep on coming back. But at the end of it, they feel so happy. They come back again. When I talk to some of them, they say, "I am really very stupid. I do all these things for no return." I want to say that the community will be much happier if there are more stupid people like them because when we do good deeds, we feel good. We feel good, we do more good. We do more good, we will feel more, more good. We feel more, more good, we do more, more, more good. You know what I mean. It becomes a good society that encourages doing good deeds and giving. If I were to be in a society that is good in giving, good in mutual support, I know that if I have to plunge into this fierce world of globalisation, I would rather be in that kind of a society. Because if I get injured, I know that there will be people who genuinely care.

In a globalised society and globalised economy, overall, we will have more. And the most successful will also have more. So there will be more in the community to share, not necessarily with the Government only. I am talking about the community. If we have a spirit of giving, then we can worry less for the people who are less fortunate. So as we look at this new world that we are rushing into, we are plunging into, we must prevail because we have no choice. If we lose, we are finished because Singapore is so small. But let us build a society that is rich in giving, rich in mutual support. Therefore, I want to appeal to our fellow Singaporeans to always be happy and always be upbeat, and Singapore will be okay, Singapore will be unbeatable.

Column: 537

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): With reference to Mr Chan's speech, if we did not have TV in Singapore, it might just have more than happiness and it might solve our immigration problems.

5.52 pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to add my voice to the chorus of support for the Motion of Thanks to the President.

In our early years, we built our nation with a sense of purpose - to take Singapore through its developmental years, to ride waves and survive downturns, to create a competent workforce, to guard against security threats - all with a vision of economic progress. As time passed, the Government gained its reputation for its steady and able hands, responding to changes and threats with sound and robust policies, and these are often built on vision, reason and rationale.

Today, we face changes in the global economic landscape, where it is critical for us to adjust policies and change mindsets to keep Singapore competitive. The threats of terrorism have strengthened our resolve to maintain harmonious living as a safeguard for turmoil.

As we forge ahead, in these uncertain waters, we often listen to the voices of fact and reason in finding our way. Sometimes, the voices that we tend to overlook - and sometimes brush aside - are those from the heart.

I would like to touch upon the four ‘soft’ themes in my speech today - sentiments, values, hope and faith - against the backdrop of the ‘new social and political compact’, changes in the

Column: 538

expectations of our citizens (both Post65 and Pre65), changes in the employment landscape, changes in the way we communicate, and changes in our values and priorities in life.

I will start off with engaging sentiments. The process in which we set off on our journey is critical. We must win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans at every level to take us in the same direction. Because not everyone can respond to changes today at the same pace, not everyone views the landscape from the same peaks that you and I are on, if some are even on a peak to begin with.

But the point I wish to make today is that, while we rationalise policies and law with Singaporeans, sometimes unfavourable ones, we can do more to connect with the hearts of Singaporeans and listen to their voices within. Because in their hearts lie voices or sentiments, which if not taken care of, can result in fear, resentment and anger.

This is one of the blind spots that we must be aware of, 'soft' aspects that the Government must do more to engage the citizens, particularly with the emerging social and political climate.

In policy making and governance, the Government has always had the long-term interest of Singaporeans in mind. Its policies and programmes are based on good judgment. But often, many feel that the Government brushes off their sentiments along the way, rebutting ground feelings with statistics and data, analyst reports and Ministerial commentary and, at times, hard-hitting messages as policies are released.

We cannot just brush aside these sentiments, but we need to understand how they come about and address them

Column: 539

accordingly. This has become an increasingly important input as we need to remain attuned to the shifts in expectations, aspirations, values and even priorities among Singaporeans.

There is a Malay saying, “ Kalau tak ada angin bertiup, takkan pokok bergoyang ”, which means the tree will not sway without a trace of wind. Of course, there are also those who say that sometimes, the tree moves because a monkey is causing it. But I am confident we know a monkey when we see one.

But what has sentiment got to do with hard topics like nation building, employment or economic development? Throughout history, sentiment is always a strong force in the way nations and economies developed. Look at how sentiments dictate stock markets and prices of commodity today. Sentiments have also changed and toppled governments. In both instances, they have happened despite sound fundamentals in place.

So, how often have we heard the sentiment that Singapore is a cold, uncaring place and only for those with money? This despite all the social programmes and networks that we have in place.

How often have sentiments about cost of living been echoed in our ears, with terms like ‘middle-income squeeze’ and ‘sandwich generation’ also resonating the same tune? This despite the facts and figures from the Government, even just now, that costs of necessities, transportation and healthcare are more affordable here in comparison to other nations and that we are spending a lot more today in social welfare than ever.

Similarly, as we open our doors to foreign talent, can we ignore the disquiet

Column: 540

in some segments of Singaporeans? Singaporeans do understand and appreciate the need for us to inject talent into our economy. But they also want to know what then makes it special for us to be Singaporeans?

I tend to believe, as my esteemed colleagues have all spoken at length on the above issues, that there is always some truth in these sentiments. I have researched many of these issues. They echoed in this House years ago, as they still do now.

Perhaps, we need to ask ourselves, why do these sentiments still linger? I often wonder, have we not been engaging Singaporeans enough to address their concerns, or is there no straight answer that the Government can provide over the years?

I tend to agree somewhat with Mr Michael Palmer’s speech on the reason why many of our youths have become disengaged, disenchanted and, sometimes, resentful. Many segments feel that they do not have a say in Singapore, or, if they did, they fear reprisals for taking an opposite stance from the Government.

Through my interactions with youths in various dialogues, I feel sad whenever they express their fear of speaking up to seek clarity on a decision or policy. I remember an instance at the Prime Minister’s dialogue held recently, when a youth commented that he and his classmates felt fearful when engaging with the Government.

When probed further why this was the case, he was not able to substantiate and said this was just a running sentiment. I figure that this sentiment runs deep even among many others in his cohort.

The sad thing is that this is even true among working adults of my cohort. Just

Column: 541

last week, I recommended a working couple to clear their doubts on a policy by referring them to one of our friendly political office-holders. After all, we are supposedly one of the most accessible governments in the world. But, I could not have imagined the fear they expressed. They feared persecution, even just to clarify a matter. I believe this fear is a sentiment that is curbing our freedom of expression and creativity today. There is always this feeling of not being able to channel interests and energies because of Government restrictions.

Sir, so how do we engage Singaporeans in such an environment? I think the Government certainly needs to spend some time to change several perceptions, ie, that dealing with the Government is a one-way street, that the Government does not listen, that their feedback goes into a black hole, that the Government has already made up its mind by the time it consults the public, or that Government policies are drafted by locking three scholars in a room, without any sense of how issues are viewed from the eyes of ordinary, humble citizens.

I believe, increasingly, the Government needs to figure out how it engages sentiments. Take the Mr Brown issue, which still resonates in the youth and online communities. Let us put aside for now the Government’s right to respond and the difference of policies of expression between the mainstream and the new media. But to many of my generation, his article merely expressed the sentiments of the common man on the costs of living, as we all would have in our e-mails and online postings. We are a generation brought up on Internet forums and talk shows, such as Jay Leno and David Letterman. We have become more open to political critic and are increasingly less influenced by extreme political views in making our judgments.

Column: 542

Sir, the Government should reflect on how it engages citizens today because I believe behind these lingering sentiments are often complex issues, which are often a cumulative effect of smaller issues that may not be addressed by a big-bang revamp of a policy or two. What many feel is that the Government’s holistic policies are developed as seen through the eyes of the respective Ministries, and not a holistic solution that is seen through the eyes of the citizens concerned. For instance, when we address cost issues, let us look at it holistically from the eyes of our citizens. We should consider the indices holistically by taking into account the whole picture and not distinct, piecemeal efforts by each Ministry working within its own view of the world.

On the ground, we need to improve service levels and execution at each of the Government’s touch-points. How often have we received the standard responses, even after we have given four, five or six different replies? As an MP, I, too, have received patronising press statements as responses to my enquiries sometimes.

As the civil service automates its operations, goes e-Government and ventures into the new media, it can consider one of the lessons learnt from the private sector recently. Today, many retail institutions, having spent millions of dollars automating their processes in the hope of cutting queues, are now reinvesting resources back into their front desks. Why is that so? Because the human aspect in the way the organisation interacts with its customers is still important. I think Mr Chan Soo Sen did mention just now. It gets frustrating because we have to press 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, and there is no human aspect to it to explain issues, allay fears and address sentiments. And I believe that this is another source of frustration and despair for many in dealing with the Government, ie, the inability to handle exceptions in a

Column: 543

swift and decisive manner by front-line office-holders. I strongly believe that after Dr Vivian Balakrishnan's speech as well on how social workers are being stressed and frustrated at the front line, there is more that needs to be done to invest in our front-line service as we need to handle more exceptions to more complex matters, especially if we need to address sentiments.

Indeed, the Government can do more to understand and address the sentiments of the people, and meet us half way to address them. I believe that we need to cultivate a better understanding and foster this spirit of partnership to make Singaporeans feel that they are engaging the Government on a two-way street. The Government must do more to give people the hope and confidence that their views and opinions matter as stakeholders in this country. Only then can we foster ownership of issues and community concerns.

Sir, I move on now to my second theme, which is about values and the need to keep pace with our changing values. I believe that the context of the President’s message on the "new social and political compact" runs deep. This new contract evolves with the environment of the times. The post-independence generation, given its more educated and global posture, will certainly accelerate changes in the thinking, perspectives, priorities and even values in our community. We are already experiencing a gradual shift in the way this generation expects the country to be run, how the Government engages it, how we interact as a society, and how we cope with the dynamic economy. And it is imperative that the Government must keep pace with the changing values and attitudes in our community.

I applaud the recent changes in the Penal Code in keeping up with the times.

Column: 544

But today, changes in our behaviour and expectations happen even faster than a policy can be reviewed. Youth workers I have spoken to lament that they have finally caught up with the MTV Generation, but then the young have again moved on to YouTube and MessengerLive.

I am confident that in due course, our shifts in values and attitudes will result in debates in this House beyond the merits of a policy, challenging the underlying fundamentals and philosophies behind them. But here, I shall not confine this change to the Post-65ers, because already, a pre-65er has taken the bold step to question the effectiveness and relevance of the many-helping-hands approach. In time, we may question whether the principles in the way we help the needy, ie, family support first, community second and then the Government third, will still remain in this order of priority.

The political compact of today requires more than absolute trust in the Government. I think we will see delivery and accountability carrying greater weight in this generation. Many of our generation have grown in working environments that are results-oriented, with much emphasis on accountability. The compact is increasingly shaping in this direction, even from a social perspective. One good example is the way we demand charities to be accountable for the effectiveness of the assistance it provides and the way it manages costs. Times have changed, for no longer do we drop dollar notes into a charity box and put trust in blind faith.

However, I also think that my generation will need to learn to meet the Government half way. We need to be rational and practical as to the limits we push these ideals. The compact will need to balance idealism with real-world complexities and limitations. As with the

Column: 545

current and established compact, I see trust and faith between the people and the Government remaining an important component. The leaders who have led us through independence and our formative years, have made enormous efforts to deliver and build that trust with the people over the years. I see myself and the new generation of MPs in this House no different. We face the challenge to prove ourselves, yet I am confident that we will do our best to deliver and build that trust with the community, as previous generations of leaders have done.

Mr Speaker, I move on to my third sentiment which I will cover in Malay. This concerns hope and my hope for the Malay community and its youth population.

(In Malay) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The efforts to reach out to the youths and the community is a continuing effort in the Malay-Muslim community. This is a time when we should make efforts to adjust and make changes to meet the challenges of globalisation. As stated by Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in his Hari Raya speech, the community must be progressive and have a global way of thinking. It is timely for us to involve the community in this effort as we draw up our plans for further progress for the next 10-15 years. Faced with the improvement in the economy and the decline in unemployment, we are in a good position to develop new fields. Our infrastructure is also ready to move forward.

The Malay community, together with the other communities in Singapore, must not ignore the opportunities outside Singapore, whether in the Middle East, Europe, China, India or in the other regions. Malay-Muslim leaders will be

Column: 546

scrutinising these efforts and discussing how best to assist the community to reach these opportunities. We have to show them the means and the direction. This is because there are often questions as to how we should grab those opportunities, whom we should see to find guidance and what are the things to be done. Not many know of the scope of the opportunities that exist. If we do not provide the guidance, the vision on these global opportunities will be seen as just something distant and only relevant to the professionals, big businessmen and those who are in the creative field, such as the media and fashion. Actually, there is great scope in terms of the opportunities outside Singapore. As such, we have to act in an effective way to carry out efforts to explore those opportunities.

Based on my interactions with the business community, Singaporeans are a very esteemed group of people in many places in the world, and these include technical and construction workers. A lot of opportunities exist and ITE itself has been promoting exchange programmes with external companies for their students. I think more can be done not just for Malays but also for other Singaporeans to facilitate the achievement of their globalised aspirations. One way is to set up a resource centre that they can rely on, especially the blue-collar and technical workers. For the Malay-Muslim community, the young generation must have serious consideration on the global opportunities as we step forward to the next level of development. With the young population forming 37% of our community, we must encourage and motivate them to scrutinise the various options open to them. I see a great potential for our young population and it is therefore important for us to invest in their future. I am confident the Malay-Muslim community is capable of excelling. We need only see in our rich history, whether in terms of language, culture or the arts. Similarly, with the history of

Column: 547

Islam which has produced many prominent figures and scholars who are knowledgeable and progressive.

While we establish our social infrastructure, we can also enhance our efforts to assist our community to reap these global opportunities and guide them to go through the global economy and the digital era. As such, the young Malay generation can give more contribution not just to our community but also to the nation.

(In English): Sir, next, concerning faith and the faith in our future.

Sir, to conclude, as we move towards a more inclusive society in an open and global economy, we want Singaporeans to be comfortable about the country they call home. But to achieve this, we need to be able to create the right environment which takes into account all factors. To sum off my speech, I would like to leave this House with a Malay pantun or poem:

_Bulan Safar ke Tanjong Katong
Bermandi-manda Dengan Pelekat
Bulat Air Kerana Pembentong
Bulat Manusia Kerana Muafakat _

The key lines of the poem reflect the importance of getting consensus and support of the people behind us to make the nation stronger. We are a Government with hopes to fulfil. Standing in this House before you, this is a responsibility that we choose to shoulder. At the end of the day, we want Singaporeans to have ownership of issues and have a stake in this country.

*Cols. 577-580.

Therefore, we need to give our people a sense of faith and ownership and a feel for the Government. As we strive to win hearts and minds, we need to be mindful that this engagement needs to be as much reason as sentiment.

Sir, with this, I support the Motion of Thanks.

Column: 548

6.16 pm

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Sembawang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to add my voice to the chorus of thanks to the President for outlining the new directions that the Government is taking to keep pace with the changing social and economic environment.

In this maiden speech of mine in this House, I would speak as one of the minority, the post-65 generation. I was picked as one of the majority as well, as one of the young parents. I am sure, amongst the House, we were once young parents before.

We grew up in the transitional post-independence era and witnessed the transformation from developing to our current first-world status. As we stand together to celebrate the 41st National Day this year, we marvelled at the achievements of Singapore. Together with the rest of the Singaporeans, we took our national pledge with pride. And I am glad that Mr Chan Soo Sen has highlighted the deep meaning of the pledge, ie, as we pledge, we have to ponder on what we are trying to achieve as one people.

A few members of the House had quoted our national pledge "regardless of race, language and religion" when they spoke about an inclusive and cohesive society. I would like to bring to the attention, as what Mr Chan has brought up, to our national pledge that was penned by the late S Rajaratnam. We pledge to stay as one united people, to work together "so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation". The key thing is: so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. I think many would agree with me that we have achieved prosperity and progress for our nation. Prosperity can be measured by our economic success, from the figures that are published by the Ministry of

Column: 549

Trade and Industry. Progress for our nation can be measured by our new skyline that is highlighted by the Ministry of National Development. But how about happiness? As for happiness, many have their doubts. We must commend the late Mr Rajaratnam for his foresight to put happiness first before prosperity and progress for our nation in the pledge. We recited it everyday in our school days. But as we grew up, we forgot about the most important thing we pledged to do, that is, to achieve happiness.

So are we happy as a country? It is true that the findings of the London-based New Economics Foundation's (NEF) Happy Planet Index (HPI) certainly threw up some interesting results. I must confess that I am not sure if they are indeed an accurate reflection of the societies surveyed. I am not a statistician as I am just an ophthalmologist. The HPI reflects the average years of happy life produced by a given society, nation or group of nations for every unit of planetary resources consumed. And Singapore ranked a dismal 131 out of 178 countries surveyed. Among the countries in Asia, Vietnam ranked highest at 12th position; Philippines at 17th; Indonesia at 23rd; Thailand at 32nd; and Malaysia at 44th. What about the developed countries? Switzerland at 65th; Germany at 81st; France, just two spaces in front of us at 129th; and US behind us at 150th. So compared to the developed countries, we did not fare too badly. Our neighbours did well perhaps because they consumed fewer resources than us. We may dispute the methodology as well as the veracity of this report but the HPI does raise some pertinent issues for us to ponder about.

As we progress and as we prosper, we should all feel happier but I cannot help to notice that it is not the case. Happiness is subjective and it is

Column: 550

comparative. It is probably not as complicated as what Dr Fatimah has outlined in her formula. As we read the Forum pages in Straits Times as well as the blogs on the Internet today, there is a general feeling of unhappiness. This has been outlined earlier by my parliamentary colleagues, Mr Zaqy as well as Mr Michael Palmer. Can it be that the happy people make the most noise and hence, attract the most attention? Could this general unhappiness be true? Have we been focusing too much on developing the hardware and in the process neglected the equally important, if not, the more important software and heartware aspect for Singapore?

Sir, I will now delve on the following topics to achieve a happier Singapore:

(1) Strengthening the family, which is the source of happiness for most of us;

(2) Give people more choices as a free bird is always happier than a bird in the cage;

(3) Reduce the amount of stress and the cost of living for young families as well as support the lower middle income group; and

(4) Protection of our environment by thinking out of the box.

Singapore family and lifestyle

I knew of a family who resided in Marsiling a few years ago. Both husband and wife woke up every day before 6.00 am to prepare the kids and ferry them to their caregiver's house, ie, their grandparents’ place in Hougang. They fought through our heavy traffic for work and in the evening, they fought through that heavy traffic again to pick up the kids, only to return home at 9.00 pm. By the time they reached home at 9.00 pm, they had to supervise the kids in their homework, to do housework chores and

Column: 551

catch up on their reading, all in two hours before they hit the bed. By then, they were too tired to think about exercise, sports or any other activities that could make them happy. During weekends, they changed their jobs to professional chauffeurs as they ferried their children from tuition to tuition, courses to courses. They have meticulously worked out the timetables on their fridges. Why did I know that? Because that family was mine. The routine has become that of many young parents' lifestyle in Singapore. They have practically no time for themselves and the kids have no time for themselves too. Are they really happy?

In a speech delivered by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan at the recent East Asia Ministerial Forum on Families held in Singapore, he cited building of resilient families as a core philosophy of Singapore. The building of a resilient nation must first start with the building of resilient families. Families in Singapore are facing more challenges than ever and there is a need to change our culture and mindset to make family the priority. Divorce rates have doubled over the past two decades. Members in this House have mentioned there is an increase in the number of children who neglected their elderly parents. Are these warning signs of erosions and breakdown of family values? We heard from many Members of the House who have reiterated that the family forms the first line of support in our social safety network. The trend is worrisome. Are these signs pointing to this first line of support as being besieged? If so, what are we doing about it?

The 2005 Survey on the Social Attitudes of Singaporeans found that Singaporeans viewed their family as their source of social and financial support. Over 90% of them felt so. But in the same year, in the National Survey of Senior Citizens, only 69% said that they will discuss important matters with their

Column: 552

children. What happens to the other one-third? Who do they confide in?

On the other hand, I have witnessed many happy families, like what Mr Chan Soo Sen has said. They do not own a car or they may not have the most luxurious trappings in life to offer but they seem to get along well as a family. As a family, they participated in many activities organised by the grassroots as well as other organisations. Perhaps they have attended the family courses conducted by MCYS. From talking to them, one of the key ingredients to achieving happiness is to keep a close cohesive family.

During the recent launch of a series of new initiatives by the National Family Council, one respondent over the radio commented that while these activities and programmes are well-intended, where do we find time to attend. I guess each one of us has to allocate our time and resources to what we value most. In this way, we can truly say that we have contributed time and resources to achieve happiness. Likewise, I urge the Government to step up efforts to preserve and strengthen the most important institution in this country, ie, the family. Prevention is better than cure. Investments in strengthening the family, building resilience will reduce our social burden over the long haul. Should the current approach to strengthening the family and promotion of family values be similar to the many-helping-hands approach by the Ministry which it adopts for the provision of some social welfare services? If resilient family is a core philosophy of Singapore, have we proportionately allocated resources to strengthen and preserve this institution?

The pro-family efforts and programmes offered by the people-led National Family Council are very good. Currently, many think that VWOs offering family care centres serve only dysfunctional families although there are

Column: 553

many good programmes for all Singaporean families. The outreach obviously can be improved.

Today, in our Community Clubs (CCs), we have many sub-groups such as Senior Citizens, Women, Malay as well as Indian Executive committees. Each focuses on organising activities for their own segment of the population. The People’s Association started the Family Life Champion in the Community Clubs and that has achieved some success in inculcating family activities. Perhaps, it is time for us to put family life in its proper perspective and importance. I propose that we should form a Family Executive Committee in each Community Club. And through MCYS and the National Family Council, programmes can then be rolled out to the community. This network of family executive committees will be useful in outreach programmes and promote the Community Clubs as the family clubs for all Singaporeans.

With prosperity and progress, our standard of living has risen and, along with it, the cost of living. In pursuit of keeping up with our standard of living, many families have to have dual income for sustenance. This has resulted in degradation of family life as a result of work-family life imbalance and increased stress to the couples. Many of the children are surrogated to the childcare centres or to their maid and their time with their parents is already limited to a few hours per day. The recent move to extend the hours of childcare centre may augur well for working mothers who find it hard to make it on time to pick up their children but it will drastically reduce the valuable family time.

But I am glad to note that significant efforts have been made by the Ministry of Manpower to promote family life and work balance. I hope employers, both

Column: 554

public and private sectors, will heed the call as I am sure a happier employee is a more productive one. I would also urge the Ministry of Manpower to work closely with MCYS to introduce incentives to entice employers to allow working mothers with children in childcare centres to leave early so that they can pick their children up on time.

Give people choices

Just as travelling on the roads of Singapore, the Government should provide a fast lane and a slow lane to allow for people to move at their own pace. Without provision of a slow lane, some of them may be forced off the roads.

Sir, I will deliver this section in Mandarin.

Transport services in Singapore

(In Mandarin) : [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Although the Government has many schemes to help families who are in financial difficulties, I do hope that the Government would consider more measures to reduce, if not contain, the cost of living.

One feasible way is to offer the people more choices of the various types of services. Take transport, for example. When I was in primary school (that was 30 years ago), I used to wait up to an hour for the Scheme B bus service No.19 to go to school. I used to wait up to one hour. If I were to take the SBS bus, the service would have been better. But the Scheme B bus service charged only 10 cents, while SBS charged 25 cents. So I saved 15 cents per trip and 30 cents a day. This may sound trivial. But in those days, to my widowed mother, that was a lot of money. At that time, she worked as a cleaner at a clinic and doubled-up as a washer-woman for many families, just to earn some $200 a month, and she had to

Column: 555

support four school-going children. Of course, the SBS bus service was better; the buses came more frequently, and they were newer and better maintained. But, at least, at that time, I had a choice.

Today, although we have two bus companies, they are not two companies competing directly with each other. They are, in fact, two bus companies, each operating in its own carefully crafted out territory, and each enjoying its own monopoly over the territory. To the vast majority of commuters, they have no choice, no alternatives to choose from. The two bus companies also control their own MRT lines. In the name of complementary service and saving resources, many bus routes were changed purportedly to "encourage" people to use the MRT. Perhaps these services should be made to compete with each other to provide the most efficient and cost-effective service. Let the commuters decide on which service they prefer.

As mentioned in the President's Address, the Ministry of Transport has decided to conduct a review with the aim of providing a high quality and cost effective land transport system. I hope that the Ministry will consider opening the bus and MRT services to allow for more transparent and genuine competition. Give the people more options to choose from and a system will evolve according to the choices of the people.

Next, on hawker centres. One of the unique features of Singapore is our hawker centres. The Newton Hawker Centre has become a "must-see" destination for all visitors to Singapore. For those of us who have a chance to stay abroad for some time, the ambience of the hawker centre and the food they serve are the things we miss most when we are away from Singapore. In my opinion, hawker food is cheap and good (though not necessarily the healthiest),

Column: 556

and it has become part of the Singaporean lifestyle and a very unique brand of Singapore.

Although it is mentioned in the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources' Addendum to the President's Address, that HDB estates completed five to seven years ago do not have hawker centres, I am encouraged by the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources' promise to upgrade the existing hawker centres. However, I hope that the Government will consider keeping the rental rates of all the stalls at the upgraded hawker centres at an affordable level and to keep the entry barrier low for new hawkers entering the market. I also hope that the Government would consider building new hawker centres and wet markets in the new towns to preserve our Singaporean lifestyle. Not everyone would prefer to shop in the air-conditioned supermarkets or have their meals in air-conditioned food courts. Many still prefer to frequent the wet markets and the open air hawker centres. These wet market stalls and hawker centres are the main sources of entrepreneurship for the heartlanders. Through competition, they provide cheap and good food for our ordinary citizens. I hope the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources will consider my suggestions.

*Cols. 581-584.

( In English ): Next, the cost of living for young families. Young families are trapped in a whirlpool of stress, be it from work, bringing up the family, stress from keeping with recurrent car and housing instalments. I know this because I fall into this group of young families as well. It is probably doubly worse for those in the lower segment of the middle class, because they just earn a little too much to get any help and not enough to catch up with the rising cost of living. They are, what I call, within the gap. We are talking about the income divide. We are talking about the rich and the poor, but they are in between, they are in the gap.

Column: 557

Someone who earns a gross monthly income of $3,000 may sound a lot. If he is the sole breadwinner with a family of four, he has a very different comfort level from someone who has the same responsibility and gets paid $5,000 a month. With a salary of $3,000, he probably does not qualify for any schemes. So they are squeezed from both ends. The person who earns $5,000 will probably hold a higher position in the corporate world and enjoys company benefits in terms of medical benefits and so forth. The $3,000 wage earner will have to penny pinch and consider hard before being able to buy good additional assessment books for his children, and even struggles with his monthly utility bills. We have seen many of such cases in our MPS.

The other family lives fairly comfortably, pays their bills on time and even enjoys the latest state-of-the-art home entertainment system. What I am suggesting, Sir, is just for us to look at those in our income gap. While we have schemes to help the lowest income earner, we need to balance and look out for those who belong to the lower middle class. We need to lend a hand and to help the lowest segment of the middle income earners, not just the low-income earners. On the surface, they seem to live comfortably but many find it difficult to maintain their lifestyle with each passing year, as living expenses such as cost of schooling, utility bills, cost of maintenance of a maid, cost of cars, all have escalated.

According to the annual study conducted by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS), the income gap for London's rich and poor continues to shrink last year, because of benefits and tax. This is in contrast with what MOS Lee Yi Shyan has mentioned. Among the reasons for the narrowing disposable

Column: 558

income gap, according to the ONS, is the introduction of minimum wage, higher national insurance contribution and introduction of a system of tax credit. I am not proposing that we move into that. In fact, it is reported that inequality in disposable income has been falling since 2001 and 2002. While cash benefits such as income support, child benefit, incapacity benefit and state pension contributed very little to the income of the richest household, they boost the disposable income of the bottom fifth by as much as 60%. However, it should be noted that in their indirect taxes, such as VAT, it is regressive and therefore take a bite from the lower-income earners as well. The bottom fifth actually paid 27% of their income as indirect tax as opposed to 11% for the richest fifth of households. Perhaps the Government could formulate our own solutions to negate the negative impact on our lower middle income earners.

Sir, my next topic is again on cost of living. The general household survey has shown that the average monthly household income has dropped by about 5%-20% for our workers earning from the 11th to the 20th percentile. This is despite an increase of 4.3% in salaries earned by Singaporeans in 2005. While the poorest Singaporeans are getting a lot of assistance and incentives from our various schemes, we cannot ignore the fact that middle class income group Singaporeans are still earning considerably less than before, and the increased cost of living is a huge concern to them. One area which I feel that we can help Singaporeans is by lowering cost items that are impacting their lives. For the hardworking Singaporeans, some of the little goodies that they reward themselves are a home, a car, a holiday abroad.

Sir, I know that the Government has provided a lot of financial assistance for the poorer segments via rebates, progress package, etc. But we certainly hope that

Column: 559

the Government can do more for the not so poor before they become the very poor. How can we help these people? I take HDB car park fees, for example. The HDB charges $90 a month for a sheltered single season parking lot, and this equals to $1,080 per year. This may be too high. It is as good as a month's salary for some of our residents. For some of them, driving is not a luxury but it is a necessity for them to chauffeur their children to the carer's place. These cars with season parking do not stay in the lot for the entire day and night for the entire month. In fact, most of the time, the cars are parked in the owner's workplace. Comparing HDB flat owners with their counterparts who are living in condominium, HDB flat owners are allocated one parking lot while condominium residents with second cars are frequently given a free lot even though some may be required to pay a nominal fee, but it is usually less than $90. Visitors who come to visit them are not charged a fee for parking. Yes, condominium owners pay a higher maintenance fee but they are getting more value for their money as well. They enjoy other facilities such as swimming pool, tennis court, 24-hour security and so on. So it is, in fact, in some situations more cost effective for these families in executive apartments to stay in condominiums rather than HDB estates.

If we look at our car parks, the cost of maintenance would not be very high, I presume. How often do we resurface the car park or repaint it? I urge HDB to review its season parking charges and to moderate it to a more equitable fee, if possible.

On a lighter note, another issue I would like to bring up is airport tax. I feel that with the rise of tourist arrivals coming to Singapore, our Government should consider lowering the airport tax for Singaporeans. Yes, we are building bigger and brighter airports. But can the

Column: 560

Government consider recovering the cost from the increased inflow of foreign tourists rather than Singaporeans travelling abroad to enjoy their well-deserved breaks? The least the Government can do, as a gesture for Singaporeans, is to lower the tax, if not to withdraw it totally.

Next, is protection of the environment. Singapore is not immune to climatic changes and we need to be a responsible world citizen in this, and many of the young will resonate with me. Sir, living in this era of high oil prices, even the first world countries, such as the US, are increasingly more concerned about their dependency on crude oil. US President George Bush has pointed out the need to seek alternatives to crude oil as quickly as possible. He suggested looking into hybrid vehicles and encourage the use of ethanol as a possible alternative to crude oil. Singapore, I note, has embarked on the use of alternative fuel sources, such as natural gas and testing out hybrid cars running on liquid petroleum gas or LPG. Now, the market is talking about biodiesel. Biodiesel contains no petroleum, burns clean and is biodegradable, non-toxic, works in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is simple to use, essentially free of sulphur and aromatics. In fact, it sounds too good to be true, but it is true.

Scientific research has shown that pure biodiesel emission has not only decreased the level of potential cancer causing compounds but particulated compound as well, which is linked to asthma and other diseases. In addition, poisonous gas such as carbon monoxide is also reduced by 50%. My view is that since biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine and requires little or no engine modification, we might as well try it on our taxi fleet. This means that the operator can keep the existing fleet, spare parts inventory, refuelling stations, skilled mechanics. The only difference will be a

Column: 561

change in fuel. And after some time, we will have much reduced cost and decreased pollution level as well.

Sir, my main interest in biodiesel stems from three areas - (1) reducing our dependency on foreign crude oil; (2) development of environmental friendly and renewable energy sources; and (3) promoting industrial use of agricultural products. South East Asia is essentially an agricultural region. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are some of our largest agricultural neighbours. We can expand and strengthen our business ties with them as we are switching to biodiesel. Like the PM said, it would be good for us if countries in ASEAN prosper. It is even better for us if we prosper together.

To wrap up, in conclusion, I hope the Government Ministries can take the initiatives to look into the policies that are impacting on Singaporeans' lifestyle and happiness, especially the sandwich generation of income earners against the backdrop of rising cost of living. I know the welfare net will always be there for the very poor and the poor. Our Government and community will always lend them a hand, but it is the in-between - those in the gap - that will also need Government's attention. How we want our Singapore to look like, to feel like, in the next 10-20 years will be determined by policies today. I hope the Government will take active steps to ensure that all Singaporeans can achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

With that, I support the Motion.

6.42 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while all eyes would be on maiden speeches, the previous speaker included - indeed, we are all ears

Column: 562

for our new stars - allow me, a third term pre-65 MP, to share with the House two matters of concern that will require some hard thinking, indeed a touch of the heart too. Like what the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports said earlier, we need all hearts, hands and heads on board to bear. Whether to send the sacred cow to the veterinarian, or beware of losing the milk of human kindness, we all need to take our sacred fundamentals that make Singapore what it is today seriously, lest we go down the slippery slope.

Having said that, let us also understand that we are not perfect. We have many strengths, but we do have many gaps here and there that need refining and improving. There are many challenges to overcome. There are also many challenges to benefit from.

One which clearly we can benefit from is globalisation. Our President is spot on when he mentioned about the need for Singaporeans to optimise the fruits of globalisation. There is much to be gained from globalisation and much more are awaiting to be reaped. I have been very privileged indeed to get a first-hand feel of such opportunities while doing my work at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, travelling to the Middle East in particular.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am also very happy that the President, while talking about globalisation, also reminded Singaporeans to ensure that we remain an inclusive society. No one should be left behind, the President cautioned. I fully agree.

This surely reminds us how the cream of globalisation could also bring about greater income divide, an issue which had drawn many Members to touch on during this debate. Allow me, Sir, to draw an example which I think could address this concern well. Last week when I was in Dubai, our Consul Mr Dileep Nair

Column: 563

organised a Hari Raya-Deepavali party for me to meet Singaporeans there. More than 100 attended. What used to be perhaps about 50 a few years back, now the Singaporean population in Dubai has grown to about 600. They have also established a Dubai-Singapore Business Council.

The founding Chairman of the Council,

Mr Noor Imambek, to me, is a fine example of someone who has benefited from globalisation. From a humble background of a clearing clerk with the First Chicago Bank in Singapore years ago, he was talent-scouted as a banking specialist in Bahrain, before rising to be the General Manager of the Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank. From what I gather, he was even asked by a conference organiser to introduce Minister Mentor when MM visits Abu Dhabi at the end of this month. That is how far he has gone from that very simple and modest beginning.

What is reassuring is that, having benefited from those experiences and the opportunities of globalisation, Noor remembers to help others. Not only did he establish the Council in Dubai, but he is also helping Minister Dr Yaacob Ibrahim with the latter's initiative to get Singaporeans in Dubai to network and help Singaporeans here who are looking for jobs and opportunities in the Middle East, in Dubai in particular. While this might not exactly amount to the better offs helping the needy, but it suffices as an example of Singaporeans reaching out with the many hands to help others.

Sir, I had originally wanted to touch on how we are faring in helping the needy, particularly from the CDCs' experience and what more needs to be done. But after hearing Minister Vivian Balakrishnan earlier today, my job now is made easier and also time is not on our side today, being the last speaker. I know many Members still feel that there are still gaps that need to be filled and more could be

Column: 564

done to help the needy. I agree, so did Minister for MCYS. But we also need to have our perspectives right, as far as the CDCs are concerned. I started off as a Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio-Cheng San CDC and later on as a Mayor of the North East CDC for the third term now, and I know what it means to change gear and do more for the needy. I came in basically to do bonding through social programmes. CDC was basically a mechanism for bonding and social cohesion. But lo and behold, because of the financial crisis and we hear SM Goh crying out loud "jobs, jobs, jobs", we had to change gear immediately.

Almost overnight, we changed strategies and focus to be more hands-on helping the needy - more social assistance and more programmes to help those out of job. Thanks to MCYS, MOM and WDA, we are given lots more resources to battle the new frontiers for the CDCs. But as someone said, it is always we want more, more and more. From financial assistance, we go into changing mindsets, and that is not easy. We moved from becoming mere administrators of social and job assistance, we became counsellors. But social work counsellors do not grow on trees. We therefore have to tackle the challenges step by step, and we are making good progress. We have made tremendous progress, especially with more of our resources focused on care and working with and through the grassroots, as called on by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng.

But having said that, I agree with many hon. Members that we need to devote more time and resources to understanding the real needs of our needy. While wanting to ensure that we avoid the welfarism trap, we would want to be effective in helping them. I empathise with Mayor Amy Khor's call for an Inter-Ministerial Committee. In fact,

Column: 565

perhaps to show that we really mean to help the needy and minimise whatever ills that might crop up from the income divide and dangers that might be created, I think perhaps a Joint Ministerial Committee could be placed under the Prime Minister's Office to give impact and substance. Bearing in mind that Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had said that he is not a veterinarian, perhaps Minister for MCYS, being an eye specialist, would focus his lenses on the kind of programmes we have and what more needs doing to ensure that the social saviour net we have will minimise the gaps we talk about, including "in the gap" problem.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what is reassuring for me is that the concern about the income divide is felt by Singaporeans who have made good. These are not calls actually coming just from the ground, but people who have done well, people who are concerned for the community, and that is very reassuring indeed. Last Wednesday morning before the start of the debate, I asked my good friend, Mr Stephen Lee, Chairman of SIA - he calls me his "Malay Brother", and I appreciate that - if there is one concern in his mind, what would it be. And unhesitatingly, he said, "income divide". For someone like Stephen Lee to feel that way, I think the problem is serious enough for us to think further and deeper how we should tackle it. But like in the case of Stephen Lee, and so many others who have raised this matter to me, they come from Singaporeans who have done well from the Singapore system, including Members of Parliament here. Even my North East and Eunos residents who do not need social help or financial assistance have shown concern as to how the CDC takes care of the needy. Another friend who also shared with me this week this concern is Dr R Thevendran, secretary of the MDIS,

Column: 566

referring to me the article written by a journalist, Mr Seah Chiang Nee.

I am very reassured that these people not only talk about it but are, in fact, themselves involved in the "many hands approach" in our society.

Sir, another area of concern, to me, is race relations. This is not new for me. I think you know that I have been talking about it many times in this House. While we have shown how we can live harmoniously in this multi-cultural and multi-religious society of ours, we cannot take it for granted. I know it sounds cliche-ist, but I am sure you will realise it will be repeated and repeated in this House and outside, because it bears repeating as it is important. But look at how issue after issue have cropped up around us in the region and in the world, especially in the context of race and inter-religious and inter-civilisational relations, and it worries me. We know Muslims in Singapore have reacted non-emotionally to the many issues like the Danish cartoons, Mozart play, the Pope's remarks and lately, the veiled issue raised by Mr Jack Straw - I am not saying that is the last straw - I would like to appeal to all not to take Muslims' feelings and sensitivities for granted. Just as we Muslim leaders in Singapore try hard to moderate Muslim sentiments and feelings when their feelings are hurt, try to understand Muslim sensitivities.

Some of you might have heard of this joke in our neighbouring country about Da Vinci Code. In fact, somebody asked me if, for example, that film was about Prophet Muhammad or about Muslim prophets, how would the Muslims react? The Christians have reacted quite coolly, quite non-emotionally, but how would the Muslims react? Would they burn cinemas? I do not know. But I am raising this in the context of a joke which actually was circulating in our neighbouring country.

Column: 567

Da Vinci Code, transliterated into Malay means "Dah Benci Kot" or "Do you hate us?" I hope non-Muslims have not come to that stage where they "dah benci kot" with Muslims. Instead, I would appeal for more Singaporeans to work with our IRCCs in promoting racial harmony in Singapore. I, therefore, commend the efforts made by the Minister for MCYS in strengthening our IRCCs and, I hope, all our grassroots leaders and Singaporeans will work hand in hand with the IRCCs to promote better understanding and bring about racial harmony in Singapore.

Sir, in view of time, let me just end by showing an advertisement which I saw in the Straits Times and which I really like: "i.t.". This is not about IT, it is not about digital divide, but it is about an advertisement. [ Mr Zainul showed a copy of the advertisement. ] You do not have to turn your head, neither do you have to turn your box - but think out of the box! It is basically a very creative advertisement by HP to say how, in fact, we need to turn our world on its head when it comes to meeting challenges. Whether it is race relations, whether it is income divide, I think we need to be prepared to look at all possible angles as to how we can actually bring about the kind of solutions to our problems, so that we can be creative and really effective. I know I grew up in the days of IBM and if I may share with you another joke, this time in the Middle East, that goes... IBM stands for I nsyaallah , B ukhra and M aalish . In Arabic, Insyaallah means God willing. Even Muslims are now saying, no more just God willing, but put in the effort. But even the Arabs are now no more IBM, no more just Insyaallah , no more just God

Column: 568

willing, neither can wait till tomorrow or so be it. Today, of course, it is no more just the IBM, but we have more players like Microsoft, Google, also HP. I think we should move on, be creative, be ready to turn our world on our own head and look at all possible angles and make our Singaporeans Happy People, Harmonious People, and Happening People.