DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Column: 86

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

Debate on the Address (First Allotted Day) Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

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

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

Sir, the tsunami disaster on Boxing Day last year was very much on the President's mind when he delivered his Speech. The disaster was indeed a rude

Column: 87

reminder to all of us that life is full of uncertainties. We cannot take for granted the peace and stability we enjoy today. We must instead strive to preserve what we have achieved and at the same time not forgetting our duty to the rest of the world, despite our small size.

Singapore is at a major turning point in history. With the change in the Government leadership last year, we are now entering a new chapter. The President outlined seven priority areas for the Government in his Address last week. These are to: secure Singapore's place in the world; to build a safe and secure environment; to build the economy; to invest in people; to augment our population and talent; to engage the youth; and to build a place for everyone. These priority areas cover a broad spectrum of Government's policies. They range from domestic issues to international relations, from bread and butter concerns to the more abstract issue of nation building. However, there appears a common theme among them. They all share the same objective, that of creating value for Singaporeans.

First, we create value by securing regional and international recognition of Singapore through our active involvement in the international arena. Our role in fostering international collaboration in the promotion of free trade, counter-terrorism measures and even the tsunami relief efforts, has elevated our international standing. Many Singaporeans are proud that we can make positive contributions in a meaningful way.

We also add value to Singapore by building a safe home, a prosperous economy and a vibrant community. We want to make this place an attractive place to live, work and play. We want to give each and every Singaporean a say in the nation building process so that we will have a strong sense of ownership and we will work together to create value for the

Column:88

nation. Finally, we make sure that the value we have created can be enjoyed by every Singaporean, including those who may be less able.

The President's Speech is about creating value for Singaporeans. The overall tone of the Speech was somewhat cautiously optimistic. Optimistic, because the best is yet to be. The future offers enormous opportunities as the region recovers from the Asian economic crisis and as the world becomes increasingly open. With our resources, our people and our network, we are well placed to grasp these opportunities when they come. Cautious, because the path ahead remains full of challenges. Success will not come easy. The world environment is changing rapidly. We must move fast to adapt to these changes. The process will not be without pain but the ultimate success is well worth it.

Sir, I would like to share my views on four specific areas which I feel are crucial in preparing ourselves for the challenges ahead. To me, these are the four pillars on which we create value for Singapore.

First, creating opportunities. We have to offer more varieties and options in education, career, leisure and other areas. In education, for example, we have seen many changes in the last two years. The removal of the primary school streaming of EM1 and EM2 (and I still hope that the Minister will consider doing away with EM3 as well), the introduction of the Integrated Programme, the establishment of private schools, the changes to the Chinese Language programme, the proposed corporatisation of the two universities and the establishment of the fourth university. These changes are aimed at creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to pursue their education here according to their interest and ability.

At the same time, we must inject greater flexibility into our system. We

Column: 89

must create different paths to success. The ability of individuals differs from person to person. But we must create avenues where every Singaporean can progress and make contributions regardless of their abilities. Success and contribution cannot be defined in absolute terms. If a person has given his best to realise his potential

and contribute to the society within the limits of his ability, he must be considered successful, and we must help him to do so.

Again, taking education as an example, many of our policies are aimed at producing peaks of excellence among our students. However, at the same time, we must not forget to help those who might need an extra helping hand to move along, so that he too can do his best.

In this regard, I am pleased to see that the Addendum of the Ministry of Education has included a special section on Special Education to cater to those who have learning difficulties. Some of these children may require special assistance and professional treatment which are not easily available and can often be costly. I think more needs to be done to help these students and integrate them into the mainstream wherever possible, so that they can enjoy the same opportunities as the others. I hope the Ministry will review our Special Education programme to ensure its relevance and effectiveness.

Similarly, in the economy, we have to create new job and business opportunities. We must open up windows to the world through our FTAs. We must ride on the growth of China and India. We must prepare our people and help them grasp these opportunities. Going overseas, especially into the less developed and less regulated countries, is not easy. But we must do so if we want to stay connected to the world. While we

Column: 90

bring in high value-added industries and services with higher skill levels and higher pay, we must also open up opportunities for the less able. While we can offer education and training for them to upgrade themselves, our responsibility cannot stop here. We must recognise that there will be some among them who would have difficulties upgrading themselves despite their best efforts. They will need help and help must be available. We must make sure that they are not left behind.

The second pillar is building a home. Singapore must not be just a place of opportunities where people come to work and make their buck. It must also be a home for Singaporeans. A home is like no other place. I am sure many of us take our families to different parts of the world for vacations. While we are on holiday, we relax and enjoy ourselves, but we all come home in the end. This is because the holiday destinations we go to may be fun, exciting and enjoyable, but they are not our home. Home is where we belong.

To make Singapore a home, we must first involve Singaporeans in building the home. The Prime Minister and the President have both talked about engaging the people, especially the younger generation. It is gratifying to see many young faces among the new batch of NMPs. Being in Parliament is certainly one way of being directly involved in shaping the future of the nation, but it is not the only way to be engaged. Every Singaporean has a vital role to play in building our home. Participating in community work, being involved in charitable organisations and contributing ideas are just examples of many avenues of engagement. We should continue to encourage all our people to come forward by opening up more avenues. However, engagement is also not restricted to the young. The adults and the older generation also have much to contribute, given their wealth of experience, and we

Column: 91

must not neglect them. We must also encourage Singaporeans to voice their opinions frankly and openly. Every Singaporean's view is important. No one is too trivial to be ignored. We should welcome their views, critical or otherwise, so long as they are sincere in advancing Singapore's interests. We must decide collectively what kind of a home we want to build. But, in the end, we must also be clear that it is not possible for everyone's preference to be satisfied. Eventually, the interest of the majority has to prevail.

Our home must also be exciting, vibrant and alive, be it leisure, sports, entertainment, or even shopping. We should open up more avenues and allow more varieties. We have started to allow bar-top dancing, although I am not sure this will be effective in making Singapore vibrant. There are many other wholesome and meaningful activities that we can promote. Sports, for example, can have a great bonding effect among the people. I am sure many Singaporeans watched the Tiger Cup last night, and we celebrated our victory as a nation. The game was more than just entertainment. It drew us closer as a family. Arts is another area that can add spice to Singapore, while more resources may be needed to keep arts alive. We must make Singapore a more attractive place, not just for tourists, but a home for Singaporeans also.

Finally, we must ensure our home remains affordable. Cost increases seem to be inevitable as our economy grows. Of greater concern to many are education, healthcare and basic services like utilities and transport. I would like to urge the Government to put greater efforts into containing costs. For example, I remain unconvinced that the proposed reduction in the universities' subsidy level for each student is justifiable, and I would urge the Government to reconsider it.

Healthcare cost is another area that needs to be addressed. I hope that the

Column: 92

proposed revision to the MediShield Scheme will make it more effective while keeping it affordable. As we build our home, we must be mindful not to end up losing it, because we cannot afford it anymore. We must live within our means. We must design a home that we can afford to build and maintain.

The third pillar is preserving our basic values and ethics. As we adapt to the fast-changing world, there are certain things that we must take care to make sure that they do not change. One example is our basic values. These values have served us well over the last 40 years. In fact, they are the reasons for our achievements today. Without these values, we would be lost. And what are some of these values? Hardworking is one of them. I remember Dr Vivian Balakrishnan once quoted to me Minister Mentor Lee's comment, that our achievements today are a result of disciplined and hardworking Singaporeans. We must not take this comment lightly. It is the work ethics of our workforce that drew many investors here and allow Singaporean workers to command a premium over others. We must not allow this to be eroded. Otherwise, we will lose that premium and we will lose our attractiveness as an investment location. Singapore is often regarded as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We must preserve this image of clean and honest society in our strive for prosperity and growth. We must guard against the invasion of greed that could easily destroy the virtue of honesty.

The recent tsunami disaster has shown that Singaporeans are a compassionate lot. The speed and extent of Singaporeans' response to the calls for help are evidence that, when it comes to the crunch, we will not hesitate to show our generosity. In this process, we also strengthen the bonds among Singa-

Column: 93

poreans as we stand together to face the crisis.

In the good old days, we acquired much of our values from our parents. At dinner tables, for example, we would listen to our parents as they talked about principles and values. Nowadays, however, working parents hardly have time to have dinner at home, let alone spending time with their children to talk about moral values. There is, therefore, a gap that we must fill. Perhaps, schools should relook at our moral education programme. Granted that this is a subject that is difficult to be taught in a school environment, we must try our best nonetheless.

Sir, our values and ethics must serve as the beacon to steer us through the many challenges in the years ahead. We must not take the easy way out and compromise on these values. It is these values that allow us to stand tall among the nations of the world. It is these values that bind us together as one people. It is these values that make us a great nation. We must, therefore, reinforce these values among our people as we write the next chapter together.

The fourth pillar is preparing the younger generation. Our children are very fortunate to be growing up in a relatively stable and prosperous era. When we encounter temporary setbacks, it is natural that some of them become less confident of the future because they have not gone through tough times. Some of us who have been through many difficult times, especially those who grew up during the early years of our independence, would be much more confident. We have much less to work with in those years. The outlook then was worse than pessimistic. But we succeeded in creating a future for Singapore against odds. Was it luck? Perhaps a little bit of that. But to

Column: 94

a large extent, it was sheer determination of Singaporeans to make it that drove us to success. Today, we are much better off. We have much more resources, and we are starting from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. The key was how to further strengthen our position to ensure that we stay ahead. To do so, we must instill in our younger generation the same determination to survive and the drive to excel. Only this way will their future be secured. Yes, the future has many challenges and obstacles. But they are not insurmountable. However, we must strengthen the character of our children so that they are well prepared to face the challenges and overcome the obstacles. Without a strong character, they may be tempted to give up too easily or simply take the easy way out by running away from the problems.

In this regard, I would like to urge the Ministry of Education to focus more on character-building. I was rather disappointed that the Ministry's Addendum did not cover this aspect with sufficient focus. Perhaps it is time for us to review the character-building programmes in our schools to make them more relevant and effective. We must also pass on to our youths the spirit of adventure, the courage to venture into the unknown, and the wisdom to be prepared for the journey. As we open up windows to the world, we must encourage them to go forth and engage the world. They must be willing to go beyond their comfort zones. There are risks and there could be failures. But these should not deter us from moving out. We want to give our children wings to fly as far as they can and as high as they can, so that they can realise their dreams and aspirations. At the same time, it is equally important to strengthen their roots so that they have a sense of belonging.

Let me share with you the story of a kite. There was this kite that has a very

Column: 95

big wing span. One windy day, its master took it out to fly. The wind was strong and the kite opened its wings and soared as it caught the wind. It went higher and higher, and soon it reached as high as the string would allow. But the kite was very unhappy. It complained to the string: "Every time when I am about to take off, you always give me a tug and pull me back, and now I cannot go any higher because of you. Why would you not just let me go?" Eventually, the string gave up and let the kite go free. You can imagine what happened to the kite. The truth is that the string was not pulling back the kite. Instead, it was the string's tension that allowed the kite to catch the wind and soar. As soon as the string was gone, the kite lost its flight. So it is with our children. While we build wings for them, we must give them roots. The roots do not hold them back but instead give them the ability and motivation to soar. Our youths are our greatest assets. In creating value for Singapore, we must prepare them well so that they can continue to build upon the value we have created.

Mr Speaker, Sir, during the term of this Parliament, Singaporeans have gone through one of the most turbulent periods since our independence, eg, protracted economic recession, international terrorism, the Iraq war, SARS and, more recently, the tsunami. These crises have impacted many Singaporeans. The nature and degree of the impact, however, are quite different for different people. Some have to adjust their lifestyle, some have totally changed their perspective of life altogether. It is understandable that some may be somewhat disheartened.

The President's Speech offers much hope and assurance. As we move forward into the new chapter, there will be challenges and difficulties. But the future also holds promising opportunities for Singapore. Our primary policy

Column: 96

objective must be to continue to add value to Singapore and to make sure all Singaporeans are able to enjoy the fruits of our efforts. In the process, we must focus on strengthening the four pillars on which we create our values - creating more opportunities for Singaporeans, building a home that we belong, preserving our basic values and preparing our children for the challenges ahead.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S Iswaran (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate.

Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Member for Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC. The President's Address has painted a stirring vision of Singapore as a land of opportunity for our people and as a place where talent, energy and vitality would congregate. Mr Gan Kim Yong has referred to it broadly as creating value for Singapore. I agree with him because it is not just about dollars and cents, but value in the broader sense of the word, our very sense of being Singaporeans, and the home that we have built here and how we feel about it.

In that context, as part of that vision, a key priority that the President's Address has outlined for Singapore is to secure its place in the world and play its part in the international community. In particular, in his Address, the President emphasised that Singapore will fulfil its responsibility as a global citizen and work with the UN international organisations and other member countries to fulfil that role.

Sir, an important part is the statement he made, which is, we may be small but our economic and international space is big. That is the crux of the matter, because if we are to prosper and grow the

Column:97

space, it is important that we play an important role in the international arena, so that this space, which is very precious for us as a small country, is preserved and where possible, enhanced.

Sir, we are very accustomed to Singapore playing an important role in the international arena in the context of economics, when we talk about the WTO, APEC, ASEAN and so on, in the context of security, and also in the context of other international challenges, such as, for example, the environment when we had the haze problem here. We are less accustomed to hearing Singapore playing a major role in the context of international humanitarian efforts. It could be argued because there was no need or appropriate opportunity where we could play a significant enough role to merit such mention.

But recent events have drawn that into sharp focus, because of the scale of the impact of the tsunami and also the proximity of the disaster areas to Singapore itself. Sir, I want to spend a little bit of time today in this speech focusing on that and Singapore's response because I believe it goes to the heart of what it is to be Singaporean. The Prime Minister described it as a small nation with a big heart and I totally agree with him.

Sir, last Thursday, 13th January, there was a parliamentary delegation led by the Minister of State for Defence, Mr Cedric Foo, to witness the relief efforts that were taking place in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh. I was part of that delegation and we were joined by a parliamentary delegation of 13 members from the Indonesian parliament led by Drs Sidharto Danusubroto. We went to both Banda Aceh and Meulaboh to jointly observe the work being done by the humanitarian

Column: 98

assistance taskforce. In Meulaboh, it is under the command of Colonel Tan Chuan-Jin and overall Brigadier-General Goh Kee Nguan.

Sir, the physical devastation was overwhelming. The terrain was flattened for miles of coast land and several kilometres inland from the coast. The odd structure, such as a mosque, remains standing like a symbolic last bastion of resistance against the forces of nature. The debris was piled metres high and even large boats have been carried several kilometres inland from the coast because of the force of the waves. I think nothing you see on CNA, CNN or any other television programme can prepare you for something like this.

The emotional trauma that we witnessed was even more moving and painful to witness. We were at the market where many people have started selling produce but many of them in Bahasa recounted to us tearfully about loss of lives, injury and also survival. At the relief centres, we also saw many people who are in the process of trying to put their lives back together but clearly, it was a challenge for them.

But amidst all these, there was also definitely hope. We saw the resilience of the human spirit. One specific example of that for me was a Colonel Geerhan who was the TNI commander in Meulaboh who lost many men as he witnessed the tragedy unfold and he stoically and vividly recounted the impact, first of the earthquake and then, subsequently, of tidal waves and I think he said three, as they came one after the other. He also said that he deeply appreciated the contributions of the SAF who were there first to help him and the people in that area.

The market in Meulaboh is now starting to sell vegetables but business is not back to normal. They are still doing it

Column: 99

on credit or barter and there are some cars or motorbikes on the road. But what I was most heartened by was that people can now smile, at least once in a while, whether children or adults. Despite what they have experienced, they were able to see a different side of life and take a more positive view.

Sir, in this whole episode, our response as a country and, in particular, the response of the Government and the various agencies involved, has been salutary. The Government's response, led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, mobilised resources quickly, catalysed an international effort and also offered to be a base for much of that international relief effort. The SAF too went in early to provide immediate emergency relief and assistance, as with the SCDF's DART teams in Phuket, water, food, tents, medical supplies and also providing the access points, which have been described to some degree in the media, landing points in Meulaboh, opening roads for access purposes and even building helicopter landing points.

This trip gave us the opportunity to see our men and women in action in the air, on the LSTs, on the ground, and in the medical relief centres. It is not so much what was being done because the capability was evident and inspiring but how they went about the task which I thought was equally significant. They were systematic, organised, efficient, but importantly, understated, striking a close cooperation with the Indonesian authorities and the TNI in particular.

Above all, I sensed this underlying humanitarian concern that guided their efforts. And as one of them said, the biggest motivation was for them to see patients, in this case, at the medical relief centre, recovering and getting on with life.

Sir, the NGOs' response has been equally impressive. It was a spontaneous

Column: 100

humanitarian response. They were not waiting for any Government edict or instruction. They responded to the call for help where it was needed and there was no economic calculation that Singapore is and Singaporeans are known for. It was an instinctive response and many even put themselves at risk in order to help fellow human beings.

Sir, in the memorial service for tsunami victims, Prime Minister Lee said that all this and more - the work of our soldiers, NGOs and others in this relief effort - has made us proud to be Singaporeans. And I cannot agree with him more. I believe Singapore's response to this tragedy has struck a chord amongst all Singaporeans. They do not expect us to be on the same scale as the United States or some of the other countries, but they have been inspired by our response to a humanitarian need and our ability to make a difference. Many have come forward to share with me their pride at the way our Government and forces have responded to the need for help. It has come from some very unexpected quarters, I might add, the confirmed cynics, the analytical academics and even the upwardly mobile yuppies have offered this view.

It has stirred national pride and an appreciation of what a small nation with a big heart can do. As one of them put it to me, our efficiency and organisation are regarded as boring and prosaic but, at times like this, you realise how valuable these attributes are. I think it has also not gone unnoticed amongst our Indonesian friends, with the opportunity I had to talk to them, from the Minister to the General in the army, to the parliamentarians and the Colonel on the ground, each offered their appreciation for the effort we have put towards this.

Sir, I think this has been a sterling effort by all involved, the Government, the Ministries and agencies, uniformed

Column: 101

bodies and also the NGOs and the people sector of Singapore. I think it is essential that we put on record this Parliament's deep appreciation of their efforts and work, a vast part of which remains still ahead.

Sir, going forward it is clear that the purpose of immediate relief has more or less been met. And the question now is: where do we go from here? And that is not just a question for Singapore or our agencies but everybody involved in this effort. The transition from relief to reconstruction is obviously going to require a different kind of role and have different requirements from those involved. I am heartened to hear that whilst we might be easing down our position in terms of the forces deployed, we will remain engaged and we will keep some of our key resources and assets still available to the Indonesian authorities for their use.

But the question of what we do, going forward, in this crisis and also in any other that might come about and how we organise ourselves as a country is, I think, an important one. In this regard, I would like to urge the Government to consider taking on a greater coordination role in the exercise. If you look at the response of the NGOs as an example, the initial response was spontaneous and it was laudable and indeed I would argue strongly against the Government getting too involved in trying to organise and orchestrate an NGO effort. However, there is a case to be made between controlling and directing on the one hand versus coordination and playing a facilitation role. It can take the form of information exchange. It can take the form of advice on security matters. It can also take the form of matching in order to ensure that well-intentioned efforts find suitable destinations so that maximum efforts and outcomes are achieved.

Column:102

If there were a recurrence of this sort of incident, the Government, I would hope, will be able to organise this aspect of the coordination of any disaster relief effort we are undertaking sooner so that the NGOs can participate or benefit from such coordination much earlier in the process. I am also heartened to hear that the youths are going to benefit from this, in the sense that they are going to be given an opportunity to participate in youth expedition projects which would go to the affected areas and undertake meaningful projects. I believe the SIF would be leading this under the YEP programme and the funding would come from the Government.

The key requests I have, and I believe the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports would be the key driver for this, is, first, this effort should be very well coordinated and targeted because 50 youth expedition projects, unless they are very well focused, would not make a huge impact, given the scale of what we have seen. Second, I do hope that our youths would be well-briefed and trained before they go, to prepare them for what they are going to see and do. And, also, when they return, they would be encouraged to be actively involved in social service in Singapore. It is important that they realise that our sense of social responsibility is not something episodic, triggered by disasters or accidents, but is something that is part and parcel of living in a community, whether it is a local or an international community, and we must constantly do our part to help our neighbours, including those living next door in the HDB blocks.

So I hope, Sir, that the Government would be able to marshal this effort in the next stage of our involvement to enable our youths to better realise what Mr Gan Kim Yong described as "the security and stability that we enjoy in Singapore", so that they realise the value of it and, at the same time, for them to have a greater

Column: 103

sense of what they need to do as citizens of Singapore and as members of the broader international community, to play their part.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the motion in the name of Mr Gan Kim Yong, to thank the President for his speech. There is a special feature in this Presidential Address in that the Government has, for the first time, stressed that Singapore should play the role of a good global citizen in this region. As Mr Iswaran has said, we have already taken a big stride in this aspect.

The tsunami incident has aroused the passion of our people, from the Government down to the people. We are all shocked by this event and all sorts of activities have been carried out to raise funds to help the victims. The Government has mobilised the Armed Forces and the Civil Defence Force, and has also set up relief funds to help the victims. Non-government organisations (NGOs) and civic organisations, as well as individuals, have also dispatched relief to the affected areas. I too have been personally involved in these activities. I went to Banda Aceh and spent a few days there doing some relief work, and did a preliminary inspection of the ground. Our Ren Ci Hospital has also sent a medical team and volunteers to Sri Lanka to help the victims. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just returned from Sri Lanka earlier this morning and that is why I sounded rather incoherent. Please forgive me.

Our team to Sri Lanka has a very special characteristic. Apart from doctors and nurses, there are also some non-medical members. We have electrical technicians, workers from the MRT stations, television artistes and people from all walks of life. In fact, before we took off, I was a bit worried because of these non-medical elements in our team. Would they cope with the difficult

Column: 104

situation there and would they end up causing more trouble for the team? Would they add on more burdens to our shoulders? However, soon after our arrival there, I found to my pleasant surprise that all my worries were unwarranted. These people, medical or non-medical alike, have shown great passion and the genuine intention to help the victims.

Two days before we took off, we had specially arranged for some first-aid lessons and basic nursing training for them. They participated very actively. They did not have any experience in helping to treat the injured people. Yet, the moment they reached there, they worked with the medical and nursing officers as a team. They were even helping to move heavy equipment. They had to spend a few hours in the plane, arrived in the middle of the night in Colombo and from there they had to travel by road. It was 6 hours on the road with very uneven surface and it was a rather uncomfortable ride. Upon arrival, they just took a short break and immediately started to work. They worked very hard, from moving the equipment to setting up the tents, and they were willing to do anything. Nobody complained. They did not have decent food to eat. The sanitary condition was not very good. But they were very active and eager to help in whatever they were asked to do. They were also helping the doctors to take the temperature from the patients, their blood pressure, etc, and some of them even helped to clean up the wounds of the injured people. Some of these wounds had become badly infected after a while yet, these people were doing it for the first time. Even in Singapore, many people did not like to do this dirty job which is usually done by the nurses. But over there, nobody complained. Eventually, my Nursing Director commented that these people were so good in the job that they should be enlisted the next time we are short of

Column: 105

nurses. We could count on them to help us!

The other volunteers, especially the artistes, were also helping the children. They were very good in bringing joy to the children. We could see them dancing, singing and playing with the children, and the children could, for the time being, forget their problems. Although it was a very short trip of just a few days, I have changed my perception on the relevance of these people. I feel that so long as we have compassion and the eagerness we would be able to contribute to this kind of disaster relief work. Why am I saying all this? Because, I feel that this is related to our aim to become worthy citizens of the world. In order to attain this aim, we cannot depend only on the Government. It has to be a total participation by all the people. Just like what Mr Iswaran has said, the Government should play a leading and coordinating role. I feel that the Government should not take upon itself to do everything by itself. The Government should allow more people and more civic organisations to participate and to work towards being worthy world citizens. What the Government should do is something which civic organisations could not do. But civic organisations also have its own strength. It has its network and it could negotiate with the other governments. It should not be just a government-to-government connection, it could also be NGO-to-NGO connection.

So, from this experience, we could see that all our people have done a great job. We should take a review. In the event that an unfortunate event should repeat itself, we should know what we could do and what we should do even better. We have now a lot of time to prepare ourselves. We should make full play of our strong points. The Government has got its strengths and the civic organisations also have its own. The

Column: 106

Government, of course, has connections with the central government of the other countries and it could help to clear some of the channels. Another advantage is that the Government could mobilise a lot of resources like the Army and the Civil Defence Force, etc, at any time to help with the disaster relief. So in emergency circumstances, it is very important. But when the situation is stabilised, we should allow more civic organisations to participate and the Government should coordinate such efforts so that the people would be able to make bigger contributions.

On the point of rebuilding the disaster areas, the Government should allow the people to take the lead. The Government should only play a coordinating role. We should also see in what areas Singapore could contribute and the Government should make a clear direction and then coordinate so that the people and the voluntary welfare organisations could do a good job of it. If the Government wants to help with the reconstruction of the disaster area, we should encourage the welfare organisations to make contributions. For example, if the welfare organisations have already raised some funds for a project and the Government has also such a vision, why do we not do a matching contribution by the Government? Then the Government's efforts could be doubled, while the burden of the welfare organisations in fund raising could be reduced. Also, on the other hand, the Government would not have to mobilise such a lot of people to undertake such work while the welfare organisations could do so. I think in this way the resources would not be wasted.

On the other hand, I had already mentioned how we could encourage the young people to take up social welfare work. Mr Iswaran has also mentioned just now that we should encourage the young to serve the people. I feel that we cannot just offer lip-services. We should

Column: 107

actually implement such plans. In Government organisations, we should have a consistent policy whereby the young people could be encouraged. Why do I say this? Because there were some university undergraduates who wanted to join in our work. Being good students, they applied for leave from their faculties. But the faculties told them that though it encouraged them to do so on an individual basis, the university would not support them to undertake the work in the disaster area and their leave was not granted. I feel that this is an inconsistency in the whole set-up.

If Singapore wants to be a good world citizen, we must ensure that every Singaporean has this vision to guide others. Of course, we must consider the safety factors so that we can encourage our young people to make their contributions. Of course, the risk in some areas may be higher than others. But we can always look after many other areas which are stable. Hence we should not discourage our youth from going over there. We should consider the circumstances. So long as it is reasonably safe, we should encourage our young people to go there, particularly those who are proactive in wanting to participate. We should not discourage them.

Having said how to be a good world citizen, let me talk about domestic affairs. We want to help the unfortunate people from other parts of the world. Of course, this is good. But we must not forget our own people. In our society, although our country is quite prosperous, there is still a group of people in Singapore who require our help, particularly those who are handicapped, the sick, the elderly and those who are poor. We keep hearing that they have problems with the cost of living and medical cost. These poor families are also worried about the educational cost of their children.

Column: 108

Sir, I am very glad to note in the President's Speech that the Government is concerned with this aspect of society. We hope that all the Government departments will do something about this. I may sound a bit incoherent because I actually thought out the points on the aeroplane. I would also like to thank our parliamentary colleagues in this House for their tolerance and understanding.

I support the motion.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

As Singapore progresses towards a developed economy, we must further engage the international community. I support the President's call for Singapore to secure a place in the world and fulfil our responsibilities as a global citizen. Globalisation has changed the landscape and governance of many countries.

Today, people around the world are better informed through various global communication devices such as handphone, Internet, and media transmissions. This has facilitated closer cooperation among countries in areas such as diplomatic ties, trade, tourism and flow of people. At the same time, globalisation has also posed many challenges to many countries such as volatile economy, structural unemployment, flow of talent, and a sense of rootedness of people to their respective countries.

Singapore is a small country with no natural resources. To survive in the global economy, we must continually find niches in various fast-changing markets. We must stay focused and maintain our sound economic fundamentals. At the same time, we must seize global opportunities to further strengthen our economy. The Free Trade Agreements, which Singapore has signed with various countries, have provided the 'global economic infra

Column: 109

structure' for companies to do business both within and outside Singapore.

Our twin engines of growth, namely, manufacturing and service sectors, will provide new opportunities for Singaporeans to secure better jobs. The move towards industries in the electronics, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, engineering and other new industries will enable our skilled and young workforce to move up the value chain, and provide the competitive edge for our companies. The service sector, which will focus more on quality of services, can provide more job opportunities for our older and better-educated citizens.

I support the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports' plan to facilitate the development of a 'silver' industry to cater to the economic and social aspirations of our increasingly better-educated retirees. The service sector provides excellent opportunities to develop this 'silver' industry.

Sir, I fully support the seven key priorities of Government as set out by the President. I am confident that the proper implementation of these seven areas will make Singapore a land of opportunity for all, and a place for everyone. In order to achieve the desired outcomes, I would like to propose that the Government focus on the following three aspects when implementing the seven key priorities.

Focus on partnership

First, focus on partnership. Over the last four decades, Singapore has developed a strong 3P sector, ie, the public, private and people sectors. We have a strong and stable Government that has spearheaded our economy from a third world to a first world economy in a short span of 40 years. Our private sector is vibrant and has contributed

Column: 110

significantly in providing good jobs for our people. We have a highly skilled and educated workforce where Singaporeans enjoy a good quality of life.

As we move into the next phase of our country's development, we need to focus more on the partnership among the 3P sector. We must harness the strengths of our Government, private and people sectors to better position ourselves in the world. The recent response to the tsunami disaster by our Government, Singapore companies and our people is testimony of our strengths to contribute to the international community. It clearly shows the synergy of what our 3P sector can achieve and which can produce better and faster results. We must continue to tap on the potentials of this partnership to bring more benefits to Singaporeans and the world.

To further enhance 3P partnerships, I would urge the Government to be more proactive in providing a more conducive environment in which the 3P can come and work together. The 3P sector must also be encouraged to be more proactive to engage one another and strengthen ties. There must be mutual trust, respect and cooperation. There is much to be done to develop a culture of 3P partnerships in Singapore.

Sir, I support the pro-business strategy as advocated by the Government. This will open new doors for companies to expand their businesses, thus benefiting more Singaporeans. With a pro-business strategy, more Singaporeans will be encouraged to become entrepreneurs. But we need a strategic framework to facilitate and ensure the proper implementation of all 3P initiatives.

Focus on quality

Second, focus on quality. To be a global player, Singapore must focus on quality. We must continue to nurture

Column: 111

quality leaders in all segments of our society. The self-renewal strategy by our Government provides an excellent example for our companies, civic, and grassroots organisations to follow. It is crucial that younger Singaporeans be given the opportunities to take up leadership positions, and gain experience earlier.

With a rapid changing world, the lifespan of leadership position has become shorter. As such, we must constantly search for new talent and quality leaders to maintain our position in the world. We need quality leaders who can inspire all Singaporeans to achieve their best in all sectors of our society such as politics, economics, social and the arts.

To be competitive in the global economy, we must not only compete on price but also on quality. Singapore must further develop its reputation as a responsible and reliable global player. We must build up the goodwill of our products and services. With the growth of our affluent societies in the world, we should seize opportunities to brand our products and services to be of quality and value for money. We must satisfy the needs of better-informed consumers in the global market, and develop brand loyalty among these consumers.

Although Singapore has limited land area, we can increase our production capacity by acquiring or taking a stake in world-class firms with quality brands. Similarly, we can invest in food-producing farms in politically stable countries so as to increase the resilience and quality of our food supply.

With regard to the social needs of our people, we must strive to further improve the quality of life of Singaporeans. Members must have heard of some Singaporeans migrating to other countries in search for a better quality of life. In Singapore, we do not have any measure

Column: 112

of our quality of life. As such, some Singaporeans do not know what is their quality of life. Many of them tend to take things for granted, and always have the urge to look for greener pastures elsewhere.

As Singapore becomes a global city, it is important that we adopt a set of measures to benchmark our quality of life with other global cities. This benchmarking will help Singaporeans to pursue their dreams in Singapore and, at the same time, provide information to those who wish to migrate to make better-informed decisions as to whether to migrate out of this safe haven.

Focus on bonding

Third, focus on bonding. As Singapore strives to achieve greater economic growth, the pace of living among its people will become faster. This trend of material pursuits and fast-paced lifestyle will have adverse impact on the bonding of our people. In making Singapore a land of opportunity, we must also focus on providing opportunities for Singaporeans to bond as one people. Singaporeans need to make more concerted efforts to strengthen family and community bonds.

The bonding of people needs time. We must provide more opportunities for Singaporeans to come together, and spend time to strengthen their bonds. Today, many Singaporeans are experiencing a busy life balancing between work, family and leisure. Many have lost much contact time with their family members and friends. This phenomenon, if left unchecked, will have an adverse impact on the bonding of our people. There is much more to life than economic and material gains. We do not wish to have just colleagues or business associates as friends in our lifetime.

The recent 5-day working week proposal by the Government in the public

Column: 113

sector has indeed provided much impetus in family bonding. I would urge the Government to also review its housing policies to facilitate nuclear families and extended families to stay near one another. HDB must be more proactive in helping family members staying in HDB flats or in the private estates to stay near to one another. This is crucial as we build the social support and network for an ageing population.

Family members staying near each other can support one another, thus strengthening family ties. The physical distance between families and their 'connectivity' by public transport will facilitate family members to spend more time together. It will also reduce travelling time and cost, thus benefiting low-income families and retirees more significantly.

To further promote family bonding, we should encourage places of attractions and leisure to give perks or discounts for family entrance fees and memberships. This will

promote family outings, thus strengthening family bonds. A cohesive family is a productive family, both economically and socially.

Besides bonding with family members, Singaporeans should be encouraged to engage the community to make friends and contribute to the society. This is of paramount importance in a multi-racial and multi-religious society. Community-based organisations such as the CDCs and civic organisations must play a more active role in providing "multi-racial and multi-religious" platforms for Singaporeans to bond with one another. Examples of bonding platforms include exercising together, such as brisk walking on a regular basis or social gatherings which enhance inter-racial understanding.

Column: 114

Community-based organisations can also organise more pro-family activities so that more family members can participate in their activities. More outreach effort is required to attract family members' involvement in the community. Many religious organisations have been successful in encouraging family members to join their activities. Grassroots organisations should realign their efforts and organise more sustainable pro-family activities instead of a one-off once a year family day celebration.

As a country, Singapore must seize every opportunity to bond our people. Very often, a crisis will test the bond of our people. The SARS epidemic and tsunami disaster have seen Singaporeans closing ranks to overcome these odds successfully. This shows the strength of our people and the confidence they have in our Government. We must ensure political stability, and maintain a clean and honest Government.

Together, we can build a better future for all Singaporeans.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast): Sir, sometime in the 1990s - I cannot remember exactly which year it was - I was in Melbourne and I visited what was then their newest casino. I did not get there by accident - in fact, I asked to be taken there. And what I saw were many young people at the jackpot machines, and many more at the gaming tables. I can still remember that day very well. It was a weekday afternoon, and I asked who these people were, what they were doing there on a weekday afternoon when they should be at work. The reply I got from our guide was that they were all mostly locals, and that this was a common sight even on a weekday.

Sir, when the Government first announced the possibility of a casino in Singapore, that scene in Australia played

Column: 115

back in my mind over and over again. I have often found myself asking whether this is what we want for Singapore. And as the days passed by, I am convinced more and more that this is not the way for us to go. Like many other Singaporeans, I have also pulled the one-armed bandit and put down some chips on the roulette table in a casino in another country. But to have one in our own backyard where close proximity makes temptation difficult to overcome, well, Sir, that is a different story.

Much has already been said about whether Singapore should or should not have a casino outside the House and I shall not be repeating these views today. But Dr Vivian Balakrishnan adds a new element to the debate when he says that this is an issue that will show whether we are now a mature society, and I quote him, "whether we can trust the majority to act responsibly, to exercise common sense and to make their own choices as to how they wish to spend their disposable income." Sir, it is therefore not surprising that many Singaporeans understand from these words that the Government has, in fact, made up its mind about having a casino. After all, it is not everyday that the Singapore Government conducts studies, reveals details, invites interested parties to briefings and to submit proposals if a project was a non-starter to begin with.

Sir, I could not agree more with Dr Balakrishnan that we should allow Singaporeans to be responsible and let them make choices. But there are many issues, not just the casino, where we could do well to allow our citizens to make their own choices and to make decisions for themselves, and I do not mean just allowing them to dance on bar-tops or to bungee jump. By framing the issue into questions of choice and responsibility, the Government deftly shifts the onus to its citizens. So the

Column: 116

nanny state, as many say, which determines that its grown-up citizens who have worked all their lives cannot be entrusted fully with their savings and must keep a minimum amount in their CPF accounts, is now prepared - and, Sir, may I say that I am not arguing here about the merits or demerits of the minimum sum scheme, but how do you reconcile that - to say that our people should be responsible enough to make their own choices as to how to spend their money at the gambling tables.

I met a friend the other day who, like me, is a member of the Singapore Island Country Club, and he told me how amused he was by this ongoing debate. He pointed out to me that even the SICC, whose members include the elites of Singapore - Ministers, MPs, corporate leaders, professionals - has little say in running their club because the Government, through the PUB, appoints its President and Treasurer, even the Club's captain, and all of them have to report to the Chairman of the Club, again someone appointed by the PUB. So the question that Dr Balakrishnan posed must be further addressed by another one; to what extent is the Government prepared to let go and allow its own citizens to make their own decisions?

Sir, to be fair, I have, in the past 10 years or so, observed more participation by the public in national debate, and we have allowed this to take place even on sensitive matters. Whether it is in public fora, letters to the press or over radio talk shows, I have seen this gradual opening of more space for Singaporeans to engage in vigorous debates and to arrive at national consensus on many issues, and I want this to continue. There could not be a better example of this opening up, giving more space for us to express our views than this current debate on whether we have a casino or not, which has taken place over the past nine months.

Column: 117

So, back now to the casino. Dr Balakrishnan says that this is not about money versus values. It is not as simple as that. I differ. In fact, it is about money versus values. Sir, mine is not the voice of morality, but I must remind the House that Singapore got to where it is today not by taking easy options but through sheer doggedness and hard work. We could have taken short cuts, maybe we could have just simply taken an easy way and become the sleaze capital of Southeast Asia, and then you do not have to worry too much about filling those tourist numbers. But we decided that this is not our way because we want this to be a place where our families would be safe, and where our children can grow up with the correct values instilled in them. We talk of putting in place safeguards. Is it not recognising that there will be problems? So, why create the problems? It is like closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted.

Sir, the Singapore way of life is important not just to us, to all citizens, but to all those who view us from outside, people round the world know what we stand for. Let me illustrate my point with an example. Everyone knows that the Disney Corporation of America stands for good clean fun for the family. When other movie moguls use sex as a lure, Disney movies remain pure family fare that you know you can bring your kids to. For a huge corporation like Disney, it would have made more fast bucks if it had opened casinos, maybe even nightclubs or, as Dr Balakrishnan says, opened little poky gambling dens, but no, it chose to be what it is today - a name associated with good clean fun for one and all, for the whole family.

So, just like Disney, we must ensure that our Singapore remains one which is wholesome for all, one which is safe and clean, and which can still provide

Column: 118

entertainment for all. This is the image that Singapore has in the eyes of the world, one which we have painfully carved and carefully nurtured over many years. Some people criticise us and say that we are too clinically clean. I say, never mind, I think we can certainly live with that.

Without a casino, we can still continue to develop our tourism products and market them correctly and keep those tourists coming. Not everyone travels to gamble. Let us work to make a visit for the tourist to Singapore "Uniquely Singapore" because, given the mushrooming of casinos in the region, having one will not make us any more unique. Sir, if some years down the road, having walked away from this idea, we find that for some reason we did make a wrong call, I would be content to know that we erred on the side of caution.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, in its policy speech delivered in magnificent words on 12th January, the PAP Government portrays a utopian phantasm aiming to confuse the people's attention while remains indifferent to the hardship presently facing them. As the Government was trying to mislead the people into believing an illusive vision, it so happened that the Lianhe Zaobao carried an article on 13th January by Wu Weicai, which promptly pulls them back to reality.

Titled "Poor People in a Paradise", this article succinctly reflected an important issue that people are concerned about. The people are concerned about their livelihood problem, and this is exactly what the policy speech has glossed over. Therefore, it is necessary for me to quote a few paragraphs to remind us that to many people, burdened as they are by hardship and lacking in economic freedom, the country which the policy speech tried to paint as a land of immense opportunities is a mere "castle in the air".

Column: 119

The writer began by saying that many Singaporeans are asking the same question: "Though I belong to the middle income group, why do I still feel the immense pressure of life? I barely make ends meet. If anything untoward happens, then I would definitely be plunged into dire straits.

After getting up in the morning, one finds that it costs money to pay for everything - medicine, education, transport, social amenities, utilities, etc, and the costs for all these are of such a high standard. Though our incomes are not meagre, a great chunk of it goes to pay for all these."

According to the author, although we may not have many poor people theoretically, for sure there are many people who have to pay a high price for a basic lifestyle. As such, he said that, apart from the high income groups, the great majority of people are equally poor. Why are we then landed in this so-called bizarre and absurdly poor condition? His conclusion was that in a short span of time, the Government has raised the living standard indices too high. We strive for an advanced standard in everything. Hence, the cost for everything has gone up. Adding up the so-called small adjustment here and there, of course, people find it very stressful to live here.

What about social welfare? The writer points out that social welfare is not simply waiting to be fed by the society when you are old. Transport, education, healthcare, communications, social services, culture, etc, - these are all part and parcel of the social welfare which is to be provided by the society. They are also the people's basic rights. Let alone breakeven, even if they are run at a loss such basic social amenities must be provided for adequately.

Column: 120

Mr Speaker, Sir, what the writer states in this article is exactly what the Workers' Party refers to - "the phenomenon of the new poor". If the Government does not face up to this problem and choose to talk grandiloquently about a promised land brimming with opportunities instead, what good would it do to the people who are struggling to make a living?

The Government has been very meticulous in its calculation. Public services are priced at a level "which the authorities assume that people can afford to pay". Over-emphasising economic efficiency as the ultimate object have driven people to bizarre poverty. It is a fact of life that they have to toil day in and day out just to sustain a bare minimum existence. Once they stop working, they go hungry. Having been guiled by the PAP Government's publicity about asset enhancement schemes, many people have today become owners of negative assets.

The Government has portrayed a so-called paradise, but there is no indication that the Government has any intention to help lighten the burden of the people's livelihood. And faced with the uncertainties brought about by fierce global competition and more drastic economic fluctuations, many middle-aged and elderly people are worried about their jobs. Apart from the so-called training and retraining schemes, the PAP Government does not show any intention to review the current social safety net to better safeguard the people's livelihood. Instead, we have seen that the labour law has recently been amended. The amendments to the legislation allow employers to ask for an exemption from paying overtime pay to workers. It is obvious that workers' rights have been sacrificed under the pretext of "saving jobs". When such a thing happens people should stay vigilant against all the beautiful slogans

Column: 121

which are sham and be prepared to safeguard and fight for our own rights.

The Government has turned public services into something driven purely by market forces and demonised social welfare. Such arbitrary actions not only harm the people's livelihood, in the long run they will also hurt our nation-building and social development.

As our economy is being restructured, the Government constantly urges our people to be creative and innovative. Let me ask, when the people are struggling hard to make a living and when they are uncertain about their jobs, will they have any spare energy, time, zest and courage to be creative and innovative? Will a society whose members are constantly worried about where their next meal will come from be conducive to encourage people in pursuing a career of their interest and talent but lack in economic values so that the talent of everyone will be best utilised?

Though an extremely liberal social welfare system has its pitfalls, a social welfare policy that centres on the needs of the people is not something that is as fearful as what the Government has all along tried to drum into the people's mind. It may not undermine the people's positive work ethic. For example, Finland in Northern Europe has been basically a social welfare state. Yet in a recent world economic competitiveness survey, it ranks number one. Its Nokia handphones are the world's best. Will this serve as a wake-up call for the Government to break out from its rigid mindset and rethink about the need for safeguarding the welfare of the people?

To remake Singapore into a vibrant society filled with opportunities for all, the Government must first of all review our

Column: 122

social welfare system and to have in place a social safety net for our people. Instead of giving out paltry sums of money like the New Singapore Shares and the Economic Restructuring Shares, why can the Government not make an all-round effort to reduce the burden of their livelihood and dispel their worries? A policy that allows them to have a respite and to keep their wealth with them instead of the Government will produce the necessary conditions conducive to releasing their vigour and creativity. To build a compassionate society in which people mutually support one another, the Government should set a good example by forsaking the tenet that whatever services provided by the Government must be profit-oriented and based on cost recovery. The policy tenet should be people-oriented. Regrettably, we do not find the provision for any such possibility in the policy speech. People should therefore be prepared to keep on working like oxen and horses, and be fagged out to death in serving the Government.

Another topic which is not mentioned at all in the policy speech is the issue of political openness. All along in politics, the PAP Government has always maintained that "Liberty and rights impede economic development", thus emphasising the need for discipline and order, and the so-called "Asian values". Under the guile of creating the necessary conditions for economic development they have suppressed the development of a civil society. But now it is obvious that, faced as we are with an ever increasingly fierce economic competition and the urgent need in transforming our economy, the PAP Government has tacitly acknowledged that a vibrant and innovative society is a pre-requisite for our survival and continuous success. For the need of economic development, the PAP Government has no other alternative but to loosen its grip on society. But to maintain its power, the PAP has been hesitant and tentative in its approach.

Column: 123

What measures that have been implemented are trivial things like permitting bar-top dancing, bungee jumping, extension of business hours of the night spots, etc. Real hallmarks of a free society, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the media and freedom of political action, are still regarded as out of bounds. This policy speech of the third generation political leaders shows that they are still not able to break out of this narrow sense of party politics.

It cannot be denied that unbridled freedom could lead to disastrous consequences. But the problem we have now is that there are too many restrictions so much so that the society has lost its verve and vitality. People are too afraid to act. To reverse quickly such a mindset in our people we need to free ourselves from the fear of disorderliness and allow people the avenues to boldly show their views on the Government and its policies such as peaceful demonstrations. The Government should be bold enough to "cross the river by feeling the rocks" and not be hesitant at the riverbank. I believe our society can withstand any shocks that may come about as a result of such opening-up at the initial stage.

Viewed from the perspective of long term stability of a nation, I would say that an open and strong civil society will be a positive asset. Social supervision and citizens' active participation would prevent the Government from being corrupt and help to improve the efficacy of Government policies. They may not necessarily lead to the weakening of Government functions. One example is Taiwan. To us, the Taiwanese democracy may look chaotic. But then why has the Taiwanese society not collapsed? Not only does its economy grow, its world ranking in competitiveness is as good as any nation. This is because there is a

Column: 124

strong civil society there. It acts as a check and balance on politicians and takes on the key role of supporting the economy in Taiwan.

Of course, no one can rule out the possible turbulence that may result from the opening up of a society. To reduce such risks, we can enhance the people's understanding of democracy through national education so that they learn to respect divergent views and be aware of the rights and privileges the Constitution confers on them and how to exercise such rights and privileges and to give them the confidence in exercising such rights.

The policies of a government are usually formulated on its assumptions of the people's needs. But such assumed needs are not necessarily what the people really need. Just look at the present policy speech which does not take cognisance of the people's real needs - their strong desire to lessen their life's burden. If the people can effectively exercise their political rights, they could exert pressures on the Government to respond to their needs. In this respect, things like public discussions, debates, criticisms and the protection of those who hold divergent views have significant roles in our participatory form of government.

Therefore, the Government should further expand the space for citizens to take part in the political process, particularly for the intellectuals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the new political and economic situation brought about by globalisation has posed a grave test for Singapore. While we may have more resources than we did when we were newly independent, the strong-arm governance by the PAP Government in the past has tended to make people timid and passive. Together with the weak civil society and a closed political environment,

Column: 125

they have become a hindrance to further development.

The Government should boldly forsake its past thinking and allow a strong and vibrant civil society to emerge so that together we could face the challenges ahead. If we are not able to change Singaporeans' mental attitude, we would not be able to overcome crises. At the same time, the Government should realise that economic development should not be our sole objective. The Government should alleviate the people's burden in their livelihood so that upon meeting their basic needs, they will still have the ability and energy and the freedom to pursue their interests in keeping with their talents and inclinations. This will help to raise the quality of their life, not just the standard of living.

The Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Prof. Amartya Sen, has said:

"Economic and political freedom help to reinforce one another, rather then being hostile to one another (as they are sometimes taken to be), €¦ individual opportunities of economic and political participation help to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivation."

For the complete absence of political reform in the policy speech prepared by the new generation of leaders, I express my regret and worry.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah): Sir, the President noted in his 2002 Address in Parliament that the preceding five years from 1997 to 2001 had been momentous times for Singapore. Only with the benefit of hindsight did we realise that the next two years would be even more momentous! The President's observations then that the next few years will present us with the most severe challenges in our nation's history could

Column: 126

not have been more prescient. More than ever, we are left in no doubt of our vulnerabilities.

Singapore has achieved much since independence but the global environment has changed even more drastically both geopolitically and economically. The key feature is one of great unpredictability. Hence, the need to continuously revise and change policies and practices which are no longer relevant or effective - the current mantra of the Government, which I fully support, seems to be "It ain't broken but we better upgrade"!

The President's Address sets out the Government's agenda of the key issues and policies that have to do with writing the new pages of Singapore's success story, a task which has now passed on to a third generation of leaders. Whilst I agree with the broad thrusts and principles of the Government's key priorities, there are six key areas of concerns I would like to highlight.

First, job matters. One oft-repeated criticism of the Government has been its disproportionate emphasis on the economic side of nation building. Under the new PM's watch, however, 2004 marks the beginning of a new paradigm, one which seeks to actively promote a balance between economic pursuits and personal and family fulfilment. In many ways, this is only possible because we have attained a high standard of living and our forefathers have paid the price by their hard work and sacrifices. Like it or not, a thriving economy remains the bedrock of our stability and growth. This is not the be-all or end-all, but without it, not much else can be done.

At the ground, the persistent worry of the average worker, even in developed countries like the US, is jobs, jobs and jobs, which are increasingly being threatened by global instability, techno

Column: 127

logical change and brutal competition among nations in product, label and capital markets.

Especially vulnerable are the older workers who deserve special attention. A study by Hui Weng Tat, published in Singapore Perspectives 2004 , showed that the employability of older workers has been deteriorating over the last three decades. The share of older workers as a percentage of the total unemployed, has been increasing disproportionately. According to the study, about 40% of the unemployed are those with below secondary education. Presently, about a third of the workers in the labour force have below secondary education and they tend to be the older workers. Hence, lower educated older workers remain the most vulnerable to structural unemployment.

Second, help older workers and the elderly, but promote self-reliance. Our experience at the CDC shows that, currently, about half of our job applicants are aged 40 years and above, most of whom have low educational attainments. In fact, we are also beginning to see an increase in the number of job applicants aged 50 years and above who have little or no support from the family and have meagre, if any, savings. They therefore need to work to pay their bills and support themselves and their spouses. We also observe that some have been unable to find a job even after repeated job matching attempts, although the economy has picked up and more jobs are available. These are the chronic unemployable. Some of their circumstances are quite heart-breaking.

There is a real need to focus efforts on helping this vulnerable group of workers

remain employable and employed. Government's recognition of the need for a multi-pronged holistic approach to this issue is commendable. Some workers may be at a loss trying to retrain. They

Column: 128

do not know where the jobs will be and who will be hiring them. They may need counsel and guidance on what to be retrained for and, in some cases, even a mindset change.

At the same time, MOM, WDA and even NTUC should urge employers to earnestly look at redesigning jobs in order to raise productivity and pay and, hence, attract local workers. They should also be persuaded to employ older workers even beyond their retirement age, if they are still fit to work, because many of them may still have to support themselves. The most visible success at job redesign to-date has been the cleaning industry under the "1,000 for 1,000" scheme where automation has helped increase the productivity of cleaners and, hence, their pay. The Government, together with the NTUC, should look at helping other sectors, such as the hotel services, shipyards and textile industry to redesign or recreate various jobs for local workers. Perhaps, incentives, in the form of grants as well as expert advice and studies, could be provided to these firms to help them redesign jobs for the locals. While we need to keep an open-door policy for foreigners with the needed skills and talents, we must motivate and incentivise firms to put priority in redesigning jobs for the locals as far as possible without affecting their bottomline and competitiveness. At the same time, these workers may need some social assistance until they find a job. To this end, I am pleased to note that the Government has several schemes to help workers who are retrenched or unemployed to tide over the period whilst they are looking for a job.

To avoid breeding a dependency syndrome, however, these workers should be required to attend regular counselling sessions, such as budget and money management courses. The effort to mount such programmes is extremely resource-intensive, but it is needed to

Column: 129

minimise free-riders. I am told, for instance, of a man in his early 50s, already on social assistance as he was out of a job for some time, coming to the CDC for further assistance to help pay his medical bills. Upon checking, it was found that the bill was for viagra. When queried about why he should be taking this pill, he said, matter-of-factly, that this was absolutely essential to him and that we should help him to pay for this since he is out of work. While such cases are rare, we must put in place measures to avoid inadvertently cultivating a crutch mentality. We must also be mindful that there will always be those who cannot find employment for various reasons, such as family circumstances, or simply aptitude or attitude. To help this group of chronic unemployed, we should, for instance, look at issuing more street hawker licences, building more hawker centres where viable, and relaxing rules on home-based businesses, such as food catering and other cottage industries, to enable them to make a living, become self-reliant, and hold their heads up high again. MCYS, for instance, could help promote the establishment of recognised home-based childcare services. School tuckshops should revert to the policy regime when they were reserved for the needy families who need to find work or supplement their income, instead of allowing the schools to tender out these stalls. In fact, it was with such a school tuckshop stall that my mother supported my three brothers and myself through school.

Third, managing elderly healthcare. The older workers in our midst are also the ones most prone to debilitating illnesses. I urge the Ministry of Health to devote more attention to gerontology and problems of the elderly sick. Dementia, for instance, could be a crippling disease with significant negative multiplier effects

Column: 130

because of the enormous emotional and financial strain it places on the family members and friends of the affected people. With an ageing population, healthcare cost undoubtedly becomes one of the most pressing worries of all Singaporeans, including the young, because many of them would have elderly parents. Moreover, even the middle income worry about healthcare cost, as many may already have sizeable financial commitments for their homes, cars, children's education and so on. The middle income are also concerned with impending means testing for in-patient hospital services. They feel that they should be allowed to choose the ward they wish to be admitted to, as they may have financial commitments which place a strain on their ability to pay for a higher class ward. Singaporeans are also wary about proposed changes to the MediShield and how much more they would have to pay, both in terms of premiums and the minimum bill size, before the insurance kicks in.

Fourth, small is beautiful too. One plank of our industrial policy thus far has been trying to pick winners, eg, petrochemicals, biotechnology, logistics, education, healthcare services and so on. But, increasingly, central planning, particularly one that focuses on picking winners, will become more difficult to accomplish and less effective in outcomes. This is because as more countries liberalise and deregulate, the competitive advantage Singapore enjoys over others will be eroded. However, in this new age of uncertainty, finding the next big thing or things which will contribute to growth will need to come much more from the bottom through private enterprise and innovation, with many companies and individuals simultaneously sniffing out new opportunities and markets. Hence, as the President has rightly noted, the Government will and must continue to promote an environment that supports entrepreneurship and fosters innovation.

Column: 131

While much progress has been made, many budding entrepreneurs and SMEs are still griping about the lack of funding or the difficulty of getting funding and other Government support for their enterprises. I was told of an entrepreneur who had much difficulty convincing the relevant Government agency to give him funding support for his proposed venture. He was finally offered a grant of S$300,000 for his proposed enterprise. In the meantime, he had applied for assistance in Malaysia. He was given approval for RM1 million in half the time. Of course, it is always good to be prudent and fully accountable when it comes to public funds. But I fear the problem is deeper.

It appears that whilst the ministerial leadership is convinced of the need to foster entrepreneurship, this resolve and mindset have not yet fully filtered down to the officers. Feedback from businessmen is that whilst we now clearly have a more civil civil service, some applications do still get stuck at the middle management levels, as the civil servants do not know how to deal with new business ideas that have no precedence or tend to take an extremely cautious approach.

There is a perception that civil servants tend to be more receptive to business ideas which fall within sectors which the Government favours and are actively seeking to grow champions. Whilst the Government's massive efforts to kick-start the development of these industries should help to grow the economy and create jobs, we must also support business ideas in other more mundane sectors as long as they can contribute to the overall vibrancy of our economy, especially through the efforts of our unglamorous SMEs.

We have an economic structure where a disproportionately large share of the profits is generated by foreign-owned

Column: 132

companies whose dividends are generally not received by Singaporeans. A larger number of locally-grown SMEs should help to reduce the inherent volatility of our MNC-biased economy and create jobs.

In an UPS survey on the optimism of smaller companies in Asia, only 45% of the Singaporean respondents felt that prospects were good for economic growth. It was reported that Singapore businesses found cash flow, especially access to funding and working capital, a key hindrance to staying competitive. According to Professor Patrick Turner, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship at INSEAD, Singapore has one of the most rigid structures in Asia in terms of financing small and medium-sized companies.

Fifth, change begins at home. Besides putting in the necessary infrastructure to create a pro-entrepreneurship environment, there is therefore a need to continue to work on changing the mindsets of:

(1) our aspiring entrepreneurs, that they need to be self-reliant and that Government is not everything;

(2) our civil servants, that they should make every effort to grasp the challenges businesses face, be flexible, eg, the policies they frame, and not assume that businesses are out to gain unfair advantage; and

(3) other stakeholders, such as bankers and financiers of SMEs, that they should explore fresh ways of supporting the SMEs without compromising on their profit criteria.

Additionally, the Government and GLCs need to progressively give way to the private sector to operate and remove the fetters hindering entrepreneurship and innovation. There has already been a series of initiatives, such as the Temasek

Column: 133

Charter, sunset clauses in the rule books, and best sourcing in the public sector. I urge more to be done so that a more dynamic private sector can emerge as the backbone of our economy. For instance, public sector housing could be built by the private sector using a reverse tender system to ensure that the prices of these flats remain affordable.

Sixth, building active citizens early. The Government's earnest call to citizens to be engaged in national affairs recognises the importance of forging the ties that bind people to the country in an age when those very ties are being strained by globalisation and opportunities for work, family and leisure abound elsewhere.

As young Singaporeans become better educated, more widely travelled and global in outlook, they are exposed to a world of seemingly unlimited opportunities outside Singapore. Unless there are similar opportunities, eg, economic, social and intellectual, back in Singapore, we will always have to compete against the lure of a better future in other parts of the world. Of course, even as young Singaporeans pursue their personal successes elsewhere, they can stay connected to Singapore. Take, for example, violinist Lee Hui Min who is based in New York but returns to Singapore periodically and proudly identifies herself internationally as a Singaporean. But we do need to have a significant group of Singaporeans who will come back after their stint overseas, as well as those who choose to remain in Singapore, to form the core group of Singaporeans who will help chart the course of the country.

Much has been said about the political apathy, especially of our young. But it must also be recognised that political apathy, especially of the young, is not

Column: 134

unique to Singapore. In the book 50 Facts that should Change the World by Jessica Williams, it is noted that in the UK, where voting is not compulsory, 26 million British citizens, representing just below 60% of the population, voted in the 2001 General Election. This was the lowest voter turnout since 1918. Of the 26 million, it was estimated that just 39% of the 18 to 24-year-olds voted, compared with 75% of the 65-year-olds. This trend is repeated across the world. In the 2000 US Presidential election, just 29% of the eligible voters aged 18 to 24 years voted. The oft-cited reason for disinterest is that they do not think their vote can change a thing.

In contrast, during the 22 weeks first season run of the British Reality TV programme Pop Idol, more than 32 million cast their votes. Of course, it is noted that, in Pop Idol, people could place as many votes as they like while, in an election, each person can only cast his vote once. Nonetheless, it does show an important point, ie, when people are interested and know that they can affect the outcome, they will make sure that they have their say. This phenomenon was also seen in our recently concluded Singapore Idol contest. Hardly any of our young did not know about the Singapore Idol contestants. In fact, even my friend's 4-year-old was a die-hard fan of Taufik Batisah. Actually, she prefers Olinda, who was ousted at the semi-finals, but nowadays she counts herself as a fan of Taufik's.

Offering our young a say in real, vital issues in more savvy ways that appeal to them, such as webchat with Government leaders and showing that their feedback is taken seriously, are ways to engage our youths. But, by themselves, these may not be sustainable, since not all feedback will result in policy change. Even if they do, there could be a significant time lag between the feedback and policy change. Of course, all of us have been young

Column: 135

once. We know patience is certainly not a virtue of the young.

Youth leaders from our South West District recently told me that, to engage youths, to get them interested in the community and play a role in nation-building, they need to be given a sense of control, empowerment. They need to feel that they can take charge, see the outcome and make a difference. Hence, creating more opportunities for our young to be involved in national and community issues through projects and activities they devise would be tangible and practical ways to strengthen their sense of belonging and ownership, and build lasting ties with the community.

The announcement to provide seed funding and support to help our young translate their ideas into constructive action is helpful, but it is actually not new. There are already a number of funding schemes available, both Government, eg, NYC's Youth Development Fund, and North East CDC's Dare to Dream Fund, and non-Governmental, eg, Citi Youth for Causes by YMCA and Citibank, for ad-hoc events or activities championed by youths. What is needed is better publicity of such funding programmes to our youths and streamlining of the various funding programmes available. A good start could be a portal to serve as an e-marketplace of ideas where youths with like-minded interests can come together to form informal groups to tackle a social issue or meet a real need in the community. They can then find a relevant agency, such as a VWO or NGO, to help facilitate, adopt or implement the project. Beyond the match-making, the portal can provide other value-added services, such as bringing on

board "sponsors" which can be the relevant statutory boards or community organisations to act as "social venture-capitalists" for well-researched propositions, and to bring in relevant experts or specialists as resource persons

Column: 136

to guide the groups to ensure meaningful outcomes.

We also need to build a core of youth ambassadors, young men and women, with the proven attitude and aptitude to advocate worthwhile apolitical causes, enrich the lives of others in the community and ultimately, the nation. The National Youth Awards can recognise such service and contribution and over a wide range of age groups.

Sir, in conclusion, while the external picture is not all rosy, we must not lose heart. Our vulnerabilities also spur us to work much harder, run that much faster. Making Singapore the best home and a land of opportunity for all, regardless of gender, age or ability is not a pipe dream or the philosopher's stone or a nice sounding political slogan.

It is a compelling vision, one that we owe both to our ancestors for all the blood, sweat and tears they shed to build this country, and to our children for the sake of their future. I urge all my fellow Singaporeans to work with the Government to bring this vision to reality.

I support the motion, Sir.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, said that the President's Address was vague and utopian. It was also reported in the newspapers that Mr Low Thia Khiang has remarked that the President's Address had nothing new in it. Today, he quoted an article in Lianhe Zaobao to say that the Government did not look after the welfare of the middle-income people. I was hoping that he would give us his own views, but he was only quoting other people's views. What is the point of quoting other people's views without offering his suggestions on how to improve on the situation if he feels so strongly about it! In my view, the

Column: 137

President's Address is very meaningful and it has a lot of substance in it.

There was this story about an old man who had two daughters, one married to an ice-cream vendor and the other married to an umbrella seller. Every morning, this old man would look at the weather. If it looks like it is going to rain, he would be worried for his ice-cream vendor son-in-law as his business is likely to be affected. The next day, when the weather appears to be fine and sunny, he would worry that the umbrella seller son-in-law would have no business. However, if he were to look at the situation from a different angle - if the weather is bad and stormy, the umbrella seller would have a roaring trade; and if it is a hot and sunny day, then the ice-cream vendor would enjoy good business. If he is more creative, he would encourage his two sons-in-law to partner each other and sell both umbrella and ice-cream. Then they would have business, whether it is a sunny day or a rainy day. So it is very important that one looks at things from different angles and find the solution to the problem.

There are many lessons to learn from the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. First of all, when the Indian Ocean tsunami occurred, many people saw the giant waves coming, they not only ran for their lives, but also helped others to run for their lives. When a little British girl saw the sudden recession of the tide, she remembered what her geography teacher taught her in the class, and she promptly told her parents about it. Her parents listened to her, and acted upon it by warning all the people around her to run, thus saving hundreds of lives. Another old man in Thailand, although uneducated, remembered from experience that when there was a sudden recession of tide, gigantic waves will rush in. He asked everybody to run and thus saved a whole

Column: 138

village of lives. These are people who have the knowledge. They have foresight, and know danger when there is one.

There is another group who did not know how things would come about but they somehow managed to survive. We read that there were some people who managed to survive one week or even 8-9 days after the tsunami struck. They have this will to live and that is why they survive. Though they do not have the foresight, they learn from experience and react on hindsight. Then, there were these people who saw the tide backing away leaving a lot of fish, crabs and sea-shells. They happily went out to pick up all these poor creatures, only to be swept away by the giant tidal waves and perished. These are the people who have no foresight, and did not even have the chance of any hindsight.

In Singapore, although our economic tsunami is not as disastrous as the Indian Ocean tsunami, we must be fully prepared for the worst. When we look at our economic weather and notice that the bad weather is coming, we must be prepared. Many people upgraded themselves so that they not only managed to retain their job but even seize the better opportunities that come along with regionalisation and globalisation. But many people are worried. They say that they do not know what they are going to do when disaster strikes, yet more often than not, they end up better off after a disaster, that is, if they survive.

There is yet another group of people who may not be pre-emptive in making preparation for a rainy day, but when recession does come, they can adapt quickly and somehow manage to cling on and tide over the troubled waters. When the Government opens the way for them, they will grab the opportunities and make good. It is unlike what Mr Low Thia

Column: 139

Khiang said that the Government has not given any help to the people. The problem is that some people do not want to accept the openings that are available to them.

The President's Address has outlined the seven priorities of the Government. They may not appear to be glamorous but they are really very pragmatic. I am confident that if we were to implement all these, we will do well.

There are three lessons which we can learn from the Indian Ocean tsunami: firstly, knowledge is strength. Over the years, the NTUC has trained many workers so that they can acquire new skills and are therefore able to face the economic restructuring. This is something which we have achieved. Secondly, we must have the will to live to survive. We know that in the last few years, NTUC has redesigned and re-engineered many kinds of work. Much has been said about the hospitality industry. We have actually restructured the work flow in the hospitality industry and provided various types of training for our workers to adapt to these new methods that would help them to earn better-paying jobs. This re-engineering of the work process has also provided opportunities for the workers who were retrenched so that they could take up new jobs. As long as we can put in a concerted effort, even if we cannot anticipate what is coming, we should at least recognise and seize the opportunities that come along. I am confident that we would be able to bring greater vitality to Singapore, as the President has mentioned in his Address.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.00 pm.

_Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.38 pm until 4.00 pm.
_

Column: 140

Sitting resumed at 4.00 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

(Debate on the Address): Debate resumed.

Prof. Ivan Png Paak Liang (Nominated Member): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Gan Kim Yong.

This year, Singapore will be celebrating its 40th anniversary of independence. With unremitting effort, we have built up a democratic society and achieved security and progress. I think this is something that we should take pride in. Yet, we must not forget that there are still many challenges ahead of us.

Our national pledge begins with, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". Let me be bold in saying that we have made much progress towards this goal. However, we must continue to work on it to make further progress.

The Singapore Tourism Board is promoting the concept of "Uniquely Singapore". What is unique about Singapore? I think the most important thing is our diversity.

I believe that what is most obviously unique about Singapore is our diversity. However, this also poses a great challenge.

Biologists teach us that diversity is strength. With regard to the economy, our economic diversity has contributed substantially to our prosperity. During the 2003 SARS crisis, retail shops and tourism were badly hit. But manufacturing, logistics and financial services

Column: 141

were relatively less affected. So, overall, we did not suffer too badly.

I believe that diversity is the key to our strength as a regional and international hub. We have people from different backgrounds who are fluent in many languages. They create value in management and the service industries.

Our diversity has also contributed much to our national security. The whole world faces the threat of terrorism from extremists. Fortunately, we have built up a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. That is why we are better able to deal with extremist threats, both internal and external.

However, for our social diversity to be a stronger source of national strength, we need to work harder on social integration.

Let me give two examples based on my own experiences. Some years ago, a university colleague had to read the names of students at a graduation ceremony. The names of the Malay students were printed as "Abdullah b. Ahmad", "Fatimah b. Khamis" and so on. My colleague read them as "Abdullah bin Ahmad" and "Fatimah bin Khamis". Today, how many of our younger Chinese citizens know the difference between "bin" and "binte" in terms of gender?

Let me give the second example. Recently, a publisher sought my advice on the cover design of a textbook. It was a book on management targeted at the Asian market. But what was the key design motif? A bright pink piggy. Apparently, the designer did not appreciate the negative implications of selling such a book to the Malaysian, Indonesian, the Middle East and other Islamic markets.

Singapore will celebrate its 40th anniversary soon. I personally feel that

Column: 142

we have to work harder on social integration and to turn social diversity into strength. We should work within our secondary and primary school system to proactively increase the mixing amongst students of different races.

For Singapore to be even more prosperous, we must draw upon every resource of every citizen. We should let everyone make their contribution - whatever the role, however sensitive the role, whether in the economy, society or national defence. So long as he is a Singaporean, if he is capable, we should allow him to make a contribution to our nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken of diversity as being what is unique to Singapore and its importance to our future progress. Now, let me address a related issue, that is, what creates the sense of belonging to Singapore.

As other Members have mentioned, as we internationalise, more and more of our people will live overseas. Some will go overseas to study and stay behind. There may be others who will be recruited to work in foreign countries. Singaporeans are well-educated and well-rounded. They are well sought after by employers all over the world. To bring our people back, whether in person or in spirit, we must strengthen their sense of belonging in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe, you would agree with me that the sense of belonging is based on four key elements - each begins with the letter "P". They are Parents, People, Place and Pride. To be filial to our parents and the importance of people is obvious. Let me focus on the third aspect - Place or the environment. This is the mix of sights, sounds and smells. A good environment or good place is also a foundation of neighbourhood and community.

Column: 143

Research by my NUS colleagues in Tiong Bahru has shown that familiarity with place is an important part of self-identity and social memory.

We have made progress on Place. My friends in Hong Kong compliment Singapore for preserving our Chinatown much better than Hong Kong. The recent decision by schools to open their facilities to our neighbourhood activities is also a very good example.

However, as the pressure of school and work seems to be getting stronger and stronger, I think we have lost something in our neighbourhood and community. People have little time to know their neighbours, even less time to participate in neighbourhood activities. I think we must do more to build up the community and neighbourhood spirit.

Can something be done to improve on the design of the HDB flats? One of my friends remarked that the HDB void decks only provide concrete benches and these attract only old people. We need "cool" amenities to attract parents and their young children.

In our housing policy, when allocating housing units, could we not give priority to people living in the same community, so as to maintain their sense of belonging to the area?

When naming places, I think we should also put in more effort. In the 1970s, the Raffles Institution building, with a history of more than 150 years, was demolished. The school was moved to Grange Road. Then in the 1990s, it moved again, and this time to Bishan. River Valley High School and Crescent Girls' School are now situated far from the roads after which they are named.

Environment, names, anecdotes, all add up to history, and they certainly

Column: 144

contribute to our sense of belonging and nostalgia.

I mentioned 4Ps: the last one is Pride. We should be proud of our economic achievements. We should take pride in our social achievements, as well as our political achievements. As Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Gan Kim Yong and Mr Iswaran have said, we have contributed significantly and generously to the victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. We should take pride in our contribution.

Having said that, I must say not all are proud of being Singaporeans. We now recruit foreign talent aggressively in all fields. Because of this, some locals feel that employers blindly pursue foreigners and that locals have become second-class citizens. They feel left out. We must address this issue and strive to maintain a balance when we recruit foreign talent.

We should continually encourage our people to take pride. Flying the flag and wearing medals on National Day is good. We should let all those bintangs and pingkats appear more frequently.

I have a small suggestion. There has been much discussion about dual citizenship, but there has not been a consensus on this. Why do we not consider the concept of "secondary citizenship", with reduced rights and responsibilities? Some Singaporeans stay overseas for a long time and they apply for foreign citizenship. If we allow them to maintain a secondary citizenship with Singapore, they need not cut off all the ties with us. So, we could allow them to continue to take pride with us.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said at the beginning, we should be proud as we celebrate our 40th year of independence. Parents, People, Place and Pride are the

Column: 145

four pillars of belonging. They are the foundation of our future happiness, prosperity and progress. And for Singapore, to be happy, prosperous and progressive are exactly what we seek, as stated in our national pledge.

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): ( In Mandarin ): 40 years of glorious achievements.

Sir, 40 years of independence has transformed Singapore from a country without rich natural resources into a country of prosperity and progress. In the early years of nation building, our fragile land suffered from a spectrum of challenges from civil chaos to communist insurgency. Then, our GDP per capita was only US$512. Fortunately, our Government and leaders promptly resolved all the internal and external challenges, maintained political stability and has since successfully completed two peaceful successions of leadership. Now, 40 years later, our per capita GDP is more than US$21,825 (in 2003) and we have achieved the developed country status. Singapore also boasts of a string of international achievements, for example, we are ranked among the most competitive, globalised and investment profitability country in the world. Singapore is regarded as the best business environment in Asia, has the best quality of life, best medicare system, best workforce, best physical infrastructure, and many other glorious achievements.

Today, Singapore enjoys social stability and economic prosperity. Regardless of race, language and religion, we live in relative harmony, share common space and objectives in furthering the interests of Singapore. In the area of security, our unity as a people successfully defeated the plots of the

Column: 146

terrorists since 2001. In 2003, we also managed to contain the SARS epidemic and was highly commended by the World Health Organisation in our efficient and effective handling of the SARS crisis. All these achievements are the result of the concerted efforts between the Government and the people.

People-centric policy

The President, in his address, once again emphasised on a "people-centric policy". He attributed our success to the concerted efforts of our people and their confidence in our nation. Some people lamented that this is an old issue revisited, that the address offers nothing new. Bearing in mind that the fact remains that Singapore is small and has little natural resource, we must indeed continue to focus on developing our human resources - our most valuable asset. We must ensure that we develop every Singaporean so they may have both the strength and confidence to contribute to Singapore. Simultaneously, we must ensure everyone can benefit from the fruits of our labour, and ensure a consistent and sustainable development. Hence, the President's call for a people-centric policy as a cornerstone, together with benevolence and transparency in the administration and policy matters, presents a new vision for our future direction. We continue to emphasise on our human capital.

Benevolence in people

The recent Indian Ocean tsunami took the lives of more than 150,000 people. The survivors, however, faces the challenges of food and water shortage, and the impending risk of diseases and epidemy. Seeing the sufferings of our neighbours, Singaporeans empathised with the situation and swiftly put their compassion and benevolence into effective action, participating in all sorts

Column: 147

of relief plans to help these people. Our Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, initiated the call for an emergency international summit in Jakarta to deal with the aftermath of the tsunami disaster. The successful implementation of the summit not only enhanced our branding in the international scene, but also heightens our critical role in the region.

Indeed, it was an unprecedented demonstration of our small country, big heartedness and big spiritedness, where all 3Ps - public, private and people sectors spearheaded projects, big and small, to help our neighbours. The Singapore Government has donated more than S$23 million to the affected areas. Our Prime Minister, Ministers and officials have also visited the affected areas, moving the hearts of the victims in the midst. Our people have also raised more than $30 million in relief funds in just over 10 days. Many Singaporeans have selflessly participated in mobilisation exercises and gone to the affected areas to help the people. Prime Minister Lee has described this effort by our people as a small nation with a big heart. I suggest that we should take this opportunity to rally all the people in Singapore, whether old or young, so that we could build up our Singapore brand name. This is in fact our strength, our social capital.

The Singaporean premium branding

So, what is required to develop a premium Singapore brand? With the information and technological revolution, we are no longer constrained by our physical size or resource. The world is really our 'oyster'. Taking a macro view, a country's wealth is not determined but what is buried underground (ie, natural resources). Rather, it is determined by what stands above ground (ie, human resource). The very fact that Singapore has no natural resources propels our people to seek creative survival means, and cultivate the virtues of diligence and

Column: 148

determination - the very ingredients which brought us to become a premier brand in the Asia region.

The next gear change is to restructure a solid foundation for our economy, move up the technology value chain and economic infrastructure, and benchmark ourselves on a global scale in every area including sales, production, human resources, R&D and finance, so we may be ever-ready to harness any economic opportunity. While a good infrastructure can be relatively easily built, it remains a means to an end. The end, would be our people - in fact, the quality of a population determines the build and use of an infrastructure to achieve our aspirations. Hence, people, people, people, should remain the focus of our nation building.

Next, the people and public sector must share collective hopes and common destiny. This year, we will be celebrating our 40th anniversary of independence. Peoples' expectation of the Government is also escalating. The New Paper did a street poll of the issues Singaporeans would like to hear discussed in Parliament. The top three issues were: jobs and economy, education and social expectations. In short, it is obvious that Singaporeans yearn for a reasonably high standard of living, hence jobs and economy remain a priority national effort. Education, widely seen as a tool for social mobility, is an essential part of the equation. Hence, our common goal is to establish Singapore as a home for our people - the old, the young and the very young. We need to build a transparent yet inspiring environment where first-raters attract first-raters, so that our society can progress and be successful. The foundation of Singapore's success is our people. So, what are the ingredients of a successful people in the 21st century? I think the most important ingredients are:

First of all, we need great leadership. Great leaders inspire the common people

Column: 149

and raise the aspirations of their followers. They make people more confident, energetic and enthusiastic. People, who are motivated by great leaders, dream big, make sacrifices and achieve miracles. Alexander the Great was hardly 21 years old when he led the first expedition to conquer the world. He was young but successfully fired his peoples' imagination to make Macedonia the most powerful nation in the ancient world. He was fearless and had a great vision. Hence we also need to create a grand, noble vision which elevates the energy, enthusiasm and self esteem of everyone in the country while ensuring that everybody sees a benefit in following the vision. PM Lee spelt out his vision of Singapore during the PAP's 50th Anniversary Rally where he called for Singaporeans to join hands to build Singapore into a land of hope and opportunities for all. Perhaps we need to hear more of this, so that we can achieve a common understanding of what that vision means for each individual, community, and society as a whole. This will also help us to spell out action steps that can be taken at each level to collectively arrive at the vision.

Second, it is not sufficient just to have great leaders. We need a mechanism to identify, train, empower and mentor successive generations of leaders. Such leadership training and mentoring has to become the responsibility of the current generation of leaders. Hence, I am thankful that our Minister Mentor Lee and Senior Minister Goh have kindly agreed to continue to serve and mentor the younger generation, who will in turn benefit from the experience, network and wisdom of our leaders. This must not be a hard system though, as there must also be enough space for people to experiment and fall, before finding their own system that works. Obviously, this system would benefit not just the paramount leadership,

Column: 150

but across all sectors and levels of the society, including the grassroots level, business level, etc.

Third, a great people must also understand the need to change and stay relevant. We adapt to the changes in the external environment, we need to make constant adjustments to our modus operandi, legislation and moving targets - all of which will affect the education and training of our people. While in the early years the focus was on assembly-type mass production, the focus today is creativity and entrepreneurship. STB has adopted a 'Uniquely Singapore' campaign in its tourism drive, perhaps a 'unique Singaporean' drive to encourage everyone to pursue their passion, an open, fair and imaginative space for all to thrive, and unleash the latent potential and energy in both our young, not-so-young and senior citizens.

Fourth, our people must stay anchored on an enduring value system. The first factor is the work ethic. By and large, our workers are hardworking and are loyal to the family and company - which when extrapolated, becomes loyalty to the nation. Given our immigrants' roots, our people are generally quite hardworking. However, we can certainly do better in instilling pride in our work, especially as our economy moves towards a service economy. Second, there is a spirit of family in Asian societies. This means working as a team, showing concern for your fellow citizens, making sacrifices for each other's benefit, and identifying with the common cause of the company. The outpour of generosity in kind, cash, time and effort of our residents towards worthy causes like charity (examples) and issues (example - Huang Na, pink dolphin, animal rights, etc.) certainly signal our nation's ability to make sacrifice and show concern for each other. We need to do more however, in working as a team, especially across the people, public and private sectors, as well as within each

Column: 151

sector. Perhaps what is needed is a heightened sense of common cause. We have to maintain this foundation and take into consideration the benefits of the people as a whole. Only then can we attain the objectives laid down by the Prime Minister.

Fifth, for the past 40 years, we have successfully branded our society as that of 'social capitalism'. Perhaps moving forward, given the widening divides due to technology and external competition, with focus on the people; it is time to shift gear into 'compassionate capitalism'. A socialist system will not succeed as a system, because people need open platforms, opportunities, competition and incentives; to better themselves. This is the essence of capitalism. I propose that we enhance the spirit of capitalism with meritocracy, transparency, benevolence, care, and civic-mindedness, the result is compassionate capitalism. This will be the society which citizens can be proud of, where every citizen can have the hope and opportunities to be the best they want to be, to achieve their dreams and aspirations, and to anchor their roots in this little piece of land called Singapore, my home, my country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me conclude. Within these 40 years of trials and tribulations, we have built up a systematic, cohesive and resilient society based on superior human and social capital. Under great leadership and fundamental values and ethics, let us move towards a new Singapore based on compassionate socialism. Let enhancement (like bar-top dancing or even casino) to our thriving city look remain as fringe activities to be treated as part of a colourful cosmopolitan and not core elements of our society.

Finally, may I call upon our people to join hands and, to quote PM Lee in his party rally speech, to "make common cause with us and build a great nation in

Column: 152

Singapore.., where Singapore can be a vibrant land of opportunities", a society where people work for the community, and the community works for the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his speech, the President had touched on many aspects of great relevance to Singapore's future and the well-being of Singaporeans. A key point that the President had touched on was the importance of good governance at all levels, to implement policies and programmes to benefit the people. In the words of the President, "through the hard work of Singaporeans, the application of sound Government policies, and the dedication of capable leaders at all levels, Singapore has enjoyed four decades of stability and progress".

Sir, I cannot agree with him more. We can have the best systems, infrastructures and resources but without good, capable leaders that have the trust and confidence of the people, we will not be able to have sustained growth and prosperity.

Let me cite something that a friend had quoted to me from the Complete Analects of Confucius. One of the favourite disciples of Confucius had once asked him about the way to govern a country. And Confucius said: "To govern well, one must have sufficient food, an adequate army and the people's trust in the government." The disciple then asked him: "If one was forced to forgo one of the three, which should one forgo?" Confucius said: "Get rid of the army." The disciple continued to ask: "Out of the remaining two, if one were to forgo one, which should it be?" Confucius said: "Forgo food first. Although without food, humans will die, yet death has been a fact of life since the beginning of time. But if one were to lose people's trust, one

Column: 153

would have lost the basis of any government."

We have seen examples of such a strong leadership. The recent tsunami crisis was one such example. The Government moved swiftly and decisively by mobilising resources and galvanising support for our neighbours who had suffered great losses in lives and property. This strong leadership is then duplicated all the way down in the way the various organisations, businesses, and ordinary Singaporeans rallied to the call and mobilised support in any way that they can.

We certainly do not need another tsunami to show the importance of good leadership. But for our programmes to succeed, we do need good leadership at all levels. We have a good Government and a strong people, and we are therefore well poised to meet the new challenges ahead. Certainly, Sir, a working poor in Singapore stands a better chance than a working poor in many other countries. This is because we are conscious of the issue and are taking measures to help them, such as job redesign where low-paying jobs can be upgraded and pay better salaries.

On this note, Sir, let me now touch on the issue of healthcare costs. The President correctly stressed that affordable healthcare is a major concern of Singaporeans.

Let me illustrate this point. The other day I took a taxi and was chatting with the taxi driver. I asked him how things were with him, and he responded quite positively but added a caveat. He said that he was okay, so long as he was healthy. He said that if ever he fell very sick and was unable to work, then the

Column: 154

best thing would be for him to die quickly as he felt that the healthcare cost would be a burden to him and his family. He is not the only one who is concerned. The feedback I get from many workers is the same. Most feel confident that so long as they are working, their healthcare costs will be covered but are concerned about big medical bills for their dependants, and also how to pay for their medical bills after they retire.

These concerns are not far off the mark. Medical costs in Singapore have been rising. From 1990 to 2004, medical costs have gone up by 4% a year, compared to the overall CPI of 1.6%. There are, of course, many reasons for this. An ageing population and the more prevalent use of medical technologies have contributed to the rapid increase in costs but these are not the only reasons. I believe that more can be done to make healthcare affordable to Singaporeans, including the costs of medicine as not all medicines prescribed by hospitals are subsidised.

I am therefore glad to note that the Ministry of Health will be focusing on keeping healthcare affordable and in controlling healthcare costs. Singaporeans' twin concerns are with the cost and quality of healthcare. They are concerned over how to pay for their medical bills. At the same time, they worry whether they are receiving good treatment when they fall sick.

Sir, let me now come to the MediShield review. The feedback that I have received from many Singaporeans is that this review is timely and necessary. In NTUC, we have formed a study team to study this issue. Let me just state briefly what we hope this review would achieve. Firstly, the principle of risk pooling through insurance is a sound one. The revamped MediShield should provide a minimum coverage that is adequate and

Column: 155

affordable for everyone. In this way, all Singaporeans would be covered by a basic level of healthcare when they are hospitalised. If people want more than the basic, then they could be allowed to purchase an additional tier or riders.

Secondly, for the principle of risk pooling to really work, the revamped MediShield should preferably be made compulsory, so that there is basic protection for all Singaporeans. Under a voluntary scheme, some may opt out not because they do not need the coverage but because they may be unaware of the long-term consequences of their action in the event that they have to incur high medical costs in the future. We should ensure that our workers do not opt out of MediShield even if their employers provide adequate medical benefits. The Ministry of Health could also consider conducting a one-time exercise to enable those that have opted out of MediShield previously to rejoin the scheme. A major concern is that a significant number of Singaporeans are still not covered by MediShield or any of the Medisave approved medical insurance scheme. This would cause problems when they grow old and have inadequate savings to take care of their medical needs.

Thirdly, Sir, the current level of payment for big bills today, at 30%, is grossly inadequate. MOH had said that it intends to increase this coverage to 60%. This is a good move. MOH should also review both the annual and lifetime claimable limits as well as the adequacy of limiting coverage to only 80 years, as people are living longer.

Fourthly, there is a concern over the increase in premiums and deductibles. MOH has suggested increasing the premiums by a maximum of $10. With an average MediShield balance of about $11,500, most Singaporeans may be able to afford this increase. However, the low income and the elderly may face

Column: 156

difficulties. Many elderly Singaporeans do not have their own Medisave savings or have insufficient amounts to provide for their old-age medical needs. A 1998 National Survey of Senior Citizens found that more than half of those aged 55 years and above depend on their children's Medisave to pay for their hospital bills. Only about 30% of the men have their own Medisave to finance their own healthcare. The situation is worse for women as only 7% depend on their Medisave. This being the case, any increase in MediShield premiums and deductibles will have an impact on the elderly and the low income families. Workers depend on their Medisave to pay for not only their own MediSheild premiums but also that of their family's as well and also to pay the co-payment amounts not covered by MediShield. I would therefore like to urge the Government to take into consideration the needs of the low income and the elderly when raising the deductibles and premiums, and ensure that they continue to be able to afford basic healthcare services. The Government should also consider helping the low income and the elderly pay for the increased premiums through topping up of their Medisave or other means.

Sir, let me now touch on medical inflation. Even if our healthcare financing mechanism is strengthened with the review of the MediShield scheme, if healthcare costs are not contained, it will be difficult to ensure that healthcare cost remains affordable. I therefore agree that the various measures that are put in place, such as making hospitals publish their fees, would help Singaporeans in making informed choices and go for cheaper hospitals and treatments.

MOH's recent move to change the basis for giving grants to hospitals from the current system of piece rate reimbursement to one of block grants will, to some extent, help to cut costs for

Column: 157

Singaporeans who are hospitalised, as there is less incentive for hospitals to keep them too long in the hospitals or order treatments that are not really necessary. But this block grant method of subsidising hospitals is a double-edged sword. While the concern of the old piece rate reimbursement system is that hospitals chase volume and over treat patients in order to get more grants from the Government, the concern with the block grants is that hospitals may now under treat patients instead, or push such patients to the polyclinics when they really need hospital care as their grant is fixed, regardless of how many patients they admit. This is a particular concern for Singaporeans who can only afford the subsidised wards as the longer they stay in the hospital, the more it will cost the hospital, and this will eat into their grant, which is fixed. Although the Ministry has assured us that an auditing system will be put in place, it is important that this system is patient-friendly. It is no use having an audit system if patients are not aware of it or do not find it user-friendly or accessible or they may not even know that it existed at all. Currently, it is unclear after the block grant system is implemented this year, how those who are unhappy can complain if they feel that they are not properly treated. Can the Ministry provide details of this audit system? How will the Ministry educate the public on this, because this forms part of the eco-system in helping people to both have quality healthcare as well as ensure that it is affordable.

Now, Sir, let me touch on portable medical benefits. For many years now, we have been discussing about the portable medical benefits scheme or the PMBS. The rationale of the PMBS is to put in place a system where a person can take care of his medical needs not only when he is employed but throughout his lifetime, that is, when he is in between

Column: 158

jobs, when he is retrenched and after he retires. The system should be seamless and not financially burdensome to employers and workers. For the PMBS to work, it is important that there is a comprehensive basic medical insurance scheme that is put in place and which has wide coverage. Hence, the PMBS

scheme is closely linked to the MediShield review. I would now like to ask whether the Ministry of Health can update this House on the progress that has been made to the PMBS. When will it be implemented? Is it possible for the employer providing benefit to act as a rider over the MediShield, for instance? For example, if under the revised MediShield, all employees are covered under the basic scheme, the benefit which employers provide could be used to pay for the deductibles. Alternatively, if the employer pays an additional amount into the Medisave, the employee can use this extra Medisave saving to pay for his share of the hospital bills, ie, the co-payment amount.

Let me now come to means testing, Sir, the Ministry intends to implement means testing for hospitals. The principle is sound as the subsidy dollars should be targeted for those in greatest need. However, means testing is not easy to implement, and there are administrative and social costs which may far outweigh whatever savings that will be derived from introducing it. The other day I met a resident who is staying in a condominium in my area. He was very concerned about means testing. According to him, he had advised both his parents to sell their 3-room flat and live with him so that he could take care of them. But he is now concerned that, as a result of this move, he would have to incur higher medical fees for his parents if means testing were to come into effect. I think these are real concerns of middle income Singaporeans. People do not deliberately choose to fall sick and stay in a hospital. In my view, the purpose of means testing should be to

Column: 159

determine the appropriate subsidies provided to families from low income as well as middle income groups so that long-term care would be affordable to them. Since long-term care implies a long-term financial commitment for the family members, some middle income families would also be financially strained if there is no Government assistance. I would therefore like to ask the Ministry of Health whether it can consider providing subsidies on a sliding scale to low income and middle income families commensurate with their income, instead of just cutting off at a certain income level for all Singaporeans.

Sir, let me come to the need to develop a patient-centric healthcare system. I support the Ministry of Health's initiative to develop healthcare manpower and increase the supply and quality of medical and paramedical talent from local and foreign sources. However, the healthcare sector, Sir, is one sector where we are focusing efforts on job redesign. Therefore, I hope that where there are jobs that Singaporeans can do in the healthcare sector, the two hospital clusters will work closely with the unions and WDA to help Singaporeans get into these jobs. My concern is that the message that the hospital may get is that they can now recruit more and more foreign talents and there may be less focus on our efforts to try and create opportunities through job redesign. And I am afraid this is the message which was also reinforced by the Ministry of Manpower's decision to make work passes much more flexible.

Sir, I think it is also important in the healthcare sector to focus on providing better career opportunities and prospects for the paramedicals. A recent newspaper report has shown that there are shortages in various fields of paramedicals, such as podiatrists, speech therapists and those providing palliative care, for instance. And I also heard complaints from some of

Column: 160

those who have left the service about salary and lack of career prospects as some issues that drove them out of the sector. In order to achieve medical excellence, this is one area, I think, that MOH has to focus on.

Finally, Sir, let me touch on MOH's efforts to respond to infectious diseases. I note that plans are being formulated to respond to the outbreak of infectious diseases. To do this, I think it is important to allocate sufficient resources. Presently, there are only 11 practising infectious disease specialists who tackle everything from dengue, cholera to AIDS, SARS and bird flu and obviously doctors feel that this is not enough. They have called for an urgent need for more money, research and expertise to build up defences against the threats not just from AIDS but also other infectious diseases that are becoming much more rampant worldwide. If prevention is the key pillar, as it should be, it is an important aspect under Government's plans to control healthcare costs, then I think it is important that adequate resources are allocated to preventive efforts.

In conclusion, Sir, although people worry a great deal about expenditure on healthcare, expenditure on healthcare actually forms only a small part of total household expenditure. In fact, MOH data also show that people are seldom hospitalised and only a small number will incur big hospital bills for serious illnesses. They comprise about 5% to 10% of the hospital bills. On average, only 10 in 100 people will be hospitalised in any given year. But although these are the facts, to a person who is ill or when a family member is affected, healthcare cost is a real and major worry. We are therefore moving in the right direction in focusing efforts to contain healthcare costs and in ensuring that healthcare remains affordable to Singaporeans.

Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my

Column: 161

colleagues here in thanking the President for his Address.

In his Address, the President spoke on many issues, including the "many helping hands" approach to welfare delivery as well as healthcare. I would like to focus my speech on just two areas. One is on the welfare scene in Singapore and the other is on care for the elderly, particularly the poor elderly. First, on the topic of voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs). Let me declare my interest as I am involved in a few VWOs in Singapore.

I am indeed heartened by the spirit of charity among Singaporeans. Without their support, many VWOs would not be able to operate. Indeed, VWOs are the key in our "many helping hands" approach to welfare delivery which includes the Government, families, corporations, community groups and individuals. Unlike welfare nations, our VWOs take on the main responsibility of delivering welfare services here in Singapore, with some funding support and resource input from the Government as well as other sectors. The Government's main roles in this process are as a regulator and facilitator.

A recent national survey commissioned by the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) found that 52 of all donations made by individuals between April 2003 and April 2004 went to churches, temples, mosques and other places of worship. A proportion of these donations are in turn used to fund community projects and VWOs supported by these religious groups.

I would like to suggest to the Government to enhance promotion and support of the growth of existing as well as new broadbased non-religious VWOs. While VWOs supported by religious groups have their place in our community, non-religious VWOs complement them

Column: 162

with their broadbased secular outlook. While VWOs with religious connections enjoy the continued patronage and support of their various congregations, non-religious VWOs do not have the advantage of such a "faithful" support base. And all the more, they need the Government's backing to carry out their mission and tasks effectively. However, precisely because they are secular, they are not restricted by guidelines inherent in VWOs linked to religious groups, and can thus work together with synergy to reach broadbased targets and causes.

Next, I would like to touch on the discretion VWOs have in undertaking their responsibilities of delivering welfare and care. In the June 2002 issue of the Asian Journal of Public Administration , the article "Welfare and Public Management in Singapore: A Study of State and Voluntary Sector Partnership" by David Seth Jones, the author expressed his concerns that, and I quote, "... the recent imposition of operational models, "best practices" frameworks and performance testing, coupled with the strengthening of the legal provisions governing voluntary welfare organisations, entails a significant extension of the regulatory and management control by the state. This has perhaps undermined the previous balance in the partnership arrangement and more closely wedded the voluntary sector to the state bureaucracy."

I am similarly concerned with this development. While I understand that the objectives of greater Government oversight are to enhance the professionalism of VWOs, to raise the standards of delivery and increase their accountability to the public, I share the author's concern that, and I quote, "... they are equally likely to encroach upon the freedom of managers,

Column: 163

professionals and volunteers ... The risks are that this process may not only erode the professional and managerial independence of the welfare professionals and volunteers, but may also reduce their personal motivation and commitment ...".

Many of our VWOs face operational problems today. One of the key issues is the difficulty in hiring and retaining good staff. The lack of motivation and the commitment is due partially to the many official restrictions executives face in the running of a welfare organisation. Bureaucracy impedes creativity and dampens incentive. Conversely, autonomy gives them a sense of pride and self-satisfaction.

People contribute to voluntary social service sector programmes because they feel that they can make a difference in the lives of those less fortunate than themselves. Those who join the social services are not in this sector for money or fame. While I agree with the new system of control which demands performance indicators and set targets are necessary, these can also lead to the additional workload for our already strained social services personnel and distract them from their main duties. After a while, many of these personnel leave for the private sector and other organisations as they do not feel fulfilled in their vocations.

Thus, I urge the Government to consider reviewing our current system of regulatory and administrative control for our VWOs. Such requirements should be lifted to give our VWOs more freedom to be enterprising and creative in their provision of welfare services. There is a Chinese saying, " yi ren bu yong, yong ren bu yi " . Ray Kroc, the entrepreneur behind McDonald's, wrote something similar in his autobiography: "If you hire a man for the job, you ought to get out of the way and let him do it. If you doubt his ability, you shouldn't have hired him in the first place." And likewise, once the Government is satisfied with a VWO's management practice, it should not be

Column: 164

micro-managing its day-to-day operations. The Government may share or recommend systems but their implementation should not be tied to the Government's funding or resource support.

We must be careful to maintain the delicate balance between State oversight and autonomy for VWOs. While we penalise VWOs for flouting rules, we must make sure that we give sufficient encouragement for VWOs who are sincere and effective in delivering their services. We must not create hurdles for the good VWOs while in the process of dealing with the black sheep.

Finally, I would like to speak on the issue of the care for the elderly. In fact, my GPC Chairman, Mdm Halimah, has elaborated many useful points with regard to healthcare system, and I would not repeat these points. It is somewhat ironic that as the youngest elected MP in the House, my profession is to look after the health and welfare of the elderly. At this point, let me declare my interest once again as the CEO of Ang Mo Kio Hospital, one that offers step-down care services. It is my daily preoccupation to come up with new plans to enhance elderly care. Well, I am not alone. Over at the Ministry of Health, scores of civil servants and the Minister himself deliberate upon

these issues unceasingly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair]

5.00 pm

One of the great challenges is how to encourage more senior citizens to lead active healthy lifestyles. Prevention is better than cure. As mentioned by Mdm Halimah, we should definitely allocate more resources to prevention care. The mobile elderly participate in exercises, such as tai-chi and qigong , congregating occasionally at the senior citizens' corner to watch TV, sing karaoke , and play

Column: 165

chess. Unfortunately, these elderly do not form the majority. Many elderly are confined to their homes. They either find it inconvenient to get out of their houses because of their immobility or they are simply not interested in exercising or interacting with others. For the group of elderly who are home-bound because of their disability, there are currently not many programmes for them, though there are currently social or rehabilitative day-care centres. These cannot cater to the immobile elderly, as they cannot get to the centres at all for the rehabilitation exercises or for rehabilitation. Thus, we should look into offering solutions to help these immobile elderly who are stuck in their homes currently. One example would be the promotion of better and more effective befriender services, and the other is to encourage operators, particularly VWOs, to offer rehabilitation to these poor elderly at their homes, with subsidies given to poor families. I urge the Government to give due emphasis to the welfare of these home-bound elderly.

Lastly, I would like to highlight a crucial point for an ageing population like Singapore's, ie, the importance of follow-up care for chronic illnesses among the elderly, particularly the poor. In fact, I am indeed glad to note that Minister Khaw has highlighted to promote holistic care among primary healthcare as one of MOH's priorities in 2005. Many elderly, particularly the not so well-to-do elderly, have not paid much attention to their chronic illnesses, particularly those with high blood pressure and diabetes. This is so because, for them, it is always troublesome to see doctors regularly for follow-up, particularly so if they have few or no symptoms. This is even more so if they are poor, with outstanding utility or rental arrears, and following up on their long-term illnesses is viewed as much less important. Thus, many such patients decided to default on their follow-up.

Column: 166

I wish that MOH would be able to review our current system and address these concerns through more systematic public education and improving on the policies of chronic illnesses and their follow-up as, if neglected, we will be in deep trouble in the coming years as our population ages rapidly, with medical complications like heart attacks, strokes, kidney failures and amputations haunting our elderly.

With this, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to join my colleagues here in thanking the President for his Opening Address. There are three observations that I would like to make.

The first observation is on Singapore's role in the recent tsunami relief operations. In the recent tsunami disaster which befell our neighbouring countries in the Indian Ocean, I feel proud that Singapore has responded so quickly, generously and efficiently. As noted by one commentator, this is one rare instance where efficiency can have a heart. In fact, Singapore led the world in bringing relief to the affected areas not only because of our proximity, but because we acted quickly and decisively, with the conviction that our help was needed by the victims and that Singaporeans were 100% behind this effort. The people's response, through their donations and other efforts, was also most commendable. This gesture will surely bring Singapore much goodwill among our neighbours and the world. It makes us good citizens of the world and puts us in a very good stead. We can hope that, should we be affected by a similar crisis, others would be ready to help us.

Sir, I am heartened by the way Singaporeans responded to the disaster. It shows a very charitable heart, one

Column: 167

which can be depended upon in times of crisis. This augurs well for our national spirit and unity because, if we could show such willingness to help others hundreds of miles away, surely we would help our own fellow citizens even more in a national crisis. This bodes well for national resilience, not unlike our united response in the SARS crisis.

Sir, the second observation I would like to make is on the economy. Our economy is well on the mend, with the growth of 8.1% last year. This is on the back of an expansion of the high-tech sectors. I am confident that our strategies of riding on Asia's rapid growth and moving up the value chain in both manufacturing and services will continue to bring success to Singapore. Singapore offers a premium to the high-tech investors as well as sophisticated service providers because of its transparent Government regulations and efficient infrastructure. Furthermore, the protection Singapore gives to IP owners encourages foreign IPR owners to set up their businesses here. This gives us a good lead over other countries in Asia. However, our economic recovery has not been enjoyed by all. The feel-good factor is still absent among many, especially those who could not keep up with the progress of the knowledge economy. The lack of this feel-good factor, despite our good growth, is a real concern. Though some may argue that the export-led growth will in time trickle down to the domestic economy, I am concerned that for some years to come, many, especially the older and lower educated workers, will continue to be burdened by structural unemployment, under-employment and the fear of unemployment.

Sir, many of the lower skilled jobs have been permanently lost to low wage countries, such as India and China. Those with lower skills and who could not be retrained often end up as the long-term

Column: 168

unemployed. Some would be forced through circumstances to take up jobs that pay way below the salaries they formerly earned; hence, under-employment. Even those who currently hold a job but are less skilled, constantly fear losing their jobs. Our Government must redouble its efforts and solve this problem before it leads to social fracture. We have a class of those who enjoy prosperity and good economic advancement due to their ability to cope with the ever increasing demands of a high-tech economy. On the other hand, we are seeing an increasing number of others who are constantly struggling to earn a living. If we manage this divide poorly, the resulting disaffection will cause our society potential problems in the future. National unity is at stake. To overcome this, I agree with Dr Amy Khor that we must spare no efforts to create jobs that can be manned by the structural unemployed. Low skilled and mundane jobs should be redesigned and upgraded. Automation and mechanisation of such jobs would bring about higher productivity, and our lower skilled workers can be trained accordingly. Some Town Councils have already tried to do this with the cleaning contractors, but we should explore this upgrading in many other areas, eg, our construction industry.

In this regard, I am glad to hear from Mr Seng Han Thong that the NTUC is working with the Government to spearhead this effort. In doing so, systems and procedures must be put in place to help streamline jobs which require higher skills in order to help train the workers. It has been proven that even the lower skilled workers can be trained through hand holding and fixed instructions to perform these jobs effectively. Another way to assist displaced workers is to help them start small businesses. I am glad to see again the ice-cream sellers at some suitable locations, as well as the steamed peanut tor dao and roast chestnut kau lak

Column: 169

hawkers. ENV should be more lenient when granting such licences, especially when an applicant has been out of a job for several months. One other area we could look at is to encourage or promote the work-at-home industry. Child-minding or babysitting, home cooking, such as baking, cottage industry, telephone services for call centres, for instance, should not be disallowed in the home, if properly carried out.

Sir, with the economic recovery, the unemployment rate has come down to about 3.5%. It is important for us to work hard to bring this figure further down. The Government should set a target to bring it down to, say, below 3%, within a year.

Sir, the third and final observation I have is on education. Education is the best long-term investment in our young and for our future. It is also the best social leveller, allowing people to advance their economic status no matter how poor they were born. In the past, when Singapore was limited in its resources, we had to ensure that our education system is efficient. Almost all schools were run in two sessions. We needed to ensure that the majority were sufficiently skilled to man our booming industries. Those with special needs or even those with special talents could not be catered for. It was inevitable that we lost these talents. Either they migrated or the talent remained undeveloped. However, today, with an abundance of resources and a dearth of babies, the emphasis now must be different. We must now ensure that we can bring out the best in every student and every individual, thus maximising our national talent capital. We must pay special attention to each person, in order to maximise his or her potential. Those with special needs and special talents must be catered for. The Sports School, Science School and Arts School are very

Column: 170

good efforts towards this goal. These efforts not only maximise our nation's talent pool, they engender a sense of special belonging. We must not repeat the past mistake of looking at academic qualifications and examination results when accepting students for our Sports and Arts Schools. Instead, we must look for real talent in the respective fields. The staff and principals of such schools must themselves be talented in these areas. Diversity in our school system also allows students to maximise their potential in their area of interest. Diversity also brings about survivability, in this case, social and economic survivability and colour. For the students, it is about learning subjects they like and are interested in, not something boring which they are forced to learn. In this way, they will be truly schooled and their potential realised.

Sir, in the next lap of our nation-building, the importance of education cannot be over emphasised. I am glad to see that the Ministry of Education is putting in place many changes. The world is changing faster than ever before. It will not wait for us. Singapore has no future besides competing with the world and competes well, and an excellent education of our young holds the key to winning the competition and building a prosperous nation and gracious people. I am in full support of our Government's initiatives in this respect.

On that note, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Last Thursday, Sir, I had the opportunity to visit Aceh and Meulaboh with some of our parliamentary colleagues. We met up with the Indonesian parliamentarians and visited our servicemen in the field who were there on a humanitarian assistance mission in the region.

Column: 171

Sir, we saw for ourselves the utter destruction and devastation. It was an eye-opener. An estimated 110,000 perished and another 10,000 missing. Houses were flattened. Whole villages disappeared. And it happened so suddenly, so fast. Our hearts went out to our Indonesian neighbours. They have suffered so much. But the Indonesians are pulling themselves up, recovering and overcoming the odds. It is a testimony of their resilience and strength.

Sir, it is heartening to note that in this crisis, Singaporeans of all walks of life have come forward to donate spontaneously and generously to the disaster relief fund. Some Singaporeans have volunteered to serve in Aceh, Phuket and Sri Lanka. The Government has promptly dispatched an SAF humanitarian contingent to Aceh, including logistical and medical teams, LSTs and heavy duty Chinook helicopters. The SAF servicemen were amongst the first to arrive on the scene. The SAF wisely assessed that the best thing to do was to establish landing sites in Meulaboh so that supplies could come through. Indeed, the Asian Wall Street Journal of 6th January praised the SAF's methods and operation. And I quote, "Singapore's innovative performance showed that pinpointed doses of limited aid can yield disproportionate benefits." Our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, personally visited Aceh and spearheaded an international summit on disaster relief held in Jakarta.

Sir, in a crisis, leaders are made. By this swift and decisive action in organising relief and dispatching our servicemen, by his care and concern, by empathising with our neighbours, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has strengthened his authority and made his mark as our national leader and he has bonded with Singaporeans. Prime Minister's Lee international stature as a statesman has grown.

Column: 172

In Aceh, I met with Sergeant Irene Ng, a medic in the SAF. I found out that her husband, Mr Lim Yick Chong wrote a letter to the Straits Times on 12th January. I can do no better than to read Mr Lim's touching letter which empathises the response of all Singaporeans. He said, "It is painful for me being apart from my wife after only two months of marriage. But I realise my pain is nothing compared to the suffering of the people in Meulaboh and that Irene is there to help those who have literally lost everything. People there have lost their families, properties, wealth and livelihood but they have not lost one thing - hope. Hope that their families can be found, hope that their injuries can be treated, hope that there will be a future. Singaporeans are giving hope to the people of Meulaboh. I am proud of the people of Singapore, the SAF, the Government and my wife for giving hope to those whose lives have been destroyed."

Sir, even Dr Catherine Lim, a very well-known long-term critic of the Government, praised Singapore people and the Government for doing a great job in this disaster rescue. And she wrote in Today newspaper of 7th January, volunteering her comments, and I quote from her again, "I am most impressed by how a massive relief operation, unprecedented in the urgency of its timing and planning, the scale of its mobilisation on manpower and other resources and the enormity of its logistical problem. In short, an undertaking with all the trappings of a wartime operation could, at the same time, be a manifestation of the finest human qualities of grace and empathy." This is from a critic of Government. She said, "Here is deeply felt compassion but without any sentimentality of high sounding moral assertion. The Prime Minister simply said that Singapore, being a small country and dependent on the world for its living, might need the same kind of help some day."

Column: 173

Sir, Singapore's image in the region has changed for the better. We are a caring nation, small but great in spirit. As Dr Catherine Lim ended, she said, "The real greatness of Singapore may be a totally different kind and lie outside itself. It may be a greatness of spirit and may be showing itself in a unique blend of effective action and graceful empathy."

Sir, I think this is a good time for Singapore to move forward and engage its neighbours and really strengthen our relationship with our neighbours.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in the name of Mr Gan Kim Yong.

The President, in his speech, spoke about the way forward for Singapore. I quote from his Opening Address, "A key ingredient of our success has been our faith in Singapore. Here we can pursue our dreams." He went on to say that our way forward is to continue making Singapore a land of opportunity for our people.

I would like to begin by adding that, in moving forward, we need to essentially take a step back and examine what we may have done wrong and how we can improve the existing system. The question is: do the people of Singapore, especially the young, truly believe that there are really opportunities for all of us and for them? I want to address this issue and I will begin by relating the many issues that many Singaporeans have raised which question this issue of opportunities. I will go through some experiences that I had as well as some feedback I got and why there is this perception among our youth that there is little chance for them to be successful in Singapore. I then hope to share with everyone why I am finally convinced that things have indeed

Column: 174

changed and why the new Prime Minister and his leadership have made a difference and will continue to make a difference for Singapore and for Singaporeans in the coming years.

Why is it that people feel that there is no hope for them in Singapore? I would like to begin by relating an experience I had about two years also when I was in the Bay area in San Francisco. Since I was visiting the area for my business, I volunteered to do some work for Contact Singapore to meet up with some young Singaporeans. Almost all of these young Singaporeans I met, among 10 of them, were at one time or another entrepreneurs but based in the US. We had general discussions about the state of entrepreneurship and their experiences. I then took the opportunity to get a feel of what these young capable Singaporeans, who I hope will return to Singapore one day, felt about their own country, Singapore.

There were, as I have said, 10 of them, including a very young staff member of Contact Singapore. As I went round the dinner table, I was saddened to listen to each one of them, of our bright Singaporeans, relate to me why they do not plan to return to Singapore and why after leaving Singapore and having experienced the USA, especially the Silicon Valley, they realise that Singapore cannot possibly provide them with the type of opportunities that they can get from the USA. It was unanimous until it came to the turn of a young employee of Contact Singapore. He painted a positive picture of Singapore and why he felt confident of coming back, although not very convincing. After spending some time in getting to know him, he felt comfortable enough to let his hair down. "Now I will tell you how I really feel about Singapore, not as an employee of the Government of Singapore", he started, after taking off the badge of Contact Singapore that he was wearing and put it

Column: 175

on the table. Now feeling more comfortable, he then went on to tell me why he felt that Singapore would not be an attractive place for him to come back to for the opportunities that we are talking about.

I was, needless to say, disappointed that we hit a perfect score of 10 out of 10 young Singaporeans telling me why they felt that there was little hope in Singapore. All of them unanimously felt that there were very few opportunities, Singapore is too small, there is a stressful education system, their children will never have a chance, given that they themselves felt that they had dwindling opportunities. They also cited the lack of the Government's will power to help promote local enterprises. For them, the USA, especially the Bay area, was truly a land of opportunities of all types, compared to Singapore, and having tasted the USA, they thought that it would be a mistake for them to come back home.

I tried my best to explain to them why they were wrong and why they should come back and try and see it for themselves. And I related my own personal experiences that, no matter how difficult it may be, I could at least get some businesses off the ground here in Singapore.

Another feedback I have is from the business community. These days, when I speak to the Singapore businessmen, they tell me that there are no more opportunities to do business in Singapore. They argue that companies can no longer easily make money here. They say that things are too expensive, the cost of business is way above the other cities around us and the big players, especially the Government-owned companies, were making it difficult for the smaller companies to succeed in Singapore. The perception is that one cannot easily succeed in business in Singapore and our days of abundant opportunities are gone.

Column: 176

Third, Singaporeans generally speak about how tough our education system is and why their children are better off in places like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The education system was definitely of concern for many Singaporeans in the past and resulted in people thinking of leaving Singapore. And once they stepped out, it becomes increasingly difficult to attract them back into Singapore.

Sir, I can go on with many more examples but I do not intend to do so. I believe that the issue should be addressed head-on and should not be ignored. Let me go through some of my own personal experiences and the approach I have taken which further reinforced my attitude that if we truly believe in something, we should pursue it no matter how others try to ridicule or discourage you. I have always taken a constructive approach in criticising policies and I believe that we should not destroy the good that we have achieved, but try to improve further, and we can always improve from wherever we are.

Let me start by talking about my first major experience as a Member of Parliament when I was co-opted by the then Prime Minister to the Singapore 21 Committee. Needless to say, I was very enthusiastic because of the opportunity to be involved in a process which was going to reshape how Singapore was going to be governed and would operate in the 21st century. I headed one of the many sub-committees and co-opted many good Singaporeans of all backgrounds for this two-year exercise of redrawing the rules of the game.

There were many sceptics who were veterans of previous efforts and they felt that the Government was really not ready to change. On my part, I told many of the critics that it was different this time and that I have seen the true desire of the

Column: 177

leadership to change the ways they have managed Singapore and it was a wonderful bottom-up opportunity for all of us as stakeholders to play our part. We went on then to put in place a most extensive effort, involving many Singaporeans, and the outcome of this exercise was an excellent blueprint to make Singapore a land of opportunities.

Unfortunately, it fizzled out at the end of the exercise. While we had a great final document, the attitude taken by our leadership in the implementation left much to be desired. In short, the final outcome was disappointing. S21 had limited success in energising the MPs, the civil servants and the people of Singapore. I felt personally disappointed because I was convinced at the beginning of the exercise that this time, we were really going to change.

After the S21 experience, the Remaking of Singapore exercise, which was headed by Minister Vivian Balakrishnan, failed to ignite any sparks in many people. To be frank, as a Member of Parliament, after being bitten once, I felt twice shy. I was negative because of the S21 experience. Because of my role as an MP, I tried very hard to show some amount of excitement so that I could propagate these feelings to my constituents and the people I come into contact with. I am sad to admit that nothing of that sort happened. We may have succeeded in energising a small group of people who participated in the process, but not the majority of Singaporeans who have a pessimistic outlook.

I have a couple of other experiences which I would like to share and the first of this is when I started my first company as an entrepreneur, United Test and Assembly Centre. Today, it is a successful company listed in the Singapore Stock

Column: 178

Exchange and it is a success story for me. But it was not without the obstacles, problems and hiccups at the start-up phases. But looking back with an objective lens, at the beginning stages, the problems I faced came from Government agencies and civil servants who did not believe in what we were doing. We faced many obstacles, including general Government bias for multinationals that made it a nightmare when I tried to hire some senior managers from my previous company, ie, the company I left. I will not go through the details because it is water under the bridge and, fortunately, the environment has since changed.

Today, we are seeing greater help and also less obstacles from the Government.

From another dimension, I discovered that there was dissatisfaction within certain statutory boards. Because this company brought in about US$138 million of investment on a purely private sector initiative, the unhappiness or disappointment arose because it was not initiated by any Government agency. This is what I call the "Not Invented Here" or "Not Initiated Here" or NIH attitude, for short. If the Government did not invent or initiate it, it must be bad and, if the initiative was not the idea of the Government, or the Government was not the key driving body, then it could not work and is not worth supporting - a form of institutionalised discrimination against Singapore companies - except when the Government picks the winner, an issue that Dr Amy Khor brought up earlier.

I have not jumped to the above conclusions as an excuse but generally feel that discussing them at this debate would forge a greater and clearer way forward.

Another example was my investment in a life sciences company and I could then confirm this feeling. The company

Column: 179

faced many problems when it tried to get grants which were simply disbursed to multinational companies. Again, I sense the same NIH attitude and this is because this was a life sciences company not initiated by the Government and, therefore, it was not worth supporting. The founders faced tremendous problems in trying to navigate, but I would like to say that that company is successful and is making money today - not supported by the Government.

Sir, my feeling in the past was this: if, as an MP, I faced so many problems, then there was little hope for the man-in-the-street to ever get anything through the strong machinery of the Government. This is wrong, as everyone has an important role to play. The Government and civil servants are not the owners of the land. They have forgotten that they are the caretakers for the people of Singapore. The roles they have been used to need to be reversed. The Government needs to start listening and, instead of becoming obstacles, now become agents to facilitate the changes which all stakeholders want to try to achieve, especially if it is for the overall good of the country. The "Government knows best" attitude could no longer work. Singaporeans, especially the younger Singaporeans, would get disenchanted and feel alienated if the old approach continues. And, I would like to say at this point, that the old approach is not continuing and it has changed.

Now, let me talk about the many suggestions that Members of Parliament have made in this House during parliamentary debates. If we look at the old approach, many a time, the Minister, in replying, as a matter of practice, tried to destroy any argument an MP might have made about certain policies that needed changing. When an MP made a suggestion in Parliament, sometimes radical in nature, the reaction from the relevant Minister, in the past, has been to

Column: 180

reject outright the idea and, sometimes, to ridicule the MP making the suggestion. I have personally encountered many of such debates, particularly about the education system, the cost of doing business and about our land prices in this House. Fortunately, MPs, as I know them and as I know for myself, have thick skins and we continued to persist and fight for what we believe in. The aggressive approach taken by the Ministers in responding to the suggestions is counter-productive, with undesirable effects. It gives the appearance of the Government unwilling to listen and reinforces the "Not-Invented-Here" or NIH attitude. If the Minister did not initiate it, then it could not be good.

Sir, at this point, I would like to say that the style has changed. With the backdrop that I have given, it is, therefore, not surprising why at times there seems to be a confrontational approach taken by all stakeholders in the country. Their lack of confidence and trust, because of their past experiences, resulted in such an approach when we discussed issues. The process in achieving the desired outcome leaves many deflated and dejected. Through our persistence and doggedness, MPs and Ministers understood the situation better these days and Ministries started to listen seriously.

Many people would not realise this, but after our parliamentary debates, a lot of work actually gets done behind the scene, where MPs and Ministers eventually converged on points proposed. When the policy changes finally get formulated, this eventually gets presented, sometimes as a bright spark from the Minister or civil servant. Now, I actually have no problem with this approach - of credit going to the Minister or the civil servant for making the change that was proposed by many Members all along - so long as we got the things implemented and the changes done the

Column: 181

way we wanted to. So we have got streaming changed, the competition law implemented and JTC reversing its policy of temporary rebates to permanent cuts. The education system is now starting to look good, and there are many, many more happy stories like that, that we have seen lately. As a simple cause and effect association, I encourage the Ministers to acknowledge the reasons and sources of policy changes, when possible, to complete the entire feedback process as the public would like to be acknowledged for the changes that they have proposed.

However, if we want to achieve what the President mentioned, the old approach could not work any more and, I am glad to note that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has realised this and has set the direction of change. The changes in attitude in the mindset of the leadership, key civil servants and in the style of the new leadership are so significant that it is worth talking about here, because it is the reason why I feel that Singaporeans could be confident that they would continue to find the opportunities here, or through Singapore, as they look for opportunities around the region.

Sir, in the last few years we have seen many positive policy U-turns, breakthroughs in policies and rules which many wanted to get changed for many years but could not succeed in the past. I believe this did not happen by chance but by design because of the direction of the new leadership. As we reflect on the changes which have happened in the past few years, I am sure we probably have seen a record number of reversals and changes in the past years compared to the many years that we have seen changes happened in this House.

So, what is this new style? First, the Government has changed its attitude from one of distrust of the private and people

Column: 182

sectors when it comes to policy formulation and changes, to one of letting the best people help the Government shape the policies - from the position of "the Government knowing everything" to one of "the Government cannot possibly know everything and, therefore, engaging the experts who are outside the Government to help in the policy change process". It has changed from a mindset of "each group having vested interest" to one of "everyone having a common interest for the good of Singapore". So we have seen lately the Government forming committees and taskforces which comprise mainly people from outside the Government, but with a partnership between all sectors, in studying issues and then recommending policy changes. A very good example is the way the Economic Review Committee was constituted and the way it did its work, which eventually resulted in so many radical changes for the economy - many stones got turned and sacred cows got slaughtered. This approach is now entrenched in the Government and, if you look at any new policy or policy changes being planned, the Ministers engage people of all sectors, bringing in people, who know better than the Ministers and the civil servants, to help them shape these policies.

Second, if you look around again, these days, there is greater public consultation before any major Bill gets proposed in Parliament. In the past, the Government seems to do lip-service to feedback because many a time they seem to have already decided on what the outcome would be before consulting the public. This change stems from the belief, and I believe that, in this complex and fast-changing world, the Government could not possibly have all the resources to do a good job if it wants to.

Third, there is greater self-scrutiny within the Government, and the best example I could quote is the work done by

Column: 183

the Pro-Enterprise Panel, headed by the Chief of Civil Service, Mr Lim Siong Guan. The members include top civil servants and some people from the private sector. This Panel has resulted in so many changes and so much self-scrutiny in all Government agencies that today, when an issue gets raised in any of the Government agencies, the question most civil servants would ask is, why not; instead of, why should we change a good policy to a suggestion made by the private sector? This change happened because the Permanent Secretary would ask the same "why not" question, forcing the junior civil servants to come prepared. If the Permanent Secretary failed to ask this question, then the Chief of Civil Service would ask him the same question. On the other hand, I believe it is because the Prime Minister himself has clearly said that civil servants need to learn to be civil and to be servants and not masters in his speech at the 50th PAP anniversary rally. This is a reversal of the mindset which has been very useful in effecting the many changes that we are seeing these days.

Fourth, there is a realisation among the new leadership that greater involvement of the people outside Government would mean more hindrance. In the past, ours was a Government obsessed with perfection and on a system based on zero-error. However, if we want to engage people from outside Government and we want to have successes in the area of entrepreneurship, in engaging the young, and the greater involvement of many more Singaporeans, the way I believe the Prime Minister intends, then we have to realise that perfection would be a hindrance. Willingness to accept imperfection, some untidiness and allowing some rules to be broken at the fringes, would make us stronger, not weaker. Sir, greater flexibility to do business for businesses, civil servants to make a judgement call, when there are grey areas, and for Ministers to be seen to be helping the

Column: 184

private sector to be successful, are all not necessarily bad things. In fact, these may be the necessary things we have to do to achieve the desired outcome of a more entrepreneurial economy - an adventurous citizenry and a responsive and fast-changing civil service - all the necessary ingredients for a robust and successful country.

So while we have seen many policy U-turns and reversals, let me also relate an example to illustrate the change in style. Sir, in my effort to help contribute to the development of entrepreneurship in Singapore, immediately after the ERC exercise was over, I felt that we did not have enough concrete implementable action items to really make a significant change to achieve the desired results in the area of entrepreneurship. So I decided to address the perennial problem or issue of lack of financing options for entrepreneurs in Singapore. With the help of SPRING, I gathered about 15 people, all of them from the private sector, to study this problem with the goal of finding solutions, and once and for all, try to change the financing landscape in Singapore to allow Singapore to catch up with the rest of the entrepreneurial economies in the world. Sir, this was a completely private initiative, not prompted by the Government or any Minister or civil servant, and it was an exercise to lead a crusade to fix the financing environment, the one that was very unhealthy in the past. There were many sceptics, in fact, including myself. We really doubted that the Government would ever support such an initiative, where the Government was not involved and was not a party or initiated the idea, again the "Not-Invented-Here" or NIH attitude. But, undeterred, the 15 of us, with the support of very enlightened officers from SPRING Singapore, we were willing to play our part.

We started by lowering our expectations that all the good work that we do,

Column: 185

the recommendations that we come up with, would be rejected outright and none of them would be accepted by the Government but, nonetheless, we would have derived the document that we all believed in and were happy with. So we went on and did our work, even though the feeling was that it may get rejected. In fact, as we started our work, a couple of Government agencies who heard about what our committee was doing got concerned and they manoeuvred to get themselves invited into my committee so that they could keep an eye on what was happening. I had no problems with that. I actually wrote them a letter and invited them to join us. In some of the meetings, they tried to convince my committee why things could not be done the way we intended to and that some Government agencies are already doing what we were trying to do and they discouraged us from treading in the same area. But we did not let this deter us and we continued and pressed on to develop the financing blueprint for Singapore.

As we were completing our work, some Government Ministers found out about what we were doing and we were asked to present to them our findings and the work we were doing. We had support from Minister Raymond Lim and Minister Tharman. We made a presentation to Minister Tharman about our findings, and to our surprise he was actually happy with all the recommendations that we made. He went on to speak to Minister George Yeo, as well as to the then Deputy Prime Minister, and guess what, 100% of all the recommendations that we made, and these were extensive recommendations, were accepted. Not a single one was rejected. But, in the same breath, Minister Tharman had asked me to continue to work on it in the Implementation Committee because he felt that if he had left it to the civil

Column: 186

servants to implement, a lot of it would get lost. I agreed to do this and we continued to work under Minister Raymond Lim's ACE Committee.

Sir, to me, this was a breakthrough, that the Government was willing to adopt a list of proposals they did not initiate and had no control over. I believe when the Ministers looked at what we had developed, they did realise that others too had genuine concerns for the development of Singapore, and they too, the people outside Government, could come up with sensible solutions, without the Government calling the shots. Taking off from where PM Goh left, we now have a Prime Minister and a leadership that is willing to listen to ideas from outside the Government, and seriously so. It is not just lip-service, in my opinion, and I am a critic. This has allowed Singapore to evolve into the model of greater participation. What is humbling for me to notice is the realisation that the Government could not possibly know everything and, therefore, is willing to seriously listen to new ideas from outside and then to seriously try to implement these ideas through policy changes and even policy reversals or U-turns. In the past, when MPs raised non-typical ideas that looked controversial or were not aligned to the Government's policy, we have got to hear all the reasons why it could not be done, instead of how it could be done and how we should work on it to make it work.

A significant change is upon us, with the leadership willing to give a listening ear and seriously wanting to make our ideas work. Why do I believe this is so? Because it starts with the Prime Minister's own initiative to everyone, a directive to everyone, that he is serious about this change, and I hope that he is assessing his Ministers by how much they are willing to change, instead of how well they could defend existing policies, as I

Column: 187

sense the approach taken in the past. While I am comfortable that the top leadership is enlightened about the need to change, it would be some time before it trickles down to all levels within the Government. I still sense some reluctance to change at certain levels in the civil service, again, an issue that was brought up earlier by Dr Amy Khor.

The frustration level among Singaporeans and the civil service does run high because road blocks are created by some of these officers who prefer to stick to their old ways.

Let me quote an example. When a Singapore small and medium enterprise approaches a Government agency for help for a certain Government grant, a middle level officer who was probably annoyed at the many requests that he was getting from SMEs, turned the table and told the businessman asking for the help, and I quote, "Why do you always ask for help? Why don't you ask what you can do for the country rather than always ask what the country can do for you?" This was what the civil servant told the businessman. This, in my opinion, is a very unfair question.

Sir, it is not up to the SME to answer this question. It should be up to the Government officer and the Government to ask and answer this question. This issue should be settled by the Government - that the SME sector is an important sector for the Government and for the country.

If I were the businessman, I would have said that the SME's job is to make money, to be profitable and to grow. And if the SME can do all of these things successfully, then the Government officer who asked this question would have got his answer, and the answer is really a no-brainer. What the SME can do for the country is economic growth and create jobs for Singaporeans. And so just let

Column: 188

that company focus on making profits and grow, and do not ask a question like, "What can you do for the country?" Actually, he is already doing a service for the country.

I bring this example up because I want to send the message that the civil service cannot rest on their laurels and think that they have already arrived. More work still needs to be done.

Sir, in general, the atmosphere of change has definitely made an impact on critics like me and Mr Tan Soo Khoon to sit up and notice and agree that the new Prime Minister has indeed done so many good things that it will not be fair if we did not acknowledge this. But we must continue to shake up the whole Government machinery if we want to achieve the vision of the Singapore that we so dearly want.

Sir, in conclusion, the President ended his speech by saying:

"For the next generation, Singapore should continue to be a land of opportunity - opportunity for all Singaporeans to be the best that they can be, to lead fulfilling lives, and to contribute as citizens to a better Singapore. Let us build such a nation together."

Further, he said:

"The people are entitled to demand the best from their leaders. They also aspire to play a part, and expect to do so. Everyone who makes Singapore home will have opportunities to make a difference. Every contribution is valued and important."

I believe that the Prime Minister and his team do believe in this. Therefore, it is up to us to take the opportunity to make a difference. As I have tried to relate my experiences in my speech, we have to be persistent if we truly believe in something. And if we do, finally, the results will be

Column: 189

achieved. I look forward to the exciting times ahead for every one of us having a role to play in shaping the Singapore that we want for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren.

Sir, I support the motion.