START OF DEBATE

Column: 302

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

Debate on the Address (3rd Allotted Day): Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [17th January, 2005],

Column: 303

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

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

Question again proposed.

The Acting Second Minister for Finance (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to respond and clarify certain points that Dr Wang Kai Yuen raised yesterday regarding budget surpluses and the GLCs.

First, Dr Wang makes the point that the Government should tax the economy just sufficiently to cover its expenditure. This is exactly what the Government has been doing. In fact, we are one of the leanest governments in the world, by that measure. Our public spending as a percentage of GDP is about 17%, compared to the OECD average of about 30-40%. Our operating revenue is about 16%, compared to the OECD average of about 30-40%. So we are already running a balanced budget which, by international standards, is already very, very lean. In fact, in the last four years, our operating revenue - taxes, fees and charges - is less than our total expenditure. And the only reason why we did not get ourselves into a structural fiscal deficit situation was the contribution that we had from our Net Investment Income (NII) from our reserves. As Members know, the NII comes from the accumulation of reserves that were built up over the years. And it is our policy of seeking to maximise the reserves that gives us the latitude and space to lower taxes, fees and charges aggressively while, at the same time, being able to meet our spending needs.

Second, Dr Wang also claims that Temasek invests our reserves; whatever

Column: 304

reserves we have, we give it to Temasek to invest abroad. And that by doing so, this makes it difficult for young enterprises to survive and prosper, as we are draining away domestic liquidity. This is mistaken. It is not the Government's policy to inject surpluses into Temasek for it to invest abroad. Temasek's expansion abroad has not been fuelled by the injection of Government funds. In fact, on a net basis, Temasek injects, in the form of dividends, funds to the Government each year.

As to the point he made about young enterprises finding it difficult to survive and prosper, the critical test here for young companies is really the strength of their business ideas, and not just on the availability of domestic liquidity. In fact, you can secure funding but there is no guarantee that you will be profitable as a company. So liquidity and profitability are not quite the same thing. I would like to assure the House that the Government is committed to ensure that there is a full spectrum of risk capital in Singapore so that the conditions are there where entrepreneurs and start-ups will have access to funding so that they can emerge and grow. Mr Inderjit Singh, on Monday, gave a detailed account of some of the initiatives that we are taking to help to ensure that there is this access to funding.

The third point that Dr Wang made was, an often repeated argument, that the GLCs crowd out the SMEs. Analytically, this issue has less to do with ownership. It is not really an ownership issue, but really an issue of size. The GLCs within the domestic market are big and they provide strong competition to the SMEs. If, today, we were to change the ownership of the GLCs, the competition for the SMEs will still remain. The larger issue, the more important issue, is that in today's context, whether you are a GLC or SME, the competition that you face is

Column: 305

not just local, not just regional, but global. And many of these GLCs are publicly listed and they have shareholders who are leading fund managers and financial institutions, and they hold the management and the board of the GLCs accountable for their performance, and they benchmark that against global peers.

Finally, Dr Wang makes the point that it is not the business of statutory boards to generate surpluses. I agree with him. The Government is committed to ensure that we have a competitive tax structure so as to facilitate and encourage initiative and enterprise. Besides the ongoing efforts to lower our taxes, we will ensure that we lower the burden on businesses, that wherever possible, we would lower fees and charges, set it at cost, unless higher costs are needed to discourage consumption.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join this House in thanking the President for his Address which laid out the seven priorities of the Government of the Republic of Singapore.

I found the number "seven" significant because "seven" has a certain significance in numerology, in religion as well as in the ancient world. You have the seven wonders, for example, of which we have our very own, the seven pillars of wisdom, we have the seven heavens. So I thought that in response to the President's Address, I would offer my seven reflections as a first term MP on the things that I have learnt since becoming an MP.

Before I became an MP in the 2001 elections, I was an average ordinary Singaporean. After I became an MP, I am still an average ordinary Singaporean but with a lot more work. But what I have since learnt as a result of this work are several things. First, that we can never, as a nation, take anything for granted. I became a Member of Parliament with the

Column: 306

batch which included the seven Ministers of State - the magnificent seven, another seven - we came in after the world-changing events of September 11. This was followed by the JI arrests and then we were immediately faced with the challenge of preparing Singaporeans to face the new threat posed by transnational terrorism whilst, at the same time, trying very hard not to polarise our multi-racial and multi-religious population. At the same time, we had to deal with the economic downturn, the need to help affected residents to find jobs and financial assistance. And just when things seemed to be getting better - we thought we turned the corner in 2003 - we were hit by SARS and things went into an economic tailspin, not to mention the fear that gripped the public because we were fighting an invisible foe. We recovered from that. But in 2004, we had two tragedies on a national level - the Nicoll Highway disaster and the Biopolis industrial incident. And then at the close of 2004, the tsunami disaster which fortunately did not hit Singapore but we were not left untouched by it.

What I have learnt from these things is that as a small nation, we always have to be prepared for the unexpected. We cannot always sit back and assume that everything will go well, that the Government will always get it right, and that life will always be comfortable, which means that, as a people, our mindset is one that needs to be prepared for the unexpected.

This also leads me to a concern that I have as to whether we are sufficiently prepared in terms of emergency preparedness. I do know that the Government agencies are working very hard, but I do not get the sense that the average Singaporean in the street would actually be ready to deal with a major disaster if one should occur in Singapore. I think more can and must be done to prepare Singaporeans, and I think that

Column: 307

Singaporeans, as a whole, should take on more individual responsibility and initiative in thinking about how to respond to such a disaster should one ever occur.

The second reflection, something else which I have learnt in the course of being an MP, is that although Singaporeans complain a lot and although at every feedback session they will tell you about all the things that can be done better, at heart, Singaporeans have a genuine desire to make a positive difference. We saw this in the response to SARS - the number of people who actually came forward with fund-raising. We saw this again in the response to the recent tsunami disaster. We also saw it, for example, when the little girl, Huang Na, was missing. Although she was not a Singaporean, so many people got together to look for her. What this means for Government is that amongst Singaporeans, there is a huge well of untapped goodwill and untapped desire to do something, provided they feel that they can make a genuine difference. And this is the key thing to remember when we talk about engaging the young, because if we want to engage the young, then they must feel that the contributions that they put forward, whether it be in terms of ideas or feedback, are actually taken on board and translated into some concrete action. They must feel that whatever it is that they are participating in has a concrete result which can be seen.

This leads to the other point of active citizenry. I think that many Singaporeans are not aware of the number of avenues that are available for them to serve, eg, in grassroots organisations, CDCs. I certainly was not aware before I became an MP of the very many avenues in which one can actually step forward and make a difference. So I would urge the Government to continue to call on the people of Singapore to step forward, give them

Column: 308

something positive in which they can make a difference, and I think that we will have a strong and genuine response.

The third reflection that I have is that to succeed as a nation, we have to be a people of conviction, and to have the courage of those convictions, not easy when you are a small country. While I was sitting in Parliament the other day, I listened to Mr Chiam See Tong as he made his speech, and he spoke of the three university students who came to see him and did not want to give their names. In the first place, if a person does not give his name, it is a bit difficult to help him. In the second place, he cited that as an example of the climate of fear. I do not think there is a climate of fear in Singapore. That is one. Two, I think that if encountered with people who have that concern, the correct and proper response is to tell them that they should have the courage of their convictions, because we cannot move forward as a nation unless our people have the moral courage to stand up and say what they believe in. Speaking up for what you believe in does not necessarily mean that you are going to be attracting a whole host of terrible consequences. If there is one thing I have learnt, it is that the Government does listen. Of course, sometimes they can listen a little harder, but they do listen, and they do take on board suggestions and comments. In fact, so much has happened since the last election in terms of taking on board feedback, that it almost feels like a different world. You think about it - 5-day work week, civil service benefits for women, removal of the quota for female medical students. So many of the suggestions that were put forward in the Remaking Singapore Committee Report have been taken on board as well as those on the ERC.

So there is nothing wrong with speaking up. The only restriction, if you like, is that what you say should not injure others. The right to free speech does not

Column: 309

give you the right to harm or hurt others by your words. It does not give you the right to say things which are untrue, but there is no reason why a person cannot stand up with sincerity to say what they believe in and, as I have learnt, that is taken on board. It may not be the case that everybody's wishes can be acceded to, but if it can and it is reasonable and practical, I have seen that it is taken on board.

Moving on the fourth reflection, I think that we could do with better integrated infrastructure planning. The relevant agencies like HDB and LTA do very well on their own. But after a while as an MP, I realise that they could probably do better if they talked to one another a little bit more about certain things. I will just give Members an example. I look after the Strathmore estate area which is along Alexandra Road as well as Blocks 5 and 6 at Farrer Road. And in both these cases, the roads outside these blocks have now been expanded to become semi-expressways, which means that traffic is moving along at a very fast pace. But in these blocks, I have old residents and they want to get across the road.

The traffic lights are quite far away because these are semi-expressways. I wrote to LTA and said, "Please, can we have a traffic light?" LTA replied, "No, because it is a semi-expressway. But you have a pedestrian bridge." And I said, "But my residents have hip problems, leg problems, bone problems. It is difficult for them to get up the pedestrian bridge."

When it comes to infrastructure planning, I think that it would be helpful if HDB and LTA take into account the demographics and consider the fact that there are elderly, for example, and try to make provision for them at the outset. Because when you try at a later stage, now for example, to do an underground pathway, it is very expensive and very difficult and the cost is not easily justifiable. But as and when estates are

Column: 310

built, I think this is something that should be factored in right at the beginning and agencies should talk to one another to see how we can give Singaporeans a better infrastructure.

The fifth reflection I have is on the disabled. In his Address, the President did highlight that Singapore should be an inclusive society and that we should look after the needs of all, including integrating the disabled. I think that much is done for the disabled but we could certainly do more to integrate them into society. At the moment, there is, for example, no special school for the physically disabled. I understand that in some other countries, there are. This may help if we have one to prepare them for working life, and to prepare them to integrate later on into society as a whole. I would urge the Government to look into more ways in which we can see how the disabled can be made self-reliant and economically independent, because that has much to do with their self-esteem and making them feel part of and integrated into society as a whole.

My sixth reflection is that we do very well when it comes to broad policies on the economy. But I think there is a need for greater flexibility and creativity when it comes to creating jobs for lower skilled, older people. In his Address, the President spoke of nurturing growth areas such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, financial and professional services. I have no quarrel with that at all, which I think is an excellent direction. However, we must not forget that there is a group of those who will not benefit from these growth areas, and these are the low skilled, non-English speaking elderly. And, here, I echo the call of some of the other MPs who have spoken about helping the elderly. I will just give you an example. I have a resident. He speaks only Hokkien. He uses crutches and he wanted a licence to be a newspaper vendor. So he came to see me at my meet-the-people session.

Column: 311

And I then wrote to NEA for a newspaper licence for him. The reason why he asked me to write was because he had tried to sell newspapers and was given a summons. So I wrote to NEA and asked for a licence. NEA's response was they had stopped issuing licences since the 1970s. And I was wondering, if they had stopped issuing licences, then why are they issuing summonses? So it did not seem right somehow. I then decided to refer the matter to the Zero In Process (ZIP) at the Prime Minister's Office. I am quite a good customer of the ZIP at PMO because I refer all these things to them. They then wrote to MTI and asked MTI to liaise with NEA to get this newspaper licence for my resident.

I could not believe that this man who is disabled and wants to work, he does not want welfare, he wants to be independent, and he just wants a licence to do that, and I have to invoke the PMO, the Ministry of Trade and Industry as well as the Ministry of the Environment in order to get him that licence. I still have not heard from them by the way. I am not sure what the reasons are for not wanting to issue new licences for newspaper vending. But that is a very suitable job for some of the elderly, especially those who are not very ambulant. With a stroke of the pen, you could create several jobs straightaway. So I think that there is certainly some room for agencies to look into allowing the elderly to do this kind of job and that can be done just by issuing a licence to allow them to do so. If the concern is that there is some untidiness and you want everything to be pristine and clean, then my response is that if I had to choose between some untidiness on the one hand and the dignity of the individual and his ability to be self-reliant on the other, then I choose the latter. I choose that over the untidiness because the untidiness I can live with, but seeing

Column: 312

somebody who wants to work, willing to work but cannot do so, that is very painful to see. So I would urge the Government agencies to be more flexible in that area.

My last and seventh reflection is the need for lifelong learning. I never really thought about this before becoming an MP. But having become one and seen people lose their jobs in their thirties and their forties and the need to retrain because those jobs have gone away, I have realised the deep and urgent need for us to have a mindset that when you start work, the job that you start with will not necessarily be the job that you end with, and that along the way you may have to change jobs not once or twice but several times. That needs a certain mindset of not being afraid to make a change, because people do not like change as a general rule. I know that for myself. But I think that going forward, Singapore standing where it is, on the cusp of a new future, is really going to have to make that mindset change and to internalise it so that going forward, we would not be afraid of the vicissitudes of life that we may face and that we can face the future as a strong, integrated and harmonious nation.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to thank the President for addressing the Government's policies and priorities for the nation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many issues have been addressed by my fellow MPs. They include the economy and measures to deal with structural unemployment and less skilled older workers. The plight of small and medium enterprises and problems encountered by budding entrepreneurs were eloquently articulated by Mr Inderjit Singh. Then there was the question of security and how the tsunamis have brought home the importance of emergency preparedness and the ability to respond to disaster at

Column: 313

national and regional levels. Also, choices in education and career, the need to balance the needs of the young and old, assurance to the old that they are not forgotten, assistance to low income families, and encouraging self-reliance and independence were some of the issues touched on.

Today, I want to highlight a group of Singaporeans whose lifestyle is far from the first world's lifestyle enjoyed by many Singaporeans. My colleague, Mr Wee Siew Kim, told this House about a mother who had no money to register the birth of her child and a man who had no money to buy spectacles to help him pass his driving test. Mr Speaker, Sir, 30 years ago we had stand-pipes for water supply. Then, Singaporeans rejoiced when they moved to HDB flats because they had water flowing from their taps. Yet it is ironical today that some HDB families have taps that only drip water. As far as lighting and reading are concerned, Singaporeans had kerosene lamps and pressure lamps some 30 years ago. But today in this modern age, some Singapore HDB families have to live in darkness. Why? Their power supply and water supply have been cut off all because of non-payment of their Singapore Power bills. In this day and age of Singapore, being in the first world league, I feel embarrassed that some Singaporean families are living in darkness and with a dripping tap for their water supply.

I notice this happened only quite recently, about four years ago. Before that, at the meet-the-people session, I hardly remember Singaporeans living in darkness. How did this happen, I asked myself. The progress we have made has resulted in the cost of living going up not in tandem with the earned income, which I must admit has also gone up marginally. Disposable income of these breadwinners cannot meet the demands of daily living, and with little increases here and there - transport, school expenses, food, medical

Column: 314

cost, licence fees, conservancy charges - all have added up to the family's budget cost and left many of these breadwinners with practically nothing left at the end of the month. Many MPs have highlighted these people's woes - Amy Khor, Wee Siew Kim, Ang Mong Seng, Heng Chee How, to name a few.

Who are these people? They are generally retrenched workers with little prospect of other jobs. They lost their jobs during the past turbulent years of the Asian financial crisis, the SARS attack and the changed economic structure in the job market. Most of them belong to our Malay community, although the Chinese and Indians are not spared. The large number of Malays coming to my MPS in such dire straits is indeed very worrying. Their problem is our problem. It is not a Malay problem. If you look at their profile, these people have low education, low salaries, have more than three children, and they come from dysfunctional family background. Some are in the drug rehabilitation centres, some lost their jobs, some in between jobs, and they have a stack of bills (including Singapore Power bills, conservancy bills, medical and school bills) to pay.

What will happen to them? Singapore Power or the Town Council will haul them to court. They go to jail because they cannot pay. They come out again, and they face the same problem. What will happen to their family is even more worrying. Like Mr Heng Chee How said, and I quote him: "The financial situation affects the mood at home and demoralises the children in their studies." I personally know of one child who was so embarrassed to go to school because she had no money to pay for some fees. Also, I had to help some of the students who came to me because they could not afford to pay their 'O' level examination fees. I could highlight more, but we must find answers.

Column: 315

At our MPS, I am sure MPs here must have helped to pay some of the Singapore Power bills or some of the school fees. We gave them NTUC food vouchers and we sought CDC's assistance for job placement

and many a time, however, they move on one full cycle, coming back to our MPS because they really cannot pay as they cannot find a job.

This is one challenge that this Government must face: how to improve the lot of Singaporeans, especially our Malay community? Education, no doubt, is the best answer. And the PSLE results testify that the Malays are doing better each year. This is a good sign, but improving their education must mean better opportunities at the workplace. Job discrimination, whether we like it or not, is present among some Singaporean employers. And those employers who discriminate against our Malays are not wise because they jeopardise our nation building. On the other hand, Malays must take full advantage of our education system or they will not have access to better jobs.

Coming to the unpaid bills, what is the solution? In the beginning of last year, water and electricity were completely cut off for those who could not pay. After much protests, the taps were allowed to drip. But the power was cut off if the demand payment is not met. Even a payment of less than the demand payment is not sufficient for them to have their water and power cut off. And this was also despite the appeals by Members of Parliament. So what has happened to such families? They moved on to stay with friends and some of them would have even approached me to see whether they could use the water at the void deck for their washing. And I had to make a decision. Of course, I cannot allow it because this would set a lot of precedence. I asked myself, "Is this the

Column:316

result of corporatisation of our utilities? Or are there some deep-seated problems of structural unemployment?" And I want to believe it is due to both. Somehow, I sense a distance between the Government agencies, statutory boards and those working at the ground. Because these agencies are corporatised, they have become more profit-oriented and forgot they have a corporate social responsibility. And the Government does not look like it is asserting on them to do so.

Recently, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must have read in December 2004 about Temasek buying HDB Corp. We, at the ground, are worried that with change of ownership, would we continue to enjoy the close association which we have with HDB in the past? HDB Corp is assigned HDB's design and development projects. Will this affect our future upgrading programmes? Or even HDB name will not be retained? Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry I digress from SP to HDB, but it was to bring home a worry of corporatisation and its impact on the ground.

Coming back to the problem of structural unemployment facing this group of Singaporeans, I find the answer to this is so basic - find them jobs with a reasonable income to meet their daily family needs. Mr Lim Boon Heng, Secretary-General of NTUC, has told us that he needs to job match 10,000 out-of-work Singaporeans this year. Last year, it was 16,000 and it was not an improvement. But still, there are 10,000 out-of-work Singaporeans for NTUC to job match. This foreign direct investment that we bring in would not be of much help to this group of people. It is beyond them. I see the jobs they need are taken up by foreign workers. So we must do something to get these jobs back. I am not against foreign workers coming here. I think some of you know my stand on foreign workers and foreign talents. But

Column: 317

we need to get these jobs back for Singaporeans.

I notice NTUC has come out with an agenda to attract Singaporeans take up these jobs. Mr Lim Boon Heng suggested redesigning jobs, to make lower paying jobs more attractive, and some of the examples he gave are horticulture, construction, hospitality - to improve productivity, pay and better image, improve service standards by being more customer-centric to emphasising service excellence, to help business grow and improve job security and, lastly, job matching. But I find that job matching must go with training. Because some of the residents who have got jobs find it difficult to do these new jobs. So somehow or rather, the programmes must be integrated, you cannot divorce them. So I hope Mr Lim Boon Heng and NTUC unionists would look into this. We will give them any assistance if they want it.

In spite of these attempts to attract Singaporeans to these foreign workers' jobs, I think jobs for this group are hard to come by because of age and poor education, lack of motivation for some and, of course, lack of training. What did the Government do? The Government has instituted some interim measures to help these people like, for example, Rent and Utilities Assistance Scheme and Interim Financial Scheme to help this group. But these schemes would be replaced later at end 31st this month by a better scheme. This is called the Self-Reliance Programme Scheme and this would provide needy families, who are unable to work or support themselves, assistance to cover rent, utilities, conservancy charges, medical coverage for selected family members, children's education or cash allowance for three to five months.

But a more practical solution must be found. Let me suggest one. Most of these people own flats. But they are trapped because they have to make

Column: 318

repayment for their property and, yet, they are out of job and cannot pay. So to help them get out of this trap, I am asking HDB to consider buying back their flats. Yes, HDB should buy back their flats at the market price and let these people rent back the flat. So HDB buys back and rents the flats to them at subsidised rate. The money from the sale of the flat must be monitored carefully and allow it only to be used to offset outstanding bills - utility bills, medical, school fees and, of course, the rental of the flats. This is to give them a breather and a fresh start while waiting for a proper job.

I know this may sound crazy to HDB, and I am sure they are going to come after me for this. But what else can these people do? I leave this for HDB to consider. It is a desperate move to get these people out of the poverty trap using the last asset they have, the HDB flat. Of course, HDB can have rules and regulations to ensure there is no abuse. There is a possibility of abuse for such a scheme. Everybody who cannot make it would want to sell the flat back to HDB. But I am not proposing that everybody in that type of situation would have to sell back the flat to HDB. We must be very careful. We have to isolate this group and then we can see whether we can make this move and let them have, as I said, some fresh start.

While the economy has improved and layoffs have declined, now workers remain concerned about job and income security. Let me illustrate this by a simple example. A patient of mine in the early 30s saw me for insomnia, ie, cannot sleep. After a careful history taking, I found out that she had this nagging fear of not being able to service her future housing loans and other commitments. For a young girl, 30 years old, worrying about this, I am also worried. Her job, she said, is not certain and so is her income. She works in an accounting firm. Her future husband shares similar

Column: 319

concerns. I advised her to set her sight lower and not to buy a big flat. She said, "No, I am not looking for a big flat, just a small flat." I am not sure how many more couples are in such a similar state.

In the past, I remember young couples were very confident. Just before they got married, they went to HDB and registered to buy a flat, and they seemed not to worry about not being able to pay for those flats. Somehow or rather, there is this confidence that the job and income security is there which, I fear, is not present now in this current job market. I think, today, the situation has changed. As I have said, there is uncertainty of job and income security has changed all that.

Lastly, the pace of change is too fast for some Singaporeans who seem resigned to this. But we must help them to pull them along, if we want to be a strong nation.

I support the motion.

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

In outlining the Government's programme for the future, the President highlighted security as the bedrock on which the prosperity of Singapore is based. Our people, investors and visitors have always recognised Singapore as a safe place to live, work and visit. This state of relative safety did not come about easily and effortlessly.

We have invested time, money and great amounts of our people's sweat in providing this comfort. We have in place a good Total Defence framework and it is continuously tested to keep our people alert and ready.

Sir, I think if one looks at security, there are three key pillars that underlie our

Column: 320

security. One is domestic security; two is external security; and third, buoyed by good international diplomacy. Let me first take home front security. The Home Team has worked hard to check crime; maintain security at our checkpoints; prepare against unconventional threats of chemical and biological agents. We have identified and shut down terrorist networks; hardened potential targets; cooperated with other countries to share intelligence and, more importantly, prepare our people for possible repercussions when we are unfortunately hit. These are remarkable measures and come with some concerns too. Issues, such as invasion of privacy, inconvenience and added costs come to mind. I do hope our agencies within MHA address their minds to how to manage these concerns within the parameters of the law and put in place certain safeguards that assure the people that these safeguards are in place and that cost and time can also be saved.

Sir, I also hope that our agencies will continue to invest in more technology to reduce time and cost and, also, effectively check bags, cars and people to expedite the easy and fast movement of people and goods.

Together with the National Security Coordination Secretariat (NSCS) and the Home Team, we have in place a new national security strategy that will make it hard for terrorists and other elements to disrupt the peace and quiet of our nation. We must continue to engage the public to win the battle of the mind and check the threat.

Secondly, Sir, an external defence force. I am confident that the SAF will continue to provide a credible deterrence and effective defence. As it continues to enhance its capabilities and transform itself into a 3G SAF, it is always ready and is respected as a world-class credible military force. I know that the SAF never compromises on training standards and equipping our soldiers with the best outfit. Our effort in regular training bears fruit

Column: 321

when our NS soldiers switch from their civilian clothing into military gear on quick mobilisation and merge into their duties seamlessly, yet with dedication. I have visited our soldiers on many occasions, both local and overseas. It is tough training, but they know it is a sacrifice they make for the nation. They take their training seriously and they know why we need to be operationally ready. They respond to mobilisation exercises at speed and in excellent numbers. East Timor or Iraq, they are there for a purpose, to maintain peace and security. Their response in crisis to help fellow human beings in Aceh was quick, well coordinated, and done with respect to local culture.

Our international military diplomacy and regular ties with other forces are valuable and continue to help build trust and understanding among our neighbouring military forces and ours. In Aceh, we had officers who could speak the language, understood local cultures, and build on the friendship with commanders and soldiers of the TNI. I heard kind but honest words of praise from both the TNI and Indonesian politicians for our SAF and Home Team officers. In fact, Sir, at the US Senate hearing yesterday, the possible incoming Secretary of State, Ms Condoleezza Rice, commented that she is going to pay great attention to understanding the cultures of other countries, and to get its officers to speak their language in order to promote this understanding. I am very happy that we have already been doing this for many years, and successfully, and that it is bearing fruit at the right time.

Our soldiers have built on their strong reputation and earned themselves deservedly a good pat on the back. To all our men who are deployed overseas, I say, "Thank you and keep up the good work." We in Parliament are always behind our men and care for their safety and safe return. Despite the peace and

Column: 322

serenity in the region, our SAF must be vigilant and continue to maintain our readiness and be well equipped for any eventuality. Of this, I am confident. With the people behind and within our SAF, well thought out security policies, good equipment and systems, good commanders and good men, friendly diplomacy and cooperation with all, we can continue with our daily lives with the comfort and knowledge that the SAF and the Home Team are there for any eventuality.

The third pillar, Sir, is international diplomacy. Our international diplomacy is a key cornerstone of our success as a nation. Though small, we are well respected, our views are taken seriously, and we have helped others formulate their Asian and South East Asian policies. I am glad to see Singapore play an important role in the comity of nations. We have played a crystalising role in many international and regional organisations, and also in ad-hoc regional conferences like the one in Jakarta recently.

Sir, I am happy that ASEAN will continue to be the focus of this Government. It is vital that ASEAN countries and ASEAN itself continue the rejuvenation and work as a regional bloc to keep the region one of peace and prosperity. I am confident that our good ties with the present Malaysian and Indonesian governments will be enhanced and strengthened to benefit all.

Recent developments in our relations with Malaysia point to a sense of optimism and hope that all outstanding issues can be resolved, if there is resolve and an appreciation of the need for mutual benefit and mutual respect.

The new government in Indonesia needs the support and encouragement of all its neighbours. Recent visits by our leaders to Indonesia, our fast assistance in Aceh, and our businessmen's presence at

Column: 323

the recent Infrastructure Summit in Jakarta are important signals to Indonesia that we want Indonesia to regain its place and importance in Southeast Asia and the world. We must cooperate with the government and the people of Indonesia to help in many areas where we have the expertise, and assist when such requests are made. We must signal to the international community that Singapore and Indonesia, through the various joint economic activities, are an attractive place to invest, tour and work.

I am also encouraged by the Government's steps to boost relations with the Middle East through the Asia Middle East Dialogue (AMED) process. Just like ASEM and APEC, I am confident that this will certainly enhance the regional engagement process of which we are very supportive of. The process of engaging the Middle East is important not only for economic reasons but also to create a greater awareness and understanding between the people of Asia and the Middle East. This is vital at a time when there are sceptics predicting an East-West cultural divide and a clash of civilisations.

Last week, the National Intelligence Council, the CIA's think tank, released a report outlining the world for the US in 2020. It recognised that the US will have to share global domination with a rising China and India. It stated that the likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as new global major powers, eg, as that of a united Germany in the 19th century and a powerful United States in the 21st century, will be part of a new geo-political landscape in 2020. By 2020, China's economy will exceed all others, except the US. India's economy is likely to overtake Europe's.

We must strengthen our good ties with these two emerging superpowers in

Column: 324

a way to bring about their greater engagement as part of a greater Asian community, and yet within the norms of mutual respect and mutual benefit. We must play a role to help define a new regional security and order which is consistent with our national interest, international law and the UN Charter. We must continue to engage them in all spheres to bring about peace, stability and progress to us and the region.

I am also happy to see the Government supporting the reform of the United Nations and its playing a greater role in world affairs. The recent Report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has recommended a change in the composition of the UN Security Council. We must find a greater and also a permanent role for more Asian and African nations in the Security Council in the 21st century. We must work within the parameters of international law and norms to bring peace, security and prosperity to the global community. As a small nation, it is in our interest to strengthen the UN and adhere to international law, conventions and norms, not only by us, but by all in the international community.

Sir, we in Asia will be the centre of this century's prosperity. We can look forward to a glorious time ahead. With a strong Government, well educated and supportive Singaporeans, a safe and secure environment, good policies and great diplomacy, we can certainly bring Singapore to greater prosperity and also provide a good life for all.

On that note, I support the policies and programme of this Government.

Dr Warren Lee (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for letting me join in the debate. I rise in support of the motion to thank the President for his Address to Parliament, and I would like to

Column: 325

shift the focus towards social and local issues. I would like to focus on three areas.

Firstly, I think that the Government may need to look into potential effects of the 5-day week and single session schools on our school-going population. Children now go to school early in the morning, often rising before 6.00 am, to get to school by 7.20 am or even earlier. They then spend the whole day in school, typically consuming a recess meal in mid-morning, and then another afternoon break meal before going on to often remedial classes and CCA programmes. Many children only reach home at 5.00, 6.00 or 7.00 pm even though school officially ends between 1.00 pm and 3.00 pm. So, after maybe 10 to 12 hours of school, children reach home tired, with homework to complete, and they have little energy left to interact with their parents and their siblings. They have had two or more meals in school, if they could afford them, and have only the evening meal at home with their parents to serve the purpose of generating interaction between parent and child, and between siblings, and also to eat a balanced diet.

However, many parents work long hours, and the family may not cook at home but habitually eat out, either singly or as a family. In some families where the breadwinner is on shift work, families do not even eat together, except on rare occasions. Yes, the 5-day week is supposed to free up time for the family to interact together on weekends. But the reality is that not all can afford the luxury of a 5-day week while some parents are coming home later every day during a 5-day week, since the employers have agreed to implement the 5-day week with the proviso that working hours during the week must go up. Even as some of these parents may be working on Saturdays, students may not be able to spend their time learning social and physical skills at CCA, if the schools are closed. Instead,

Column: 326

some may hang out at shopping centres or stay at home playing computer games.

So, we need to examine how we are implementing this 5-day week. Are we simply cramming six days of curriculum and work into five days, or have we actually caught the true spirit of having a 5-day week, which is to work in such a way that there is a better balance between work, rest and play, between office time and family time? As one parent asked me plaintively in my doctor's office, "I know we are all supposed to be better off with a 5-day week. But is it the Government's intention to give me back a zombie at the end of the day?" I had no easy answer for her.

Some cope better than others, and I know we are in the early days yet of adapting to these new schedules. Yet, we must ask ourselves these questions: If kids are only eating one meal or less at home, can we ensure that tuckshop meals will produce healthy kids? Should we move into common school lunches? How can we ensure better family bonding under these circumstances? I have heard of parents complaining because schools have stopped certain sports or UYO programmes, because they just cannot find enough time and resource to schedule these things in during the week. If schools have difficulty finding time to conduct CCAs during the five days of the week, do we need to relook how we can incorporate PE and sports training into the curriculum? Otherwise, our hope that children will take up healthy lifestyles would be just that - a hope - even as we train them from young to accept a hectic lifestyle with little time for rest and reflection.

The Minister for Education, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, has emphasised that he wanted our children to study less and learn more. I heartily agree with the sentiments. I hope that the relevant agencies will look into this so that our

Column: 327

children do not suffer unintended consequences of an admirable policy shift.

Secondly, I would like to make a comment about singles, since I was a single once myself. In the MCYS' Addendum to the President's Address - in fact, in the whole document - it seems that the only mention of singles would be where we are trying to find them mates, get married and start a family. Much as I understand that we are encouraging the formation of families, we have to realise that the number of singles is increasing. Many singles do not choose to be single but are so by circumstance, and do want to belong or be part of a family. In fact, every single is part of a family too, and singles often do have dependent parents and siblings. I hope that the Government will also look into how singles can be helped to age gracefully, especially for those who do not have the support of extended families. We can and should do more for the singles as a group now, in terms of housing options and care options, and look to the day when we may need to find solutions for housing and caring for larger numbers of either never-married, widowed or divorced individuals.

Thirdly, I want to look towards healthcare. I look

forward to the changes that Minister Khaw Boon Wan has alluded to in his Addendum to the President's Speech. I support Mdm Halimah's contention that the basic MediShield plan be made compulsory. Help with MediShield premiums is easier to deal with than help with medical bills once they arrive. Dr Chong Weng Chiew suggested the provision of services to the house-bound elderly. Again, I agree. I am heartened to read that the Ministry of Health will be implementing more quality care, benchmarking and disease management programmes to further improve the delivery of services.

Column: 328

All this is very good for those who actually do show up at our hospitals and polyclinics, or who are known to these service providers. As a doctor MP, I have noticed that several elderly residents with chronic conditions have actually given up their medication and doctor visits because they have difficulties paying for transport to the clinic, let alone the fees and the charges. I hope we can find a way to help these people and fully utilise the skills and resources of our family practitioners to help the Government provide accessible and affordable healthcare to those of our people who cannot even afford to pay the already low polyclinic fees.

I support the idea that VWOs could work with MOH and grassroots organisations to bring certain services to those with limited mobility. Befriender services, rehabilitation in the home, home-care skills education and comprehensive screenings at RC centres and community centres are some of the ways in which this could be done.

I also congratulate MOH for taking the initiative to have chronic care partnership programmes, linking GPs and the elderly poor. But I think the take-up rate is not as much as we would like. What then prevents our GPs from doing more? Many GPs do know what to do, but feel they cannot do what they want to do for the patient because they feel that the patient cannot afford the charges. If GPs are allowed to have these scripts for chronic medications filled at Government clinics, they may have more leeway to prescribe what they know should be prescribed. This should not be a carte blanche right but perhaps be limited to a short list of drugs which, by common consensus, are cost-effective at the population level and on disease management principles.

There may be a view that the private sector should not be subsidised by the

Column: 329

public sector and there was recent furore in the newspapers over whether GPs should be allowed to dispense medication at all. However, I think some people have missed the point that there are far more GPs in pharmacies and that if half the middle age and elderly have chronic conditions like hypertension and hyperdelimia, and a third of the elderly have diabetes, it makes a lot more sense for the ubiquitous private GPs in the HDB blocks to be a primary provider of Government-subsidised medical care for these chronic conditions and a shared care model, rather than depending on the elderly with limited mobility to travel to the two dozen or more polyclinics. If nothing else, they may save on taxi fares.

Let us ask ourselves: what is the desired outcome? If greater healthcare at lower cost is the desired outcome, then perhaps we should not worry so much about who or where the subsidy is coming from, if it can reduce the burden of complications and hence, the total healthcare bill for the nation.

Some of us actually need hospitalisation as well, and because of this, I would like to touch on the question of universal coverage with MediShield and universal coverage of children born with birth complications and birth defects, people with congenitally acquired medical problems and those with a pre-existing illness at the time of application for medical insurance. The ultimate insurer in any country is the Government in ensuring that the healthcare system has good infrastructure and is run properly. In that regard, I am quietly confident that the Ministry of Health and the clusters will lead the way with these management programmes and quality control measures. But we know that modern healthcare is intrinsically expensive because much of it involves paying not just for service, but for intellectual property rights whenever we use a newer and better treatment or product to give better care. And

Column: 330

treatments are available now which, in the past, were not available and one would have just waited for death to supervene.

The other problem is that, if you have pneumonia or appendicitis today, it is not like servicing a car which can be put off till next month if you are a little short of cash this month. Sir, if we want good affordable healthcare, we need to remember we want it cheap, good and fast, you usually have to choose something somewhere. To quote our Prime Minister, " yang mao zhang zai yang shen shang ", which means, the wool will only grow on the sheep.

In trying to be a centre of excellence for the region, we cannot expect our own people to be content with out-of-date healthcare and we cannot pretend that it is all going to be paid for by our fairy godmother. For most of us, the $30,000 in our Medisave accounts will be barely enough if a catastrophic illness strikes. Fortunately, not everyone will need to make use of this money and for most of us, not till our old age. Therefore, we all need our employee health benefits and some elements of health insurance because sometimes we might need this money.

MediShield currently covers only 40% of our hospital bills. This leaves Singaporeans to pick up the rest through their own pockets or through private health insurance. What really happens is that some people with pre-existing health problems that will be insurable in other jurisdictions may find themselves uninsurable in Singapore. These include, as I have mentioned, babies born with congenital defects and those with birth complications. They include people whose risk over a lifetime, or even in the short-term, is not that high, in relative terms and perhaps certainly not higher than somebody who is a heavy smoker or heavy drinker who happens to have

Column: 331

bought his health insurance because he was not born with a "congenital" problem.

This is a serious business because now that the Government is moving us away from providing full employer-paid healthcare benefits towards employer-paid healthcare insurance, the issue of who can and cannot find insurance cover is a very important thing. It will mean that the people who most need help may not be able to get help. It will mean if he or she has no means of paying, Medifund or some other Government mechanism will need to pay. But Medifund only pays in severe hardships.

Health insurance is meant to moderate the cost of healthcare over time. In the same way, that if all of us, who have a driving licence, were asked to set aside $50,000 just in case we need to pay the other driver if we cause an accident, not many of us could drive, let alone own a car. So health insurance happens to smooth this out as a cost of doing business and as a cost of living life.

We understand that insurance is a business proposition. The idea is to pool-risk and not take on the manifestly uninsurable risks. But if we see insurance as a public good as well as a business proposition, the balance must surely be tilted in favour of ensuring that everyone has a fair goal and that everyone has to bear a fair share of the risk burden. And while we want to make the MediShield umbrella a good umbrella, we cannot let the pool be depleted by making MediShield pay for lots of small bills. We cannot have it cheap and we cannot have it comprehensive at the same time.

We have to educate people to understand that $10 or $20 a month for MediShield is not too much to pay for ensuring that they will get good

Column: 332

catastrophic health insurance and that they will need to continue to buy affordable healthcare insurance for themselves for non-catastrophic illnesses. However, we must ensure that everyone, whether he or she has a pre-existing illness, will be able to buy health insurance at an affordable price with reasonable coverage and at a reasonable deal.

I am told that insurance companies covering medical insurance in Singapore have it good that there are 15 or 16 on the market. There is currently no law insuring universal coverage. So the company is able to cherry-pick only the healthy individuals, and as the Minister has said, they further fragment the MediShield risk pool. I favour regulations to prevent this situation from continuing further. But how do we also, at the same time, prevent the buffet syndrome in healthcare? I agree with the Minister's comparison with car insurance. Third party cover is cheap if you are driving a car, but the insurer is potentially liable for huge sums if you cause major injury and losses to third parties. However, you do not get covered for anything that happens to your own car. So you drive very carefully and you will be careful not to knock your own car. And because of that, you are also not likely to knock at other people.

Comprehensive cover will cover you for a dent in your car. But they will make sure that you lose the no-claim bonus, an excess amount which you have to pay first. They make it such that if you have a small dent in your car, you are better off paying for the repairs yourself. But if you wreck your car around the lamp-post, then you will be glad that you paid for the comprehensive cover.

If we take that sort of lessons to what we think should be good for health insurance, we should then have a system where MediShield Plus or private

Column: 333

insurance should be the primary source of payment for the first tranche or the first 20-30% of a "C" class bill or "B2" class bill and maybe 40-60% of a paying class bill. There should be a co-payment in this first tranche, so that even with the "C" class bill, there will be sufficient co-payment component to make sure that people think twice before frivolously over-consuming healthcare. But then we could always waive co-payment if there is really a chronic illness that cannot be helped.

MediShield, as an universal coverage, could then provide coverage but only pay for the higher amounts, say, 70-80% of a "C" class bill beyond the first amount and maybe 50-60% of a "B" or "A" class bill, past a certain fixed amount. I feel that MediShield could be tweaked to pay for a higher proportion of big bills and a lower proportion of smaller bills so that it fulfils the function of taking away the burden of catastrophic claims from insurance companies and individuals, while making it a viable proposition for companies to make sure that more people are being covered.

We need to have a system where healthcare insurance cannot be rejected without good cause and that the exclusion clauses are fair to both the consumer and the industry and not, as currently is often the case, rather one-sided. Deciding what proportion of large medical bills should be left to private pockets or insurers or MediShield is best left to the experts. But I hope that the Government will be mindful that one reason why we have smaller families now may be that in the planning for children, the provision of adequate reserves for future healthcare needs must surely be in the minds of our potential parents, especially those who have to care for three-generation households. Any move to ease their fears and burden will be most welcomed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Column:334

The Minister for Defence (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank the many Members for their words of support and encouragement for the work of the men and women of the SAF, the SCDF and the Police Force in the aftermath of the tsunamis.

Their work has been part of Singapore's efforts to bring relief to the victims of the tsunamis. The outpouring of compassion and generosity from Singaporeans was truly unprecedented. This was a demonstration of a strong and caring Singapore spirit.

For the SAF, this was the largest operational deployment we have ever undertaken. More than 1,200 SAF personnel were deployed to Phuket and Thailand and to three locations in Indonesia - Medan, Banda Aceh and Meulaboh. RSAF aircraft also flew supply and support missions between Jakarta, Singapore and Aceh, and around the Indian Ocean rim to Phuket, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Mauritius.

Apart from those deployed to the disaster-stricken areas, there were many more SAF servicemen and women, technology and support personnel in Mindef and our industry partners, who also worked very hard, often around the clock, to get the aircraft, ships, equipment and men ready to go at short notice, and to support our men and women in the field. Our Operationally Ready National Servicemen and volunteers, and our civil resource partners were also called upon, along with our regular servicemen and full-time national servicemen in our units.

The SAF responded swiftly within hours, planning, preparing and putting together an effective combination of

Column: 335

forces, supplies and equipment over the Christmas/New Year week to form our humanitarian assistance support group. This group carried out its urgent mission with initiative and tenacity and with compassion and sensitivity. They brought critically needed medical care, food, water and other essential supplies to tens of thousands of people who had been completely cut off by the terrible destruction, particularly in Aceh.

Over the last three weeks, SAF Chinook and Super Puma helicopters, and C1-30 and F-50 aircraft flew some 250 missions, carrying more than one million pounds of cargo and 4,000 people. They carried water and food to isolated survivors

and transported a mobile control tower to Banda Aceh. Our medical teams treated 4,000 people in Banda Aceh and Meulaboh. Whether it was a quiet word of comfort, in Bahasa Indonesia , or flying the Secretary General of the United Nations around the Indian Ocean rim, our people displayed commitment, compassion and competence.

As Colonel Geerhan Lantara, the TNI Commander in Meulaboh, said, "When your people arrived, it lifted our spirits. We knew that we were no longer alone."

The SAF was able to respond swiftly and carried out its mission effectively because it had, over the years, developed a flexible set of capabilities and trained its people to respond to unexpected circumstances. The SAF was also able to provide useful and effective relief assistance because it coordinated its work closely with its counterparts in the Indonesian Armed Forces - the Tentera Nasional Indonesia or TNI. We could have this close coordination because both the TNI and SAF have invested in building a close relationship over a period of some 30 years. Through our extensive

Column: 336

interactions and cooperation in exercises, personnel exchanges and attending each other's training courses, the TNI and SAF officers developed mutual respect and understanding, and got to know one another well. These people-to-people relationships, developed over many years, made it possible for the SAF to carry out our humanitarian missions smoothly and in a way that was useful for the relief operations.

In the same way, cooperation in relief work with our friends in Thailand proceeded smoothly also because we had built up close working relations with the Royal Thai Armed Forces over many decades.

In the coming years, the SAF will be developing into a more capable and flexible force. The 3G SAF will be able to respond to a wider spectrum of threats and challenges and to respond, even more swiftly and more capably to deal with the unexpected. At the same time, Mindef and the SAF will continue to strengthen our ties with our friends and neighbours, so that we will be able to work closely and smoothly together in overcoming common challenges.

Sir, I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House about the relief situation in Aceh and Singapore's humanitarian assistance plans for the coming weeks.

We have been coordinating very closely with the Indonesian authorities from the very beginning, so that we understand their needs and know how best we could assist them. I have met with, and spoken several times to, Menko Polhukam Widodo and my counterpart Defence Minister Juwono Sudarsono, most recently at the end of last week. Senior SAF commanders have also kept in close touch with their counterparts, both in personal meetings and over the phone.

Column: 337

Sir, the emergency relief phase is drawing to a close. The Indonesian authorities are now transitioning to the next phase of relief operations - the recovery phase. Their priority in this phase is to build 24 centres to house more than 400,000 internally displaced persons who have lost their homes. The assistance that Singapore is providing will, therefore, transit in tandem with the priorities and needs of our Indonesian counterparts. The SAF humanitarian assistance support group, which was designed to assist in the first phase - the emergency relief phase - is completing its mission after some three weeks in Indonesia. They have helped to stabilise the situation and open the way for other relief agencies more suited to the next phase of humanitarian work to come in. They will be redeployed in the coming days back to Singapore.

At the request of Indonesia, Singapore will continue to provide a substantial deployment of three Chinook helicopters to support the critical needs of the Indonesian authorities and the TNI in this recovery phase. The helicopters will remain deployed in Aceh for the next 2-3 weeks, after which we will review the need together with our Indonesian counterparts.

The bulk of Singapore's assistance will now be undertaken by our civilian volunteer groups such as the Singapore Red Cross and Mercy Relief. Last Friday, 60 volunteers sailed with our third helicopter landing ship, RSS Endeavour, and arrived at Meulaboh on Sunday. For the past few days, they have been helping to set up centres for the internally displaced persons and to provide them with the basic necessities to help them to restore some semblance of normalcy to their lives until they can be permanently rehoused.

RSS Endeavour and our Singapore volunteers delivered tents to house

Column: 338

10,000 people, sleeping bags, blankets, food for 500 families for a week and 1,000 school kits for students so that they have the basic stationery to return to school. The Red Cross and Mercy Relief will be taking over the medical services that were being provided by the SAF medical teams in Meulaboh and Banda Aceh. Sir, I applaud the compassion and spirit of volunteerism in our fellow Singaporeans.

Singapore is also committed to helping in the reconstruction efforts in Aceh and in other countries devastated by the tsunamis. As the Indonesian authorities, and authorities in other countries, work out their plans for reconstructions in the coming months, Singapore will work closely with them to see how best we can assist in a meaningful way. I shall be going to Aceh tomorrow to assess the situation and to ensure that the transition process takes place smoothly.

Sir, the response to the destruction wreaked by the tsunamis brought out the best in Singaporeans. The SAF has been privileged to play a part in Singapore's response to this crisis.

Sir, I would also like to thank the Governments, armed forces and people of Indonesia and Thailand for supporting our troops as they go about their humanitarian mission. I was truly inspired by their indomitable spirit and resilience in the face of adversity.

Sir, let me thank hon. Members once again for their kind words of support for the SCDF, SAF and Police Force. I look forward to their continuing support for the objectives and programmes that have been spelt out in my Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Tanjong Pagar): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for noticing me and giving me this chance to speak,

Column: 339

seated as I am now from the rear end. I would like to speak in support of this Motion of Thanks for the President's Address.

The seven priorities that have been outlined in the Address are certainly all that we could subscribe to and, translating this vision into reality, would definitely challenge this present Government.

I think no one could disagree too much with the outlines as set forth. But, as we are constantly reminded, the world is uncertain and many things that we do not expect could often throw us off our guard and, at times, when we least expect.

Various speakers have spoken at length. I would like to just focus on certain areas. If we were to ask the average man in Collyer Quay or Jurong today what his major concerns are, I think not quite a few of them, or most of them, would centre on the state of the economy, job security and training to earn higher income.

While the economy is said to have grown by 8% last year, yet many middle-age men and women with families to support, are in tough straits - having lost jobs or businesses. I hope, while the economy may seem to have turned for the better, creating jobs for Singaporeans, both young and old, ought to be raised as a very high priority issue.

Training and job creation are important corollary features of investing in people. My concern is, if the older workers are to stay active, retire later and provide better for their old age, as mentioned in the President's Address, then they have to be employed longer. The work available must be redesigned, by process, so that the older workers are able to handle them. This could be done by the appropriate use of equipment and funding schemes or

Column: 340

incentives, as have been suggested by previous Members, and this would make changes that are meaningful for business and management to adopt.

People also need to be retrained, and to be constantly retrained, at any age to work with the appropriate equipment to do the job. When we visit European countries, US and Japan, we sometimes wonder why certain jobs get done in the most basic manner - not because these countries are not technologically sophisticated, but they are done. There are two economies - one, a very high technology and sophisticated economy, and another, a very basic and primary service sector economy. This is in the area, for example, of office cleaning. Somebody mentioned about directing school traffic yesterday, or visibly senior citizens at the shop floor or cash counter in the Wal-Mart Supermarts that you see all around in the US. These jobs are there because very conscious effort was made by management, and I suppose also in these countries by communities, organisations, and the authorities, to seek out the resources for the job and, with the appropriate incentives and equipment, to be done at the right economic price. These businesses and authorities have incorporated a social role in their scale of value and management.

So while we certainly want to encourage our young to scale greater heights, I think we should also not forget the older ones - whether older workers, entrepreneurs or senior citizens. I am saying older ones, and I am not saying senior citizens or retirees alone. Older Singaporeans are also fit and able and have plenty of experience. The older Singaporeans, I presume people in their 50s - and we are not yet quite an aged society - are understandably today very concerned about their jobs, health and families. They still presently occupy an important group of the economically-active in our economy. They may be

Column: 341

older but they have a wealth of experience and they could still contribute much to the economy as management, workers and decision makers.

More important, a good many of our citizens in this age group today have families to support and a good many of them are dislocated from previous employment or businesses due to difficulties in the last few years. So I think we must reassure them and do our utmost to get them back to the mainstream of economic life.

The second area I would like to address is on the area of healthcare, which the previous speaker, Dr Warren Lee, has so amply covered.

Healthcare is an important concern for our older citizens, and citizens in general. I support the Ministry of Health's intention to review the healthcare industry, comprising its network of hospitals and polyclinics and a wider pool of GP clinics so that primary healthcare could be delivered most efficiently and at lower cost. I agree to a lot of the suggestions and policies as set out in the Ministry of Health's Addendum to the President's Address and I support, in particular, the Health Services Development Programme which aims to pilot this new health services and medical capabilities.

I urge, in this respect, to give some special role, as mentioned, to traditional Chinese medicine, under this new healthcare strategy and direction. I think the area of traditional Chinese medicine may be much misunderstood, but it is an area that we in Singapore should consciously and deliberately develop to incorporate it into our Western medical healthcare treatment system. So I agree with the Ministry of Health's intention to review and standardise practices for primary healthcare providers and streamline operational process to minimise waste and unnecessary visits and tests.

Column: 342

The aged are very concerned about medical costs. So it is reassuring to hear from the President that MediShield and Medifund would help them to lighten the burden. However, the MediShield programme needs to be reviewed to answer more effectively to the needs of the people. Dr Warren Lee has covered quite a bit on the MediShield programme. My main concern is we should not be too exclusive in developing such a MediShield insurance programme. Of course, there would always be attendant risks and premium to be calculated, but for a programme such as MediShield to cover for general catastrophic illnesses or for illnesses of the sickly, we should amply define it broad enough so that sufficient coverage would be given for the ordinary citizens in the course of their life-span.

In working out this most desirable healthcare model for us, we are treading on ambiguous ground, and somehow the examples of the developed countries so far are not necessarily the best one to go by. The Americans spend about three times or more of their GDP on healthcare than Singapore and I do not think that their system of National Healthcare or hospital management is something we should emulate

if we are to contain healthcare cost and to be efficient. We have to come out with our own. And if the Ministry of Health is feeling its ground presently a little bit tentative in this search for redirection, I can understand. But I subscribe broadly with what the Health Ministry is now trying to do. I think it has redrawn the boundary and redefined the scope and limits of the various sub-sectors and players in the healthcare industry.

One important feature in this new healthcare is without doubt a new health insurance scheme, which is long overdue. Medisave and Medifund have to be complemented by a new medical insurance scheme with appropriate

Column: 343

co-payment features that will answer to the needs of the population, a group of which unfortunately suffers from a variety of illnesses at any one time. So this new insurance scheme must cover a wider range of diseases and illnesses which are common to Singaporeans. Such a scheme must answer to the needs of those who are unfortunately ill. It must minimise their financial burden and the burden on their next of kin. In pooling resources, we will better be able to tackle the cost of healthcare more equitably.

The final area I want to cover is on financial planning for Singaporeans. A generation of Singapore workers who were in their 20s and 30s, when they were young during the 60s and 70s, are now in their 60s and 70s. During those times, the wages that they were earning were not high. Most of the savings of this generation of Singaporean workers are now in the form of their HDB flats. Many of them, for example, purchased a 3-room flat for about $6,500 at those times. I am talking about the 60s and possibly in the 70s. For most of these workers or retirees, this is their major asset, which today is worth about $120,000-$150,000.

Sir, I brought this matter up before at various times, and I think several Members of Parliament also brought this up, and it concerns this issue of reverse mortgages. I really believe something can be done and must be done to help these people to liquefy their asset, to enable them to have some annuity income for them, as they only have their HDB flat as their asset. We must recognise this asset profile of our aged and provide some form of financial scheme for them to live off their savings from their fixed assets.

Currently, the desperate ones can sell and rent from somewhere another flat for almost $800-$1,000 a month, as allowed

Column: 344

by HDB if they were to sell their flat and rent another. But, at this rental, the money will disappear in no time. We should come out with a reverse mortgage scheme for certain aged Singaporeans who have paid off their flats and who qualify, say, over the age of 65, so that they can continue to stay in their flats and have a monthly sum of money as income from the annuity. They can supplement this further by renting out a room. This scheme will allow them a home to live in, with an assured income for about 15-20 years as calculated.

A scheme like this must be found because a good portion of our aged people have this asset, and probably this asset alone. But they have little or no income. I have come across many of such cases in my area in Queenstown.

Many of these aged citizens are well past 65 and into their 70s. I am talking about the ordinary prudent aged Singaporeans. With a 15-20 year term, the annuity for a $120,000-$150,000 flat can be quite a few hundred dollars per month. And at the end of term, of course, the flat is transferred. This scheme should, as best as possible, be market financed. But even if some element of social discount is applied, I would even argue that it is reasonable and necessary.

In the same way that the Government was able to finance the Home Ownership Scheme of the HDB flats all through the past 40 years, I am confident the refinancing can be done for this section of the aged who own their flats.

Today, if an aged owner wants to sell his or her HDB flat, he or she cannot rent a HDB flat for 30 months. During this time, he or she has to rent a flat from the market. If the Government frees up this rule, then the person, after selling his flat, can rent from HDB, but this will put pressure on the limited pool of HDB rental

Column: 345

flats, competing with the other needy Singaporeans.

Hence, I urge the Government to work out such a reverse mortgage scheme for the HDB flat owners who have passed a certain age and who own their flats. 85% of the population stay in HDB flats. A small part of the housing stock and private sector wealth can be made liquid for the aged, without disturbing them and allowing them to stay in their flats and without having to move or to downgrade.

The President's Address has set forth the new Government's direction and priorities. It is hard to disagree on the overall priorities. However, I believe that even with these seven priorities, there are certain aspects that are more urgent for policy review.

Sir, I support the motion.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Being the youngest Member here, I ask all hon. Members to bear with me and, of course, all feedback is more than welcome. We are always constantly talking about improving ourselves. So I hope to walk in that direction.

Sir, the President, in his speech, has laid out the groundwork for the Government by giving us a blueprint of its priorities for the year ahead. I do not intend to take a look at all seven pillars that we have been proposed to uphold our society as it moves forward. Instead, I would like to focus on what I see as the cornerstone of the President's Speech - that Singapore must long be a "land of opportunity" for its people and, more importantly, that it would need the participation of all Singaporeans. This is a timely call.

Last August, we witnessed a change in the political leadership. Now, we are

Column: 346

entering into the 40th year of independence for our country. It is a new stage in our development or, as the President put it, "the next phase of our journey". For the past 40 years, the priority, as a small island, has been to ensure our economic viability. In that time, we have made very good economic progress - from third world to first world. Indeed, little Singapore has grown up.

But in striving for a sound economy for our country, let us not forget how crucial it is to forge a nation - one nation of Singaporeans. It seems to me that our sense of nationhood so far has been playing catch-up with the growth of our GDP. Perhaps there can be no better time than now to change that. Sir, I believe it is time for Singapore to seize the moment and take off on that leap from being a country to becoming a nation. In fact, we have already shown many instances of that.

It may not be an easy bar to clear, but let us rely on uplifting beliefs rather than dwelling on thoughts that will weigh us down. We are fortunate to have a relatively small population base. It makes it conducive for us to work together and join hands across our island as one united people. Every contribution will be valuable and important in growing our sense of nationhood, simply because the only way to build a nation that endures is to include everyone in this process. It cannot be achieved through Government-led campaigns or a top-down approach. Singapore needs firmer foundations if it is to be the open and inclusive society that we want it to be.

What then should be the bedrock of our future nation? Sir, I would say that we must plant the seeds of volunteerism among our people in order to help give Singapore the roots it needs as a nation.

There are many reasons why the simple act of volunteering can have a

Column: 347

profound effect on our national identity. At its essence, to volunteer is to take a stake in our society. By reaching out to others, we can strengthen and multiply the bonds that hold our society together. By investing in relationships, we will be able to make a difference to another person's life. It becomes an emotional commitment, and the emotional commitment, I believe, plays a far stronger role in keeping us rooted to Singapore than any physical or material commitments. I, for one, would certainly choose the girls in the homes with whom I have worked over any HDB flat, upgraded or otherwise.

To call Singapore a nation, there must be a sense of belonging - not only to the land itself but, more importantly, to each other. That can only happen when we show that we are conscious of the needs and concerns of those other than ourselves, our families and our ethnic groups, and that their needs and concerns are also important to us. To volunteer is to do just that. To volunteer is to demonstrate enlightened self-interest. In choosing to care for other Singaporeans, we enlarge the pool of our countrymen who will care for us and our families in return. That is when we feel we belong.

One way to strengthen our sense of nationhood through volunteerism is to bring the various ethnic self-help groups together through an integrated volunteer network system. Already, there exists a one-stop career link centre, a joint effort among the self-help groups to help people find jobs. Why not a joint volunteer system? For example, the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre has an e-matching service to meet the needs of both volunteers and various voluntary welfare organisations. We can think of it as the e-speed dating version for volunteerism.

Column: 348

A similar system that bridges the self-help groups could have many benefits. It may be time for these groups to take the next step to set up a combined volunteer and social services database so that less privileged Singaporeans can be helped in a more inclusive way, in a manner that would befit a more inclusive society. I know it is going to be tea-break soon. And being a typical Singaporean, I can just imagine the mouth-watering array of food that would be found at a combined self-help ethnic groups' event!

The potential is there for volunteerism in Singapore to grow. During the tsunami crisis, I must say that I was very fortunate enough to have a first-hand experience of that. I was fortunate to help out with the Red Cross. And if I may speak on behalf of the other volunteers, it was very heart warming to see Singaporeans not just coming forward to give, but many of them were really giving beyond their means. A lot of them came to us and said, "We are really sorry. This is all that I can afford." Children were coming down on behalf of the parents who could not make it to the Red Cross. I think the most heart warming thing for me was to hear that the children insisted that their parents brought them down to give a donation. So I think Singaporeans have really shown that there is this huge compassion that exists within us. Now is the time to tap on, to build, to encourage and to continue with this compassion so clearly found in our society.

Sometimes, the problem is that we may misconstrue what volunteerism or volunteer work means. Let us not be conditioned to think that to volunteer is to sacrifice our time. Let us instead be creative and redefine how we choose to volunteer. The simple act of joining the neighbourhood watch once a month to guard against crime, for example, is an act of volunteerism, because it is an act of taking a stake in our society. If we think of it that way, we will slowly realise

Column: 349

that everybody and anybody can be a volunteer. In particular, doing volunteer work can give a new sense of purpose to elderly Singaporeans who may well find that they have a lot left to offer to the rest of society. I am confident that there are many volunteers like centenarian Teresa Hsu out there.

Unfortunately, the statistics indicate that there is a drop in the percentage of volunteers when they reach their mid-20s. This is when people embark on their careers. Yet, it is when we enter the workforce that we gain many new skills, some of which can be useful in volunteer work. We should strive to build up a culture of corporate philanthropy. Again, the tsunami crisis has shown that companies have both the capacity and compassion to make a difference. Companies can develop volunteer network systems with a little help from other companies who have already embarked on such efforts, or from the NVPC. Alternatively, organisations can work with schools on various volunteer projects. This can strengthen community ties and give staff a greater sense of fulfilment and ownership, especially if they help to run the programmes. Perhaps the civil service can look at adopting its own volunteer network system.

In this regard, I would like to ask the Government to consider granting two days of paid leave under the Employment Act for employees to do local volunteer work if they are keen to do so. Similar to how the Government had granted parents two days of childcare leave a year, in this instance, it would be a measure of the importance that the Government places on volunteerism in our nation building. Two days may not be much, but it makes it that much more conducive for working adults to volunteer. Added up, if enough Singaporeans are keen to take up this offer, the number of extra volunteer hours will, I hope, be meaningful. This could complement Dr Chong Weng Chiew's

Column: 350

suggestion to loosen the regulations imposed on VWOs.

Last year, the national volunteer rate rose from 14.9% to 15.2%, according to the NVPC. The new target for 2006 is 18.6%.

My dream is for Singapore to be a nation of volunteers.

It is imperative for Singaporeans to play their part if volunteerism is to contribute to our sense of nationhood. But there is also a role for the Government if it is to be part of an open and inclusive society.

The President has said, "How Singapore treats and takes care of disabled persons reflects the kind of society we want to be." First, we need to be conscious of the needs and concerns of the disabled. How many of us, when we watch the news bulletins at night, are struck by the fact that hearing-impaired Singaporeans cannot listen in to the transmission together with us? I am heartened that the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports has said that it would find ways to help the disabled integrate into society. One way is to provide for news captioning for the deaf. This is something that two volunteers from the Singapore Association for the Deaf have recently asked me to raise, and it is a legitimate concern. I thank them for raising this point. Our nearest neighbour, Malaysia, has already done this. So do many other countries. If the Media Development Authority can determine that at least 285 hours of local content production on MediaCorp must be outsourced to independent production houses, it can surely require there to be news captioning for the deaf in the name of an inclusive society. Perhaps, MCYS can work with MDA on this.

The best way to integrate the disabled into society is to start from young, in the schools. If I may just add on to what Ms Indranee Rajah has said. I would like the Government to consider allocating one

Column: 351

class for special needs students in a number of mainstream schools, for a start. As new schools are being built, or new buildings added to existing schools, it should be possible to accommodate the inclusion of special needs students into the mainstream, for example, as it is done in some schools in New Zealand. In Singapore, mainstream schools are beginning to accept autistic children more than in the past. As teachers receive more training or are transferred from special needs schools, it becomes easier to integrate these students into the mainstream. If we have to work things out as we go along, or work around things, let us do that. There will always be kinks but we will learn with more experience.

Most importantly, the daily interaction between disabled and non-disabled children should lead to greater awareness and better socialisation between both groups of Singaporeans. It is something that cannot be easily substituted with infrequent, ad hoc outings. Through daily interaction at a young age, it should become second nature for Singapore to treat its disabled population well. Then, there would not be a need for the President to always address their concerns in his speech because these needs would already be met in daily life. We would not have the current situation where bus ramps for the disabled have been rejected because of "costs" and "boarding delays". Instead, we would take a leaf from Korea where street pavements are disabled-friendly for both the blind and the wheelchair-bound.

Therefore, I agree with the President that it is important to engage our youth - all our youth - with all their varied interests and talents. They will be our future leaders and if they are to "build on what we have achieved", they must feel

Column: 352

rooted to this country. The question is how to achieve that.

I believe that we cannot teach our youth to love Singapore, but what we can do is to build for them a Singapore that they can love. This is why I am glad to hear that the Government will open up more avenues for the young to be involved in national and community issues. I am even happier to hear that the Government will help our youth "translate ideas into constructive action" through seed funding and other support. There is no better way to give youths a stake in Singapore than to give them ownership of their ideas all the way to the implementation stage. If this is not done, then Singapore runs the risk of becoming one big feedback unit, but not a nation.

Although youths will be given the space to be heard, it is also important to set the right climate for their participation. This means that the support extended to them should not waver even if they were to try and fail in their endeavours, so long as they are able to learn from their mistakes and are willing to pick up the pieces again. Our youths must feel that they are being trusted if they are to "have the passion and commitment to act on their convictions and ideals".

I welcome the Education Ministry's Addendum to say that it will continue to inject more flexibility and choices in the education system. One area where I would like to see more alternatives is in the range of co-curricular activities (CCA) accepted by schools. More can be done to accommodate different areas of interests among students, and I think we need to relook at what constitutes a CCA. If our youths are to follow their passions and ideals, they should not be penalised if those passions take them to an external organisation, for example, a VWO or a youth organisation. If some students prefer to be active in such groups, the schools should recognise them as core

Column: 353

CCAs, which would make them eligible for the same number of points that students in school-based CCAs get. After all, no school can offer an exhaustive list of CCAs for all its students. I would like to suggest that there be an activities coordinator at each school to facilitate the inclusion of more groups and interests within the CCA system.

In the long term, I would hope to see that the current points award system for CCAs to be eventually dismantled so that our youth can truly get the chance to pursue activities solely out of passion and not because they need the points. I am happy to note in the Education Minister's statement that more recognition will be given to student achievements not captured in the national examinations and how more flexibility will be given to schools and tertiary institutions to admit students based on these merits. This should help eventually to mitigate the argument for the current CCA points system.

Sir, I think we should not underestimate the importance a happy childhood could have on our youths' rootedness to Singapore. We do not want our kids to remember their childhood as being one big tuition class. Parents should realise that the biggest role of education is to "develop the potential of every child", as the President had outlined. The education system must develop that potential, and focus less on examination-taking skills. We should be aware that all our good intentions will come to nothing if our young do not have the time because they are too over-taxed to contribute beyond the classroom. I urge the MOE to continue to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. I would like to commend it for making community service a part of teacher training from July. It will help teachers to relate better and on a more personal level to their students with regard to volunteerism.

Column: 354

Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's Address holds much hope for Singapore, but the most important period is ahead of us. What we do or do not do this year and how we commit to the tasks we have set ourselves will leave an imprint on our young nation for the years ahead. Nation building takes more than just a pragmatic approach. We must also develop an emotional ballast. We must strive to be a caring and socially responsible society, a people unafraid to take risks, to fall and pick ourselves up, and to follow our hearts. Above all, this is a journey that we have to make together.

Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Tan Sze Wee (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks for the President's Address and thank the Members of Parliament for the opportunity to contribute as a Nominated Member.

Sir, I concur with the President's statement that Singapore is a land of opportunities, where everyone can play a part in making a difference, and talents of all forms can be nurtured.

Sir, I stand by the Government's mission, namely, that Singapore must continue to provide an open door policy and attract the relevant talented and skilled foreign manpower to contribute to the workforce. As I have had the recent experience of starting my own biotechnology company, let me just share some of my own personal experiences of the start-up process in this aspect.

Sourcing of skilled human resource is one of the most important steps in commercialising a biotechnology company (or its product). In my company, I found that, as biotechnology commercialisation is a nascent industry here in Singapore, we had to outsource for skilled human resource from overseas, who had the expertise to contribute in this field. Perhaps the training and development of

Column: 355

Singapore workers in biotechnology research and development should also be an important consideration in the future. Many of my staff are foreigners, comprising Australians, Britons and even an Austrian German. Every day, when I step in to work, I feel like my office is a miniature United Nations. Hence, I support the Government's stand to build a globally competitive workforce, by including foreign talents in the workplace. We should consider granting permanent residency to those who share our values and want to call Singapore home, as long as they can contribute, and share in our nation's values and work towards a common good.

Let me now move on to health issues. The Health Minister had mentioned that in the coming year, introducing means test for inpatients would be a priority. I strongly support this. Subsidies must go to areas of greatest need. However, without a means test, this would be impossible because those who actually do not need subsidies will still try and obtain them, such is human nature. We should instead moderate such excesses with the means test, and to declare: we want universal access to healthcare through subsidies to the poor, not universal access to subsidies for rich and poor alike through healthcare.

An eminent health economist, Victor R Fuchs of Stanford University and President of the American Economic Association, said that universal access cannot be achieved unless two criteria are met: subsidisation and compulsion. Subsidisation is to make sure those who cannot pay are subsidised to receive healthcare, and compulsion is to make sure the "free-loaders" do not avail themselves to subsidies that they can afford to pay themselves. The implementation of a means test is really an implicit line drawn between those who

Column: 356

need compulsion and those who should receive subsidisation. The real issue is then: how do we draw this arbitrary line? This is where, for a start, I believe the Ministry of Health should start with a light hand. As we get more experienced, we can better titrate and apply the test not just to inpatients, but perhaps to outpatients as well. While outpatient bills are small, its impact is even greater than that in inpatient care.

I would like to move on to the universal equation of healthcare policy in Singapore, which is the equilibrium of quality, affordability and accessibility. In addition to the means test, the Health Minister has put strengthening the 3M framework and managing medical inflation as key areas that he will tackle. These are laudable objectives.

However, there is a limit to how much more quality and efficiency we can extract from the system before cost rises and affordability decreases. At the end of the day, it is back to the trade-offs between affordability, accessibility and quality. Often, it is quality that suffers. Comparing the patient workloads of our nurses and doctors in the public sector, they are at the top end in terms of productivity in comparison to doctors in developed countries. How many more patients can we continue to pile on one doctor or one nurse? So quality would have to suffer after a while. We cannot always get cheaper and better. It is not positive economics. More doctors are being asked to manage costs and bear the responsibility of increased costs. This is correct in part, because doctors are responsible for some of the costs. Yet there is a limit to how much a doctor can do before he is actually asked to play God. In fact, some day, I sincerely hope the Ministry can step in to help by saying that there are only so much subsidies and we really cannot afford fantastic quality without increasing costs.

Column: 357

Take the recent Medical Service Package (MSP) for cardiology as an example. Doctors in public sector are asked to decide which subsidised patients can receive drug-coated stents and which cannot. For the information of some of the Members of the House, a heart stent is used for heart patients with diseases to open up narrowed heart vessels. This process, called stenting, keeps the heart vessels open for some time. The uncoated stents have a one in three chance of restenosis,

or narrowing again within a year after insertion. The new drug coated stents that were introduced last year were able to reduce this restenosis rate to 1 in 20 chance. However, this new technology comes with a price and it is currently 3 to 4 times more expensive than uncoated stents. Some of my medical colleagues find this responsibility of deciding which patients could qualify for the coated stents too onerous. It is an all-or-nothing choice. Basically, you cannot choose B2 and pay 100% of your drug-coated stent together. In other words, the drug-coated stent is not an a la carte option, but part and parcel of the whole subsidised package. This creates some internal psychological pressure on the attending cardiologist. Because we all know that drug-coated stents are better than uncoated ones. When it comes to choice, of course, you would choose the better ones.

However, because subsidies are limited, we cannot offer subsidised drug-coated stents for everyone, we have to resort to a means test. Rather than having a financial means test, we put in place through the MSP, a sort of medical means test. This runs counter to the nature of the doctor-patient relationship and is the source of unhappiness amongst some doctors.

To compromise in quality and to risk an imputation of failure, it is true even in the absence of subsidies, although it is simpler, because the implicit understand

Column: 358

ing is that the doctor will give the best treatment that the patient can afford. If a patient cannot afford a drug-coated stent in the private hospital, the attending cardiologist will just give the patient the best he or she can afford, maybe an uncoated stent. The patient would not blame the doctor because he certainly does not expect the doctor to subsidise him. But this gets more complicated in the presence of subsidies whereby the better choice can be made available through subsidies. I hope the House can understand the angst that goes on in the minds of public sector specialists, because a medical means test, such as the MSP, behoves them to play God. They would rather have a financial means test and keep the social bond of trust between doctor and patient.

I read with much hope that the Ministry of Health would like to employ market forces to enhance more efficiency as well as enlarge the General Practitioner's role in healthcare. I work too sometimes, when I do not travel, as a part-time GP and would like to encourage the Minister to proceed forward in this direction. The heart of a market economy is the price mechanism.

There are many things that the Government and the General Practitioners see eye to eye, and this was pointed out before me by Dr Warren Lee about the importance of health education, preventive medicine and workplace health promotion. This is largely carried out for free, or at minimal charge in the public sector, which takes up about 20% of the primary healthcare sector. Unfortunately, in the remaining 80% of the General Practitioner market, with no subsidies from the Government, the price mechanism does not work because patients are unwilling to pay for additional services or medicines beyond the customary vaccinations. This is a pity because the General Practitioner can do a lot more, but the public seems unwilling

Column: 359

to pay for these services in the private sector. I am not asking that the Ministry of Health gives out subsidies to GPs who provide 80% of the primary healthcare. This would be a further distortion of the market.

I believe the solution lies in the society and in the individual consumer realising that a price exists for the production of these vital services to take place. I hope the Government can come up with strategies and plans to raise awareness that the General Practitioner is not just the place you go for minor episodic treatments, such as the flu. The General Practitioner is also the person you go to for health education, counselling and preventive medicine. These come at a price, which should be borne by the individual. Only when the patient sees that the General Practitioners are more than mere paracetamol dispensers, will the General Practitioners be given a larger role as envisaged. Somehow, I hope that the Ministry of Health can be impressed to understand that these aspects of primary healthcare are part of a market economy pricing that does exist.

As Singapore unveils its vision and looks set to metamorphose into an exciting, attractive and modern metropolis, I am aware that the contributions of youth matter too. Youth brings with it a feeling of invincibility. Yes, we were all young once, but youth may with each passing day fade. To the extent that the youth of Singapore realise their good fortune - that their forefathers paid the price to labour and contribute to the success of this nation; to build this nation from the Third World to the First, is to drive home the point that Singapore's success does not come cheap, and that youths are wont to be reminded of that fact.

This nation was built upon the blood, sweat and tears of the preceding

Column: 360

generation. Our generation is reaping the fruits of labour of the previous one. Opportunities for youth abound and there is no greater time to be born than in this. The Government, through the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) as well as the National Youth Council (NYC), has created opportunities and platforms to empower our youth. Through initiatives, such as the 'Youth: Creating Our Future' consultation exercise last August, and at forums, such as the National Youth Forum, conducted in November last year, youths are encouraged to speak up and make a difference. I applaud the Government for creating opportunities to engage the youth in nation building and in creating a common future for Singapore. The challenge now is to see these ideas formalising into specific action plans and making them a reality. More youths must 'walk the talk' and put forward their thoughts into concrete action.

As pointed out by Eunice before me, let us not forget to strive for a more compassionate society that does not forget the less fortunate. In the wake of the earthquake and the tsunamis, I was heartened to see many Singaporeans self-mobilising and assisting in various ways and means, those affected by the tragedy. Many Singaporeans donated money, volunteered their time at relief organisations after school and work, many also gave generously of their personal items, such as clothes, tents, shoes and even toys to the needy victims.

Around the New Year, I chanced not upon one, but several youth groups from various community organisations, schools and youth organisations, volunteering their efforts on weekends to raise funds for the Asian tsunami victims. There were youth groups stationed at MRT stations either performing classical music, singing or even miming, in order to raise funds to meet the urgent need, thereby putting a new twist to the phrase

Column: 361

"Singing for your supper". However, these youths, I saw, were putting in efforts and fund-raising out of their own initiative, proving that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Singapore. We would do well to harness this spirit of volunteerism, of contribution out of compassion and not compunction. I strongly believe that volunteerism begins at home, and more youths should be encouraged to opt for their own voluntary service to the community rather than participating to chalk up points for their Community Involvement Projects (CIPs). One true volunteerism - if the CIP were removed from the school curriculum, would the students still volunteer of their own accord?

The philosopher Goethe wisely commented: "Talent is nurtured in solitude, character is formed in the stormy billows of the world." Perhaps, the Singapore youth need to realise that nothing is handed over to you on a silver platter and there is no substitute for hard work and resilience. I find that the Youth Expedition Project is an excellent programme to nurture resilience in youth. The YEP serves a noble purpose - to expand the vision of young Singaporeans through exposure to overseas community service expeditions - in order that they might learn from the overseas communities and inculcate a spirit of volunteerism. Yet, none of the overseas community service efforts thus far have managed to impact the psyches of our youth as much as the recent tsunamis, whereby lives of thousands in Southeast Asia have been changed irrevocably.

It is a commendable effort then, when I hear that the YEP is being reshaped into a rebuilding project. Through exposure to tough situations, responding to the crises of the moment and responding by venturing overseas in rebuilding efforts, Singapore youths are in a unique position to contribute; to make a difference in the lives of our Asian neighbours. I hope

Column: 362

many youths will stand up and be counted, to volunteer for the YEP efforts in the coming months.

Many Singaporeans demand the best of their leaders. Role models are often icons who influence an entire generation, just look at the recent examples of stars, such as Christopher Reeves, Anita Mui and Jacky Chan. In Singapore, we have our Stephanie Sun, Kit Chan and the recently selected Singapore Idol, Taufik Batisah. I would also like to suggest that our youths be given more role models to emulate. Hence, I would like to propose that the Members of Parliament and Nominated Members alike be given the opportunity to visit schools and give talks to the students on various topics, such as entrepreneurship, leadership or governance, to show the youths that we too can 'walk the talk' and inspire the youths to go for their achievements.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Tiger Cup final, held last Sunday, demonstrates triumphantly how a small country with limited resources, but with determination and focus, can reach the goal if we choose to aim for it. The current team is young, averaging 22 years of age, and they are the product of the national youth soccer programme that was started in year 2000. It shows how, with the right training, enablement and go-getting spirit, youths can be motivated to reach their highest goals of success. This 'go-getting spirit' is, no less, what we expect of our nation, and what we can hope to achieve.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the motion thanking the President for his Address.

President Nathan opened the Second Session of the 10th Parliament with an inspiring but cautious message from the

Column: 363

Government, reminding us of the fateful day on 26th December 2004 when thousands of lives were lost along the shores of countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. If anyone were to have broadcasted the warning to those enjoying the sunny beaches at Phuket, Sri Lanka and Aceh on that fateful day that there would be a strong tidal wave approaching and waiting to be unleashed along the shoreline, he would have been mocked and laughed at. No one would have expected that peaceful sea and clear blue sky to bring water travelling at speed of over 600 km per hour setting off a natural disaster of such a scale that no one could have imagined it to be.

One minute, families were happily playing along the beach or swimming in the water, yet the next moment, disaster struck with such a force that few could miraculously escape from it. This event caused massive loss of lives and properties. It only goes to show that we may never know what would happen tomorrow or what life would bring. But we can and must always be prepared for whatever calamity life brings. And prepared we are. The swift and efficient response to the tsunami calamity by the Singapore Government through the quick delivery of food, water and medical aids, not only saved many lives from being lost but also brought pride to our nation. It demonstrated how willing and prepared we are in assisting our neighbours in time of need. We have not come a long way yet as a nation. But our arms of comfort and help are felt further than the tremors of the earthquake of Aceh. Minister Teo Chee Hean himself is travelling again tomorrow to those affected areas to make sure our efforts are continuing.

The seven priorities set out by the Government in the President's Speech are important pillars for our country to progress from. Even as the Government

Column: 364

seeks to add value to the country's economy through these efforts, an underlying tone is for the people and the Government

to secure what has been achieved and anticipate, where possible, for cyclical changes in fortune.

In this respect, I would regard the priority to build a safe and secure environment an important aspect of our survival. A strong SAF, at a high level of operational readiness, will keep us on alert, and is a constant reminder that we treat security seriously. With this, can we then provide a safe environment to build a firm foundation for achieving all of our aspirations. Peace and security translate into economic returns so that our nation will be able to thrive at an orderly pace, growing organically and keeping ahead in a sustained momentum.

Securing Singapore's place in the world and nurturing our relations with other countries is also another important priority. Such an attitude, in making sure that we also work peacefully with our ASEAN neighbours, helps bring prosperity to the region and to Singapore, as more economic activities flow through each other's economy. Our links to the rest of the world will ensure that we are in touch with world trade and developments, so that we can anticipate any unfavourable economic conditions looming over the horizon, together with any possible threats to our country, especially in the area of transnational terrorism.

Our transport infrastructures are world-class, and we must use them to reach out to the rest of the world. The Ministry of Transport's vision to grow Singapore as a hub port for all types of high-value cargo, such as containers, vehicles and petrochemicals, and maintaining our position as a top bunkering port in the world, will certainly bring us closer to the world community and assist businesses in feeling the pulse of economic activities in various parts of

Column: 365

the world. In aviation, the incentive package to the Air Hub Development Fund to attract airlines to call at Singapore, together with the adoption of a liberal air transport policy, will help Singaporeans maintain a connection with other cities and emerging markets in China and India.

Keeping Singaporeans healthy and fit is also a way to ward off potential dangers from diseases and maintaining a healthy workforce. To prepare ourselves to achieve this priority, I join my parliamentary colleagues, such as Dr Warren Lee and Mr Chay Wai Chuen, in supporting Minister Khaw Boon Wan's effort in keeping our health costs affordable to many more. With Medisave, MediShield and Medifund schemes in place, our battle against unforeseen health problems and their related costs will be greatly minimised. Singapore's success in dealing with infectious diseases, such as SARS and avian flu, should also provide our medical team with good experiences when responding to any outbreaks that the future might bring. While the Government may be effective in its efforts in disease prevention, the people themselves must also not lose their immunity to ward off dangerous and deadly viruses.

In preparing for a new generation of Singaporeans to build on what has been achieved today, we have to prepare them to engage the future with passion and commitment, as our forefathers did. Our schools must allow opportunities for students to make mistakes and learn from them as they compete with one another. In business, those who have failed to make it must be given the leeway to make a comeback and be successful. Such a robust environment will see more battle-scarred and mature citizens meet the uncertain future with confidence and succeed in overcoming any obstacles that may block our country's progress. The more successful ones can also go further in exploiting promising technologies, like

Column: 366

biotechnology, photonics and nanotechnology. A thriving economy will thus give us the confidence and resources to tackle whatever challenges that may lie ahead.

While a new generation of workforce takes over, we must not forget those who have contributed much to our country's growth. In the President's Address, it was mentioned that we must enable more Singaporeans to continue working into their 60s and take advantage of new avenues of employment. This means that workers and employers have to rethink their approaches on how to restructure and re-invent their workplaces so as to enable people of all ages to participate in the growth of the business. Wages will have to be redesigned and made more flexible, balancing the needs of workers and employers, yet enabling companies to remain competitive. A spirit of self-reliance must be taught, so that our workforce can be robust and adaptable, while Government Ministries must be sensitive to changes in the marketplace to allow employers in the private sector leeway to manoeuvre through the complex maze of laws and regulations governing corporations, big and small. Government Ministries must be upgraded to facilitate changes, and work with Singaporeans to achieve, rather than just enforce and regulate, and sometimes compete. Employment for those retrenched as a result of the economic slowdown over the last few years has to be addressed at a greater pace.

Now that the signs of improvement are emerging, we must not be tempted to take the short route to economic recovery in creating employment through high-risk ventures and ventures that make money out of the miseries of others, as this does not promote a culture of hard work and long term gain for all. Stability and good work ethics will promote a reliable workforce that the economy can thrive on.

Column: 367

Finally, we may be fortunate to be located at a position in the globe well protected geographically and relatively free from earthquakes. But we cannot take for granted that no natural disaster can strike us. Other forms of disaster can happen, and it may take the form of a terrorist strike or accidents, such as a plane crash or a collapsed high-rise building. Survival is more than just how much money we can amass. After all, it is only a means of exchange for goods and services. We must go back to the basics and learn to be resilient in troubled times and alert in good times, learn to be free from a routine and comfort zone and learn to make do with what we have and be thankful that we have a good Government to plan and lead the people through the ups and downs of economic cycles and unforeseen calamities, like the economic downturns, SARS, bird flu and, in the region, the Asian tsunami. We are blessed with a good and strong Prime Minister, together with his capable Ministers, who will require our utmost support and loyalty to lead us towards a country that is family-centric, successful and prosperous. Let us all be reminded that no one knows what the future holds for tomorrow, but we can be prepared for it.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.15 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.53 pm until 4.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.15 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS:

(Debate on the Address): **** Debate resumed.

Column: 368

Assoc. Prof. Ong Soh Khim (Nominated Member): ( In Mandarin ): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of Mr Gan Kim Yong to thank the President for his Speech.

The first point I wish to touch on concerns the MediShield scheme mentioned by President Nathan in his Address. The Ministry of Health has announced that the MediShield premium will be raised. Dr Warren Lee has also mentioned this just now. I would like to present my views on this.

For a working citizen who is paying for his own MediShield premium, an increase of $10 per month in the premium is not too bad. However, if he happens to be the sole breadwinner of the family, who has taken up MediShield coverage for his whole family, including his wife, two or three children and even his aged parents, then this increase in premium will have to be multiplied by five or more times for this citizen, and the eventual amount to be paid by him will be rather substantial. In Singapore, it is not uncommon for a sole breadwinner to pay the insurance premium for all members of his family. Therefore, in order that all citizens can truly afford the increase in medical insurance premium, this issue needs to be considered.

To the lower-income group, that is, those who are less well-off, the various medical insurance schemes are of significance. The rich people do not really need the insurance pay-out. As such, if an increase in premium results in the poor and low-income people being deprived of the benefit of coverage under the said medical insurance scheme, then it will in fact run contrary to the original intention of the MediShield scheme.

It has been proposed that the premium be increased but the general public does not know what cost will be increased and,

Column: 369

in turn, what benefits

they will get from there. In order that MediShield could be competitive to the commercial medical insurance schemes, the Government should let the people know how much the cost would be and what benefits it will bring. Only then will the MediShield be comparable to the commercial schemes.

Until this moment, what has been reported in the media and the Government Feedback portal has not included the specific increase in premium and the benefits that might possibly result from this increase in premium.

The Government is also recommending portable medical insurance for the employees or for the employers and the employees to co-pay for the MediShield premium. For employers to take up medical insurance coverage for their employees or for the employers and employees to co-pay for the premium is not a bad idea. However, if it is decided that there would be co-payment for the premium, the employers should not use this to offset the medical benefits given to the employees. In other words, this should not be an excuse for the employers to reduce their medical benefits for the employees.

The MediShield scheme is meant to take care of large medical bills, and small medical bills should still be paid for by the employees themselves. The existing medical benefits provided by the employer would help to take care of these smaller bills. The employers should not use this opportunity to reduce the medical benefits given to the employees.

In his speech, President Nathan also mentioned Medisave and Medifund. But can these deal with the ever-rising medical costs? Just as Mr Ang Mong Seng said yesterday, the people "can die but cannot fall sick".

Column: 370

Apart from Medisave and Medifund and increasing the MediShield insurance premium to deal with the rising medical and healthcare costs, I think the Government should make every effort to keep the healthcare cost low. Nowadays, when a patient goes to the hospital, he has to pay not only the surgical and medical fees, but many hidden charges as well. Just providing a table of comparison of the costs of the various surgical operations at the various hospitals to the public does not really solve the problem as a patient might choose a hospital that offers the lowest cost for a particular operation but still ends up paying a larger hospital bill because of the various hidden costs. Therefore, the Ministry of Health should regulate and standardise the hidden costs charged by the various hospitals and the patient should be alerted to these hidden costs.

There has been a suggestion that the hospitals' quality of treatment be linked to the cost. Comparing the qualities of treatment of the various hospitals and announcing the results to the public has its drawbacks. This will result in uneven distribution of patients of different income groups at the various hospitals. This is like the school ranking system. The best students will be attracted to the top schools and the average and weak students can only go to neighbourhood schools. So if the hospital fees have gone up because the treatment there is better, then the rich people will go to the good hospitals and the charges will go up even further. As for the ordinary citizens, they can only go to the lower-quality hospitals. Because of this uneven distribution, the middle income and lower income people will be deprived of their right to obtaining good medical service.

Another point is that, in an attempt to pursue to be ranked as a "high quality" hospital, the hospitals might incur

Column: 371

unnecessary additional operation cost. And this cost will indirectly be passed on to the patients. It has commonly been said that Singapore wants to be the world No. 1 in this and that, but I do not think our hospitals should be drawn into this rat race for higher ranking. The primary purpose of a hospital is health care, not trying to be No. 1 in any ranking. This ranking comparison might cause unhealthy competition among the hospitals such that they lose sight of their primary objective. To me, ranking is not important, as far as hospitals are concerned. The most important thing is the credibility of the hospital. Our hospitals must attain the standard of some world-renowned hospitals so that people would trust them.

The second point I wish to touch on concerns the making of Singapore into an ideal place for people to live and work in. In his speech, President Nathan expressed his hope that Singapore could be built up as a place where people would enjoy living and working in. He also hoped that we could attract foreign talents to come here to work and live. In this respect, it has much to do with the suggestion of operating a casino in Singapore.

Over the years, we have been talking about how to suppress gambling and getting rid of gambling dens. Why is it that we are now opening the option of bringing a casino to Singapore? Mr Tan Soo Khoon has already spoken eloquently on Monday on this subject and I would like to add my views on it.

As it appears, the arrow is already fitted on the bow string. There is no turning back. Although the Government keeps saying that it will listen to the people before it makes a decision, the fact is that MTI has already sent out a study group to make extensive studies of the various casinos all over the world, and

Column: 372

potential tenderers are also invited to participate in this project.

As analysed by the media, the opening of a casino is the worst of all evils and it will bring about an ill wind to society because crime rates will go up. Where gamblers gather, there will be prostitutes, illegal moneylenders and drug traffickers. I may be exaggerating, but I dare say they may bring about more robberies, smuggling and kidnapping in Singapore. Although it is said that tourist arrivals may be doubled in 10 years, crime rates may possibly quadruple. Is it worth it?

Why do foreign talents come and settle down in Singapore? It is because they enjoy the peace and relatively crime-free environment here where they can live and work in comfort. Just to rake in more tourism money, are we going to abandon this clean and honest society which Minister Mentor Lee has spent a lifetime building up? Mr Speaker, Sir, how can a corrupt society be an ideal place for family life? How can a corrupt society attract foreign talents to come here and settle down, and become our citizens or permanent residents?

To attract tourists, there are many other ways, such as grand-scale exhibitions (eg, medical, art, photography, aviation), gala concerts (classical or pop), international sports events or mega entertainment cities like Disneyland. Do we need to hide a casino in a clean and saintly Sentosa and turn it into an unsaintly place of gold diggers? The Chinese name of Sentosa has this character shen or saint in it. Once we have a casino there, it will no longer be a "saint". With a casino there, a lot of gamblers would go to Sentosa to try their luck. They are like those people digging for gold in the old days. It will no longer be a saintly place.

The Government has suggested some restrictive measures, such as banning the

Column: 373

lower-income people from entering the casino. However, human nature is such that, the poorer they are, the more they want to try their luck in order to turn their fortune. As for the truly rich people, do they really have the time to go and gamble? Is this not a recommendation that will produce obvious adverse results, and we are just asking for trouble?

Here, I would like to quote what Minister Lim Boon Heng said yesterday, "Why travel the road when we know what its pitfalls lead to?"

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are just my humble opinions for the Ministers to consider. Thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate.

I thank the President for his Address to Parliament. He paints a very bright future of Singapore. He dispels the gloom and doom that hung in the air just a short while ago. But we are not exactly out of the wood yet. A roadmap exists, but there is much work to be done. Let us all pull together to make this vision come true.

Many who were affected by the economic downturn were asking for help to overcome their difficulties. The real answer was pointed out by Minister Lim Boon Heng yesterday. It is a strong economy that brings good jobs, jobs that provide a good and stable income to the family. But the economy has changed. The jobs that it brings have also changed. This probably explains why jobs continue to elude many with low skills and education. Our people must rise to the challenges that the changes bring.

However, this and other issues are well-addressed by the President in his Address to Parliament, in the

Column: 374

accompanying Addenda and by my colleagues in the House who have spoken earlier. I would therefore like to touch on just two issues - helping our people to cope with hard times and building a community spirit.

During the recent economic crisis, many people ran into trouble soon after losing their jobs. They had little or no savings. We referred them to CDCs for interim help for a few months. For more desperate cases, the CCCs may come in with some quick help which may include some food vouchers donated by the NTUC. I agree with this approach of the Government to provide interim help to tide them over a short period. It is deliberately meant to be short and not to encourage a dependent mentality in our people.

However, the help could be more generous. Here, I would also encourage the grassroots organisations to boost their welfare reserves during better economic times. Some others who lost their jobs were fortunate to have their extended family support. But with the family size getting smaller, there would be fewer siblings and relatives to turn to in the future. This is certainly a good reason for larger families and for parents to have more children.

However, the best help for those who lost their jobs is self-help. The best answer is to quickly find another job. And here, there is much a person can do to help himself. Another self-help way to tide over the stoppage of income is to have financial resilience, savings that one can draw upon. Everyone should purposely set aside some money from their income each month to build up this reserve.

As the era of a one-career life comes to a close, career change would become a way of life and our financial resilience would become more important. We should encourage our people to save for rainy days, to set aside part of the salary during good times so that they

Column: 375

could use their savings to tide them over the difficult periods when their incomes cease. This may not be easy, especially for those who do not earn much. But it is easier to squeeze something out from whatever salary one has than to do so from no income at all.

Where could we keep this money so as to be out of our reach until difficult times? Minister Lim Boon Heng had also suggested this yesterday - with the savings kept with the trade unions. However, to reach out to more Singaporeans, the CPF could also be considered, as each worker would already have a CPF account. Many in financial plight saw but could not touch their CPF savings. If we grow this additional component in the CPF account, it could be used during times of need. This additional saving need not be compulsory, but the Government could encourage it by making a top-up, for example, on the savings. The top-up could only be given to those with low income. The crux is to get people to save for bad times and this would reduce the burden on society as a whole. We need to urgently set up some mechanism to help people deal with disruption to income as this is likely to be a common occurrence in the new economy.

We should also design ways to allow our people to live within their means. I hope the utilities company would quickly implement pay-as-you-use meters on premises so that those in need do not incur high arrears in their utility accounts and then have their essential utility supplies disconnected, as described by Dr Tan Cheng Bock just now, to much disconcerted pain for the families involved.

I think we should also have to revisit the issue of rental housing offer by HDB. This need is growing as perceived by the

Column: 376

increasing number of such rental requests during my meet-the-people sessions.

On this note, may I also appeal for the speeding up of the Lift Upgrading Programme. This is one upgrading programme that is much needed and appreciated for many elderly people live in the older blocks where lift access is not universal.

Sir, there is a well of inherent goodwill in our people. This is clearly evident by the care, concern and generosity shown by our people for those affected by the recent tsunami. Like my colleagues, and Singaporeans in general, I am very heartened and proud of the response of our nation and our people to the devastation and loss caused by the tsunami. But, if we look at our own community, in particular, the relationship among neighbours and the care for common properties, this situation leaves much to be desired. Intolerance and quarrels among neighbours are on the rise. Urination in lifts and corridors, misuse of common corridors, littering at letter box areas, loud karaoke-ing from early morning into the late night in HDB flats, throwing of food and other debris from open balcony and windows, attracting crows, pigeons and birds, vandalism of playground equipment, are some of the few common daily occurrences in our estates. Besides causing unnecessary waste of money, which the Government and the residents themselves have to pay, these inconsiderate acts also greatly inconvenience others in the community. How could we achieve a gracious and harmonious society if Singaporeans do not care for one another and for their environment?

The grassroots and community organisations and its leaders would continue to strive to build greater community bonding, but everyone has to do his part. I wish for a future in which

Column: 377

Singaporeans care and look out for one another, take ownership of common and public properties and not just properties behind the main doors of their own houses. How do we tap the well of inherent goodwill to achieve this?

Sir, I could see and sense hope among our people for the future. If we work in unity, we would achieve the happy vision painted by the President. I wish all fellow Singaporeans a bright and happy future.

I support the motion.