Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [25 January 2016].

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

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

Question again proposed.

3.00 pm

The Acting Minister for Education (Schools) and Senior Minister of State for Transport (Mr Ng Chee Meng): Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. As we enter SG51, the President, in his Address, has called for Singaporeans to renew our commitment to a better Singapore and write the next chapter together.

Many Members have spoken at length about how Singapore remains very vulnerable to our external circumstances and our inherent limitations, such as land and population size. We are reminded, even as we stand from a position of strength today, that our survival depends on us continuing to be exceptional, in both our security and economy.

In my view, the need for a strong security umbrella is never in doubt. I know the threats and dangers to our country quite well. We all must be clear-minded that our basic vulnerability of being small has not changed and will not change. A strong SAF is needed to deter potential adversaries and, together with our Home Team, safeguard Singapore. This is needed to enhance the peace so that our vital interests can be taken care of. A secure environment is critical not just for our safety but for our economy, our businesses, our very livelihood, our rice bowls.

Our economy is vital to our survival. In this next chapter of our Singapore story, we are faced with a strategic challenge of an ageing population and a declining workforce. We need to recognise this impending change that is already at our doorstep and restructure our economy to adapt and sustain growth. The work of the Committee on the Future Economy will be critical to ensure that our economy can remain competitive and Singaporeans can continue to aspire to good jobs and opportunities.

Mdm Speaker, these are the hard realities that Singapore faces. We have faced them for the past 50 years and we will continue to face them in the next 50. We will have to continue to take a pragmatic approach, adapt and evolve our policies so that we can continue to succeed economically and protect ourselves.

But in a fast-changing world with growing diversities and forces that can pull our society apart, Singapore will need a source of inner strength to keep us united. I call this the Singapore Heartbeat.

Singapore is commonly known for our "Head" because of our pragmatism. We are admired for our economic miracle with a well-run, efficient and well-organised city.

Unfortunately, this may be a double-edged sword because, on the downside, many questioned if we have traded off some of our soul and heart in the pursuit of efficiencies. Those of us who are honest about it will probably admit to having asked ourselves if we are too cold, or whether there is a Singapore "Heart".

Yet, last year, when our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on, we proved the world wrong when Singaporeans came together in solidarity. I think we surprised even ourselves at how much heart and spirit we have in all of us. We all remember our own experiences and the countless stories of how ordinary Singaporeans, together with their elderly parents and young children, came to queue patiently for hours to pay their last respects. Many were touched by the accounts of businesses and volunteers giving out food, drinks and umbrellas so that they could afford some creature comforts to fellow Singaporeans queuing in the blazing sun.

I was personally moved. I was moved to see the hundreds of thousands lined up on that Sunday morning in the pouring rain, standing shoulder-to-shoulder to send Mr Lee off on a final journey across Singapore to the state funeral service.

The Economist described this phenomenon as "an improbable patriotism". For once, others, looking in from the outside, saw what it meant to be Singaporean. They witnessed the pride of our people, who are usually not very expressive with our emotions. It was truly uplifting for me personally to witness a re-energised Singapore Heartbeat. This continued beyond the week of March and into the SG50 celebrations throughout the year, especially on our National Day on 9 August.

Mdm Speaker, the President's Address spoke about the people uniting and resolving to move ahead together and the bonds of kinship that make us a caring society. To me, these are two dimensions of the Singapore Heartbeat.

The heart is the central powerhouse that pumps life-giving oxygen and nutrients to all parts of the body. While others consider us exceptional because of our Head, we must never forget that the Heart is our source of inner strength, our inner core.

So, today, I would like to talk about how we can keep the Singapore Heartbeat strong and steady beyond SG50 and into the next phase of nation-building.

First, we must keep united in vision and purpose, with one heart. The idea of the Singapore Heartbeat is that all of us are indispensable and complementary parts of a living system, our Singapore.

Just as the different organs in the body have to work together for the body to be healthy, we, too, must find a place for every Singaporean to be part of the nation's progress. We must provide the opportunity for everyone to discover their strengths, develop them and then contribute to society in meaningful ways. This is the direction in which we must continue to evolve our approach to meritocracy, so that our system encompasses broader definitions of success and fulfilment.

We must also ensure that every Singaporean has the opportunity to succeed and share in the nation's prosperity and progress, regardless of their starting point and background.

Education has an important role to play. While we cannot ensure equal outcomes, we should provide children equal access to opportunities in our schools. We will create multiple pathways to success and do our very best to nurture each and every child so that they can reach the fullest of their potential, grounded on sound values and character.

Many Members in this House have spoken on education. I thank all of you for your ideas and appreciate the high interest that you have given to education. This is a good indication that all of us place significant emphasis on education in our country on our children.

On the social front, we have made significant efforts and must continue to ensure social mobility and strengthen social safety nets. After all, the well-being of our society, like the body, is measured by the health of all our parts. Similarly, the strength of our social fabric lies in the spirit of mutual support within our society.

I recently saw a video of "Forget Us Not", which is an independent initiative organised by the Lien Foundation and Khoo Teck Puat Hospital. This initiative was kick-started in Yishun Chong Pang area to raise awareness of the growing number of persons with dementia. This is perhaps a tribute to our ageing population. It involves the Neighbourhood Police Centre and 80 Citizens-on-Patrol residents trained to detect, respond and assist persons with dementia whom they may meet during patrols. The initiative also organised education talks on dementia and conducted training sessions to over 6,000 people and businesses.

To my mind, this is a wonderful example of a ground-up initiative that embodies the Singapore Heartbeat. It brings together the expertise and energy of different segments of the society for a common good. As our society matures, we should do more to encourage individuals and organisations to come forth and take collective ownership of the community they live in, for the Singapore that we all love.

Second, for a steady Singapore Heartbeat, we must also nurture deep bonds of kinship. A heart is much more than just a muscle. The heart is also where we hold the things we cherish the very most and where our passions spring forth.

Therefore, a strong Singapore Heartbeat is formed by deep bonds of kinship among our people and the pride of simply being Singaporean. These come from shared experiences of studying in the same school, playing together, living in the same community and, for our men, having served National Service together. We are connected by our everyday things that make us uniquely Singaporean, including our Singlish, perhaps our favourite chicken rice and even "choping" our seat in the crowded hawker centres with our tissue papers.

The irony is, sometimes, it is only when we are away from home, away from Singapore, that we feel such a surge of pride when we bump into fellow Singaporeans overseas or when our overseas friends ask us about our country and the secret to our success.

But pride and love for our country and fellow Singaporeans should not be just feelings that arise only because of the occasion or the atmosphere. That type of sentiment is not bad, but it is not sufficient for the long haul and does not anchor a nation.

We do not want a racing, erratic heartbeat when we run a long-distance race. What we need is a steady and strong heartbeat that will take us forward in our journey. It involves us demonstrating our love for the country and to care for our countrymen on an ordinary day and in ordinary ways.

A middle-aged taxi driver approached me recently for help to appeal to waive a parking fine. He told me he was driving a wheel-chair bound lady on an early morning shift. When they had arrived at her destination, at her flat, he left his car by the road so that he could personally wheel her all the way up to her high-rise flat, to her very doorstep. I applaud his act of kindness, going out of his way to help, at a certain level of personal sacrifice and personal inconvenience. Till now, I am not sure what has happened to his parking fine but I hope it got waived.

But the point is, I think, sometimes, we tend to look out for the big gestures and forget that an ordinary act of kindness, like what this taxi driver did, forms the basic rhythm of the Singapore Heartbeat.

Indeed, patriotism and love for our country are inseparable from caring and looking out for our fellow countrymen. But sometimes, such acts can go unnoticed amongst us and that is why, sometimes, people get cynical about the Singapore Heartbeat. This inspired a movement called The Hidden Good, started by two then-NSFs, Leon and Rovik, back in 2013 when I was still in the SAF.

In a team of undercover journalists, they would go around the island with a hidden camera to capture everyday kindness and graciousness among Singaporeans. Then, they would upload videos or stories online. It could be simple things like someone giving up their seat on the MRT or someone helping a "popo" to reach the groceries on the top shelf in a supermarket. This youth movement has gained a lot of traction on social media, bringing to light the "hidden good" of society, bringing forth the Singapore Heartbeat.

Our Singapore Heartbeat is about such altruistic acts, but it is also much more than that. We must build the Singapore Heartbeat to forge our collective core strength, collective resilience and cohesion. Together with our economic strength and a safe and secure environment, the Singapore Heartbeat will propel us forward to the next lap.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude by quoting a verse from our National Anthem, "Marilah kita bersatu; Dengan semangat yang baru; Semua kita berseru". In English, "Come, let us unite; In a new spirit; Let our voices soar as one."

In the last five decades, our founding fathers and the generations before us have risen to this call – building a strong and free nation, a robust and prosperous economy and a peaceful and progressive society.

Now, let us refresh and re-energise ourselves with a new spirit – a Singapore Heartbeat – to carry ourselves forward to SG100 and beyond.

While we do face new and complex challenges ahead, we stand in a position of strength, compared to where we started off 50 years ago in 1965. We must continue to think wisely with our head to grow our economy. We must build our muscle to defend our country. At the same time, I call on this House and fellow Singaporeans to forge a strong Singapore heart. As long as our Singapore heart beats strong and steady, as long as we remain united as one people, I am optimistic and confident that we will build an exceptional and enduring Singapore for our children and our children's children. With this, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

3.16 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, the President asked an important question that should concern all Singaporeans in the next decade, "How do we ensure our island-nation remains a shining red dot and that our children and grandchildren will thrive?"

In the last 50 years, the question that has occupied us was different. It was how to make sure our small island state and our multiracial people survive an unforgiving and hostile world. Our solution has been to discipline ourselves and to make sacrifices under a strong one-party top-down rule to guide the development of the economy and society.

National institutions were built and tied closely to the PAP so that the leaders could steer the ship in the direction they thought best and everyone else was not to rock the boat.

Times have changed. We are now a globalised society with a well-educated people. We are now seeking to ensure our children will thrive, not just survive. The ship model has to change. Singaporeans are aspiring to set sail on their own to fulfil their aspirations. Many have become leaders of their field. Global conditions are now very different. We need to be nimble and experiment as a country to search and seize the hidden opportunities in the next industrial revolution. We cannot simply rely on a group of so-called super talents in Government steering society from high above.

For Singapore to continue to shine as a red dot, the people of Singapore must shine, Singaporeans must shine if Singapore is to chart our own path. The red dot will no longer be red if its people turn pale in the face of challenges or when faced with intimidation. Hence, nurturing a confident Singaporean people is the way to ensure that our children and grandchildren will thrive.

Empowering confident Singaporeans. I believe the Government's SkillsFuture programme contains the DNA for empowering confident Singaporeans. What is this DNA? First, it is all-inclusive and does not discriminate on the basis of household background, income and employment status, educational attainment or age.

Second, it trusts individual Singaporeans to be the ones who know themselves best and have the wisdom to know where they should head to next in life. The Government takes a step back and only provides counsellors to help those who want advice to help them decide.

Third, it does not measure value in the narrow terms of economic value-add and caters to people's passion and interests. It has been said that one could even use the SkillsFuture credits to improve one's skills in calligraphy.

Fourth, it exemplifies what some analysts call a nudge policy instead of the usual carrot-and-stick approach favoured by the Government. A nudge policy is said to be more effective for today's modern citizens and does not mean less or weaker Government. Although the $500 SkillsFuture credit is not a big sum, many people are exploring ways to use the credit. The credit is nudging Singaporeans to engage in lifelong learning.

Fifth, and most importantly, the whole policy is focused on empowering Singaporeans, instead of trying to direct or steer them to fit into the planned economy or the needs of corporations.

Empowering Singaporeans' future is something the Workers' Party will fully agree with.

Madam, SkillsFuture is not enough. If we want to empower confident Singaporeans, this policy DNA – all-inclusive, trusting Singaporeans, seeing value broadly, nudging and empowering Singaporeans' future – should be applied to many other policy areas.

It should be applied to at least the schools and the SME sector. These two are important and also because they are related to SkillsFuture. If the graduates of our schools are not self-driven and unafraid to take risks to pursue their interests, then SkillsFuture will become meaningless over time.

It would also be a terrible waste of synergy if SkillsFuture helps Singaporeans to be more enterprising but the lack of funding and business opportunities, as well as high operating costs, continue to hamper the growth of the SME sector.

In the schools, we need to nurture the thirst for learning and to revamp the syllabus and assessment methods so that we would not kill the natural curiosity of children. In the last few years, we have been discussing educational reforms in terms of reducing the stress on children.

I think we might have been wrong in focusing on the symptoms of the problem. Empowering our students to think critically and creatively and to solve complex problems can also be stressful, but it will be a rewarding and fulfilling kind of stress.

We have also been emphasising too much on cohesion as a value in schools and have not appreciated the importance of diversity, differences and even dissent for cultivating critical thinking and creativity in schools. Our curriculum and culture in schools should avoid influencing our students to think in narrow practical terms and not in relation to their interests and passion. Graduates of our schools should have a strong sense of self-driven purpose with the right values of tolerance and respect for diversity and differences.

Although the ASPIRE Report is the correct road map, we have a long road ahead to redefine our long-ingrained notion of success from the focus on material gains and academic achievements to the pursuit of passion and happiness and the possession of different kinds of skills.

Right politics as insurance. Madam, I agree with the President that we need to get our politics right. But while empowering confident Singaporeans is the way for us to ensure our shining red dot stays brilliant, getting our politics right is the way for us to insure against bad government and the failure of governance.

The outcome of good politics is not just good policy and ensuring no gridlock. That would be a narrow technocratic view of politics. The outcome of good politics is the fostering of a political system that is able to withstand shock and turbulence, including the unexpected collapse or slow corruption of the ruling party, to ensure the continuity of the nation as a united people. Such a resilient political system must be able to make adjustments in the face of adversity.

How should we do good politics to ensure a resilient political system and a confident nation? I believe the same principles making up the policy DNA for SkillsFuture are pertinent.

First, our politics must be all-inclusive. National interest should be defined by consensus and the narrative should not be shaped and monopolised by the ruling party. The Government should recognise that there are many on-going and independent national conversations and should allow for differences in opinions to flourish without marking these conversations as disloyal and divisive.

Second, our politics must be nudging instead of censoring. We should not be afraid of narrow interest-based politics, which I do not think we can avoid. In fact, if we look at SkillsFuture, it leverages on the so-called narrow interests of individual Singaporeans to pursue the collective good.

Instead of rejecting narrow interest-based politics altogether, we need to nudge Singaporeans with narrow political interests to talk to each other. We should take such discussion as an educational process for Singaporeans to learn and to discern what is politics for the collective good of the nation and society. We should not design a system of shutting out discussion based on assumption that it is interest-based and narrow.

Third, our politics must trust Singaporeans to be independent, rational and wise social actors. The Government and the ruling party must be able to let go and allow the building of independent institutions trusted by the people, regardless of race, language, religion and political affiliation.

Our Universities are a case in point. For a while, they were tightly controlled for fear of their political influence. But since they were released and their autonomy protected, we can be proud of our Universities today for achieving world-class status. Today, our academics could disagree and criticise the Government and a few have even joined alternative political parties to contribute to the national debate and in politics. Our political system has not been destabilised as a result.

Fourth, our politics must see value in the broadest sense. The outcome of good politics is not to ensure no gridlock.

Excessive fears of political gridlock will lead to a society depending only on one political party, waiting for it to rot to the point of no return before any alternative party can be formed to take its place. We must see value in having alternative parties around and having the opportunities to develop.

Alternative parties are valuable because they are an insurance against any collapse or failure of the existing ruling party. We cannot expect a political party to transform itself into a credible alternative party overnight. If this Government truly believes in preserving this shining red dot, then the onus is on it to build a political system conducive to the growth of alternative parties as well as the renewal of the ruling party. Political value must not be narrowly construed and concentrated in one political party. That is too dangerous for a small state such as ours.

Chasing the Pledge. In all this talk about the future, SkillsFuture, Right Politics for FutureSg, we must not forget our foundational ideals enshrined in our national pledge – to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, I quote, "In 1966, my colleagues and I settled the words of our pledge. We did not focus on our navel or we would have missed that rainbow in the sky."

Madam, no other nation in Asia has such lofty and progressive ideals. And it would be an injustice to the memory of our Founding Leaders and Pioneer Generation if we do not chase this ideal and keep focusing on the PAP navel instead.

Singapore needs to choose and make our own destiny, but we cannot depend on one political party or the Government for charting and directing our path, if we are to be not just an exceptional, but an outstanding nation that is an example to all in Asia.

3.31 pm

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join this debate. The President's Address was a rallying call to all Singaporeans to stand together in solidarity as we embark on the new chapter of nation-building. The realities of today's world merit a word of caution for the path ahead and the President, in his Address, said that we cannot expect an easy journey. He explained the challenges that lay ahead and put forth the question that was oft repeated in this House: how do we ensure that our island-nation remains a shining red dot so that our children and grandchildren can thrive?

My short answer to this question is that we have to do whatever it takes whilst holding true to the values that define us as Singaporeans. We have to fiercely protect and preserve the gem of a nation that our forefathers have built over the years.

Fight and strive we must, but I believe that it is of utmost importance that we abide by our values and principles. The President, in his Address, said that we must also have a shared understanding of what unites and binds us to one another. So, what are some of these values, principles and shared understanding?

Members of this House had, over the past days, alluded to some of these, such as the generosity of spirit, resilience, valuing racial and religious harmony, meritocracy.

This House had, in fact, debated on a White Paper on Shared Values in 1991 and passed it after a two-day debate. These shared values include: encouraging community support and respect for the individual; consensus, not conflict; and racial and religious harmony.

Over time, we have developed a set of values and principles that makes us Singaporeans. Values guide us when we make our decisions for this country and, as each day unfolds with its multifaceted challenges, the expressions of these values will develop. Today, I would like to add a further perspective to these expressions. In this regard, I believe there is another value that should prevail as we chart our way into the next half century, that is, the sense of responsibility – both on the part of the Government as well as on the part of the Singapore citizen. I would like to demonstrate the importance of this in two areas: (a) caring for the vulnerable and disadvantaged in our community, and (b) diversity of views and discourse.

In the area of caring for the vulnerable and disadvantaged, I believe that in principle, our common understanding on this is clear. We will help those in need. We will not leave anyone behind. We will shape policies to encourage social mobility. The challenge often lies in executing the principles and the policies.

Over the years, the Government has made major shifts in social policy. The community and the state took on greater responsibility for individuals and families who needed social support. This was welcomed and provided a reprieve to many who struggled to keep afloat in this ever-changing world. However, the implementation of this provision of support is fraught with rules and dictates certain expectations of the recipients. For example, when one makes an application for financial assistance, checks are made on the income and contributions of his or her children or other family members. This is fair and reasonable but becomes tricky and sensitive when the family members have their own financial problems and are unable to support the individual. We should, in such instances, exercise discretion and provide the necessary support.

Another aspect of this I would like to highlight is that the support for the individual or family is often only available till they are able to find employment and meet the means test. However, in some of these cases, the families are still struggling for a while after assistance has stopped.

The early withdrawal of subsidies and assistance can easily bring a family back into financial difficulty, particularly when the family has had little opportunity to build up a reserve for the rainy day. We should look into how our social support networks and the community networks can continue to provide support and look out for these families. We should not leave them at the starting block of the track, but be there till they are able to sustain themselves.

As we tread through the challenges that lie ahead, we should not regress and limit the efforts on improving social policy. The Government will need to continue to be responsible. We should not compromise on the social support that needs to be given to the individuals and families that require them. In fact, it is when times are hard that we need to be more compassionate.

Having said that, I am aware that we are not sitting on a pot of gold which we can distribute at a whim. Resources are limited and there is a need to identify the ones who truly deserve the assistance. While the Government remains responsible to care for the people, the people, too, have a responsibility to take care of themselves. We all need to work hard, continue to improve our skills and remain relevant.

While the Government has the responsibility to navigate the country through this challenging period, Singaporeans, too, need to have a keen awareness of the bigger picture – that Singapore sits in competition with the rest of the world and some tough decisions have to be made. Ambassador-at-Large, Mr Bilahari Kausikan, in his speech during the Singapore Perspectives Conference in January 2015, said:

"The world is constantly changing and since the world will not change to suit our conveniences, we will have to constantly adapt to it. Since the future is unknowable, adaptation requires nimbleness of thought and action; and thought and action based on a clinical – some would say cold-blooded – understanding of the world as it is and not as we think it ought to be."

The changing world forces us to change and adapt. And we need to do what is necessary for Singapore's survival.

I move on now to the point of diversity of views and discourse, clearly, a point that has been raised often in this House as well.

As we write the chapters for the next 50 years, we do need to look at how, as a mature society, we handle diversity of views. I think we can all agree that diversity can be a strength, if it can be synergised and used for the good of the people. However, it is also a potential divisive factor that can tear our social fabric. So, how do we make it our strength and not cause our fall?

I feel that the Prime Minister's announcements yesterday regarding increasing the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) in Parliament and extending powers of NCMPs, are concrete steps towards bringing diversity of views in Parliament. I, therefore, welcome this proposal as it allows for respectful discourse on real issues that matter to Singaporeans and leads to the shaping of useful and important policies for the people.

I also feel that the approach of encouraging diversity of views should be extended to the masses. I laud the Government's efforts in creating platforms and engaging various segments of the community, including the young. It is definitely important to engage the youth on matters that are important to them, especially since they would inherit the nation and should have a say in how the society develops. Platforms, such as the SGfuture Engagements, are definitely useful to trigger the discourse.

But beyond creating the platforms and spaces, there needs to be real discourse and the exercise of not merely lip-service. I believe there needs to be a push for more open debates and discussions.

For instance, in the light of the increasing wave of terrorist attacks and influence globally, inevitably some attention is now placed on the Muslim community in Singapore. The Muslim community has expressed concern over the increasing Islamophobia and the observation that some Muslims are growing somewhat more distant from the rest of the Singaporean community. There is a need to have very frank conversations about real issues facing the community. These conversations may possibly be difficult but this is an effort that should be put in together by all in the community, not just the Singaporean Muslims. And I believe that the leadership has a role in encouraging these discussions.

The reality is that some of these conversations are already happening on the online platform. In certain instances, such discussions appear to be rather toxic. So, we should manage and encourage further respectful discussions. Our efforts in encouraging racial and religious harmony can no longer be at a superficial level of attending each other's cultural events. We should allow for space to talk about our identities, our religious practices, such as the burning of incense paper, the wearing of the tudung, the playing of music during Thaipusam, for example. And there should be open dialogues as such conversations allow for better understanding of each other's concerns.

Yes, we need to preserve the sanctity of the harmonious co-existence of various races and religions. Our forefathers had learnt to live together despite their differences and had managed to achieve a state of peaceful equilibrium. This is something we should cherish. But we should also continue to build on the bonds we have. There is a need for faith in the maturity of the Singapore people and a realisation that the preservation of our individual identities or practice of our respective religions does not necessarily mean that our common spaces are being encroached upon or that we are distancing ourselves from each other. Perhaps, there is a need to redefine the common space. Perhaps, there are new norms that Singaporeans can agree upon. We must allow for such discussions to flourish and work towards achieving consensus. Mdm Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community has certain traits that bring something important to the table for other Singaporeans. Malay/Muslims truly value living in a society. This spirit is always visible; so much so that the gotong-royong concept has spread and been adapted by non-Malays in Singapore.

Our community has a highly-developed culture, a refined language and is well-mannered. If we look at it, our vocabulary is filled with noble values. Our proverbs, poems (pantun) and metaphors reflect the sharp minds of the Malays.

I will give you some examples: "We depended on the fence, but the fence destroyed the paddy", meaning "the one you trust betrayed you" – a proverb used by our Prime Minister yesterday. Another example, "We have to face difficulties before enjoying the good times" – a proverb that gives us a reminder and encourages hard work.

We should be proud of our culture and language and continue to use and internalise their values in our daily lives.

All these values are important in our societal relations, especially in the current context, which includes a challenging economic situation and the spread of radicalism.

In Parliament, many have spoken about the spread of terrorism and the attacks around the world. Our Malay/Muslim community rejects such beliefs. Surely, our community cannot be blamed and our loyalty should not be questioned. Nonetheless, the reality is that the attention is now placed on the Malay/Muslim community.

I think it is important for the Government to take steps to encourage open discussions on these issues so that any prejudices and misunderstandings can be eradicated immediately. There should also be stern reminders to condemn and prevent actions that reek of Islamophobia.

One other thing that is constantly in the minds of our community is the tudung issue. As a woman who wears tudung, I definitely hope that all women can pursue their career of choice. Hence, I hope this can be reviewed and flexibility be given where possible, so that there will not be too many barriers for women to choose their own careers.

However, when we ask for something from the Government, I hope that we, as a community, can be mature and discuss respectfully. We should know and understand that there are implications to whatever decisions that we wish for, in the context of a plural society. We should use the opportunities available to improve relations with the other races so that there is a deep understanding about our culture and religion. We are part of a plural society in Singapore and we must always be mindful to maintain racial and religious harmony.

The Malay/Muslim community also has aspirations and hopes to succeed and see Malays in all fields, including leadership. Prime Minister Lee yesterday spoke about the changes to the Constitution of Singapore, including having smaller GRCs and the changes to the eligibility criteria for the Elected President.

There are now mechanisms to ensure that the concerns of Malay/Muslim Singaporeans are looked after due to the existence of the GRC system which requires the representation of minorities. This is important and needs to be maintained.

In changing the eligibility criteria for the Elected President, Prime Minister Lee said that there will be a process to ensure that minorities will not be excluded and there will be a President from the minority group.

We would definitely like to see representation from our community but we would like our Malays to be chosen because he or she is the best and not because of his or her race. We do not want the selection to be a symbolic one only. Hence, while I welcome the Government's concern for the minority communities, I also feel that the Malay/Muslim community must continue to work hard so that they can generate the next generation of leaders of a high calibre, who can not only compete in Singapore, but also in the international arena.

Just now, Acting Minister Ng Chee Meng spoke about a Malay song, that is, our National Anthem. I would also like to highlight another song that is written by the late Pak Zubir Said. I am not a good singer so I shall just read out some of the lyrics.

"If you become a Singaporean,

You must have a good heart and be courteous.

You must be resilient, work hard,

Be well-mannered and respectful to your elders.

Only then others will admire and respect us,

Only then you can be called a Singaporean."

In this song, the late Pak Zubir spoke about having good manners, courtesy, resilience, working hard, loyalty towards the country, our race and our religion and living together as a society. I think this is very meaningful and it truly reflects the values that should be present in all Singaporeans. These values are already present inside us. I am sure that, with this spirit, we can face any challenges that may come.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, allow me to conclude in English. Over the past few days, my colleagues in this House have shared their perspectives and proposals on how to move this country forward. The breadth of issues raised and the variety of ideas shared are a testament to the diversity and dynamism of the Members of this House. This, in turn, reflects the diversity of the Singaporeans whom the Members represent.

As I have mentioned earlier, I welcome the improvements to the NCMP scheme. I look forward to seeing more of the likes of Mr Leon Perera and Mr Dennis Tan who will add to the robust debate and change laws. I am, therefore, quite surprised that they were being compared to duckweeds, because nothing stops the NCMPs from going to the ground, do house visits, organise sessions to gather ground concerns. In fact, I recall Mr Perera mentioning that he does grassroots work at East Coast and Aljunied and definitely can bring value to this House with the issues that he will collate from all these people that he has met. These improvements will strengthen the NCMP's position and I think it is hard to argue otherwise. In any case, the contest at elections remains open to all and it is still open for Singaporeans to choose the best party and people to be their elected Members of Parliament.

Mdm Speaker, we may not all agree with one another but we debate respectfully and I believe that this decorum can extend beyond this House because Singaporeans are responsible people who care about this nation. We do not argue for the sake of argument and will always seek consensus and not conflict.

Whilst there is much fear and uncertainty about what the future brings, I feel a sense of excitement on the possibilities for this little red dot. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.46 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Mdm Speaker, I rise to express my support for the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

As a new Member of Parliament, I feel the weight of my new responsibilities. I see my role as a Member of the Thirteenth Parliament as contributing meaningfully to the debate of this House in two ways. One, I will voice the hopes, worries and dreams of my constituents and, two, I will talk about issues that I feel strongly about.

Our predecessors in previous Parliaments have set a high standard. Now, it is our turn to build on their good work. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my appreciation and gratitude to all our seniors in this House, past and present.

Mdm Speaker, I wish to focus on two issues which the President mentioned in his Address.

The first is to "future-proof" our economy. The Government has implemented several measures to prepare our students and workforce, one of which is SkillsFuture, to support lifelong learning.

I know a young man, Adam, 31 years old, father of two. He has Secondary school education, tried several jobs and, finally, decided that being a taxi driver suits him best. He explained that it is hard for him to tap on SkillsFuture as he works long hours and has family commitments. People like Adam who needs SkillsFuture the most may have difficulties finding time for it.

We need to stress the urgency and importance of SkillsFuture for the current generation of workers because, like Adam, they have not been trained in new technologies and they will be the ones who will be most affected. I will share more on this later.

I worry about the current cohort of workers due to the confluence of developments in information technology (IT), artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Some have called it the robotics revolution. Are we prepared in our education and training systems to ride the crest of this development wave?

The future is very exciting but it is also very challenging. Increasingly, we will see more machines taking over dangerous occupations and relieving us of mundane, repetitive jobs, including household chores. It also means that many jobs we know today will be eliminated, including some white-collars.

A Merrill Lynch report says, "The combination of AI, machine learning, deep learning and natural user interfaces, such as voice recognition, is making it possible to automate many knowledge worker tasks that were long regarded as impossible or impractical for machines to perform."

What about us? If about 30% to 40% of our jobs were to be made redundant, will we achieve higher productivity, higher unemployment, or both?

I recently visited the Future of Us exhibition with my branch volunteers. It was an inspiring evening together. We got a glimpse of life in future Singapore. For example, we could be moving around in driverless cars. But then last week's Sunday Times asked this question: "In a driverless future, what happens to today's drivers?"

With the advent of taxi applications, driverless cars and car-sharing schemes, the taxi and bus industries will be affected. Will all these technology advancements make taxi drivers redundant in 10 years? Not so far-fetched.

A mere 20 years ago, dial-up Internet was hardly seen in most homes. Today, high-speed Internet has permeated all aspects of our lives, so much so that we can hardly imagine going through a day without it. The pace of innovation and technological development is relentless.

So, what happens to Adam? I will have to persuade him to take SkillsFuture seriously, to make use of the opportunities to pick up new skills. In this way, he will be able to earn a living in future Singapore.

All of us will be affected one way or another; it is not only the blue-collar jobs. With cloud computing technologies, many companies will automate white-collar functions, such as HR, IT, customer service and accounting.

We need to do two things to prepare ourselves for this.

One, we need a renewed focus in education on these new technologies, such as ITE courses on the technology involved in driverless cars, augmented reality in JCs, and industrial robotics in Polytechnics.

Two – and I repeat my earlier point on SkillsFuture – we need to ensure that our current workforce, people like Adam, can be trained in other areas and to remain relevant even as their jobs may change or eventually disappear.

The second issue I want to raise is on the better integration of our infrastructure for caregiving. Our infrastructure must take into account how to better integrate facilities and services to make life easier.

Last year, the Ministerial Committee on Ageing announced a $3 billion national plan to help Singaporeans age confidently and lead active lives.

One initiative which caught my eye was the decision to co-locate eldercare and childcare facilities in 10 HDB BTO new projects.

I have a combined childcare, student care and eldercare facility in my Tampines constituency, which was initiated by my predecessor, Mr Mah Bow Tan, 20 years ago. My centre takes care of 90 children, 70 students and 50 senior citizens.

One of my constituents, Mdm Tan, was enrolled in our eldercare facility in this 3-in-1 centre and her granddaughter is in student care. They live in separate homes but they get to see each other in this centre. So, it is very convenient and also precious that grandma and granddaughter get to "hang out" with each other because of shared facilities and programmes.

I have seen first-hand the benefits both groups receive from each other because of this facility. As the number of elders in our society grows, I would like to propose that we accelerate the development of these inter-generational facilities that will benefit both the young and the old.

We have two public facilities which, I think, can be better used for this purpose. The first is our schools. Taking a cue from my 3-in-1 centre, I would like to propose that our schools have integrated eldercare facilities.

Our schools have safe open spaces with appropriate exercise facilities and areas suitable for the elderly. The seniors can participate in the school's activities, whether passively like watching school performances, or actively in music and art classes.

Like Mdm Tan's family, many of our young are cared for by their grandparents while their parents work. These facilities will provide a nexus for these grandparents who send their grandchildren to school, to stay on, mingle, get involved as a volunteer or even be a participant in the eldercare programmes. Let our more abled seniors help the less abled.

The second public facility that can be better used is our many beautiful neighbourhood parks. On weekdays, they are quiet. Let us do more with them. I would like to suggest that the Government build integrated centres in our public parks. I recently learnt that this idea will be implemented in Tokyo, with three wards in Tokyo opening childcare centres in urban parks next year.

Locations, such as Bishan-Ang Mo Kio Park and Tampines Sun Plaza Park, would be suitable. These parks are close to HDB heartlands, have convenient drop-off and pick-up points and ample space. The children and elderly can exercise, take strolls and be with nature. Community "urban farmers" can supervise and share their gardening expertise.

Most of us will live longer and well into our eighties and beyond. What do we hope to see when we reach that age?

I hope that we will be a nation of multi-generational neighbourhoods, where we take care of each other and where our elderly and our young can mingle and share their lives and experiences, like Mdm Tan and her granddaughter. This means providing many more opportunities for our neighbours and generations to come together, interact and encourage each other.

Mdm Speaker, I believe that the integration of facilities, institutions and services will result in stronger community bonds. As we strive to be a Smart Nation, I hope we can also be a cosy and compassionate Home for Adam, Mdm Tan and all Singaporeans.

4.16 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion. Madam, Singapore had just celebrated our 50th year of Independence last year as a nation. It was an extraordinary year and one thing that stood out for me was that we were all reminded of how exceptional we are as a little red dot and how the responsibility of ensuring another 50 great years for Singapore now falls squarely on our shoulders. This mission cannot be taken lightly and we must do our best to ensure that Singapore remains a land of opportunities and a home for all Singaporeans.

For me, this mission is more personal and poignant, now that my son is barely six months old and he would still, hopefully, be in his prime when the time SG100 comes. I believe I speak for all parents who have young children, when I say that I would like him to grow up in a safe and secure Singapore in which he can get great education, achieve his aspirations, as well as live in and contribute to a peaceful, harmonious society.

In his speech, the President described five key aims that we ought to fulfil. I whole-heartedly agree that these are critical and we must get them right. In fact, I believe these five aims are interdependent and, for me, the most critical of these aims would be the need to foster a caring society, one in which our people feel meaningfully engaged and are actively involved. Ultimately, no matter how robust our economy, how strong our society or how advanced our technology may be, a strong nation has to draw strength from its people.

Therefore, please allow me to speak on the aim of fostering a more caring society and, more specifically, on how we can all care more for our elderly and young families.

First, on our elderly. We must care for our elderly, make sure that their needs are catered for, so that they need not live in anxiety and fear post-retirement, or worse, gloomily count down to the last day of their lives. But more than that, we must enable our elderly, so that life post-retirement is still exciting and promising. We all aspire to lead a good life and a good life cannot be judged by the number of years lived. It has to be based on qualitative measures, such as health, a sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem.

At home, shrinking family sizes and increasing numbers of singles will limit the scope of home care for our elderly. One way to deal with this would be to have the elderly institutionalised in a nursing or an elderly home. But this is far from ideal because, given our rapidly ageing population, there is insufficient space to build enough nursing or elderly homes. Moreover, this does not align well with our vision of "ageing in place". Therefore, we must continue to invest in technological research and expedite the implementation of tested solutions that can enable our elderly to live independently at home. As we move towards a "Smart Nation", this has to be given priority.

At work, our elderly should be encouraged to work for as long as they can and want to. Firstly, staying employed helps to keep our bodies and minds active. Secondly, staying employed helps to preserve our sense of self-efficacy and self-esteem. Of course, the additional "pocket money" from the income earned is welcomed. Thirdly, as we have an ageing population, the average age of our workforce is expected to rise. Hence, it is not just a social responsibility to enable our elderly to stay and, indeed, to thrive in their jobs, but there is economic imperative as well, given the tight labour market. Our systems, our working environments and, especially our attitudes, have to change in preparation for this eventuality. Age discrimination at work, especially at the point of recruitment, must be stemmed out. There is also a need for a more concerted and stronger push for jobs to be redesigned to become more elderly-friendly.

At the community level, we need to continue our efforts to build a strong social network of support, as it helps to keep out loneliness and complement familial support. Such a network requires not only the participation of Government agencies and voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), but neighbours can have a role to play as well. Neighbours can help to keep an eye on an elderly, notice any irregularity and call for help immediately. Neighbours can help to, for instance, bring an elderly to his/her medical appointment at the polyclinic nearby, explain schemes that are available for the elderly to benefit from, or encourage and assist the elderly to participate in community programmes and stay active.

Within the community, we should not only consider the elderly as being simply the recipients of care. They can also be enabled to contribute meaningfully as well. At present, I am very heartened and encouraged to witness how our seniors in MacPherson have been actively serving our community. For instance, many are involved in the Pioneer Generation (PG) Ambassador programme, in which it involves them helping to explain to fellow Pioneers what the package entails and even help them to seek help with problems not covered by the package. The PG Ambassadors receive good training and support and they feel empowered and proud to be able to help others. Hence, we must continue to promote senior volunteerism and find ways to empower our elderly, as they are hidden gems in our communities. Madam, I would like to continue in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In recent years, many of our speeches have inevitably been about the vision of a caring society. In my opinion, the measure of success in achieving this goal is how we treat our elderly.

Based on my observations in the last few years, Singaporeans are compassionate about our elderly and the Government has actively implemented many measures and packages to look after our elderly. However, there are still some people who are prejudiced against the elderly, seeing them as a burden to the family, workplace and society. And some of the elderly also see themselves as old and useless, passively counting down to the last day of their lives.

I hope we can end these prejudices and take action to help everyone recognise that age should not be a barrier, that an elderly can still be driven, useful and healthy.

Hence, I propose that we should advocate three ideas: care for the elderly, respect the elderly and cherish the elderly.

First, care for the elderly. This means to enable them to live in ease and comfort in their golden years. We should look after the elderly, satisfy their basic needs and preserve their dignity. Besides basic needs, such as food and clothing, we must also make sure they age in place. Although we are building more nursing homes to meet the needs of an ageing society, most elderly prefer to spend their last days in their own home, not a nursing home or a home for the elderly. In addition, there is a rising trend of elderly living alone, so we should help them – indeed, for ourselves in future, too – redesign their homes. We should use technology and actively research and implement assistive technologies, so that the elderly who live alone or have disabilities can lead a safer and more independent life. By doing this, we can achieve our ideal of "ageing in place".

Beyond that, we should continue to engage and organise the community, encourage residents to work with the Government and VWOs to strengthen our social support network and maintain the community spirit of neighbours looking after one another.

Second, respect the elderly. This means to respect the seniors and not to look down on them. We should encourage and support those who still want to work to do so, or support them to fulfil their unfulfilled dreams. This is because work can help them to stay active physically and mentally and maintain confidence in themselves. Moreover, extra pocket money is welcomed. However, when working in my constituency, I would have seniors sharing their woes with me every now and then about how difficult it is to get a job as they grew old. Therefore, we need to put in more effort in improving our national system, work environment design and attitude towards the elderly. As the saying goes, "An old horse knows its ways". It means that the elderly are very experienced. Hence, we must respect them and provide them with opportunities. At least, we should not deny them the opportunity of taking that first step. Can an "old horse" not continue to gallop?

Third, cherish the elderly. It means to appreciate and treasure our seniors. The elderly, especially those who have retired, are our precious resource. They have the time and experience and are able to continue to contribute to the country and the community. In MacPherson, we have many seniors who are passionate about charity and volunteering in the community. They often help out at community events and look after vulnerable neighbours. Sometimes, they can even mobilise the aunties and uncles in the community to help. Sometimes, they will voluntarily offer to solve problems for their neighbours. If they are unable to do so, they will accompany troubled neighbours to come and see me. So, let us not lose these gems of ours!

(In English): Families have been the bedrock of our society. Hence, we must continue to support families in Singapore so that Singapore will continue to be strong. Often, I receive pleas from young parents seeking help with childcare as they have to work. They feel stressed having to balance the needs of their families and careers, sometimes, at the expense of each other. Young mothers also lament to me about how they are trying to heed the Government's call to have children, how they are trying to fulfil their duty to the nation but it is just very difficult to do so when they cannot get the support they need. So, why should young families be subjected to such a trade-off? Can we not better enable them to raise their young whilst not having to compromise on their aspirational pursuits?

I am glad that the Government is increasing the supply of infant care, childcare and student care centres, as well as proactively strengthening the quality of such centre-based care. However, supply is still chasing demand at present. We need to look for alternatives so as to enhance accessibility of care and provide options for young parents.

One, could we leverage more on homemakers with childcare experiences within the community? In the course of my constituency work, I have met many housewives who are experienced and willing to care for neighbours' children and whose children have grown up. They love children and, of course, a little pocket money would not hurt. At the same time, I have also just recently come across a young couple with two-year-old triplets who are in desperate need of support. The couple need to work, their parents have yet to retire and they could not find a reliable maid. Hence, we are now looking to the "auntie-network" within the community to provide some interim childcare support in the meantime, especially with Chinese New Year nearing.

Can we expand such arrangements into a wider support scheme? Could we systematically identify and build up a formal network of housewives within communities? Their profiles and childcaring resumes can be consolidated into a directory which young families can refer to when considering childcare options. And for quality assurance, the enrolled housewives can go through basic courses to update them on some of the latest developments, needs and standards.

Two, could we further facilitate familial support by increasing the quota of flats set aside under the Married Child Priority Scheme (MCPS) per BTO development? The Government must be credited for enhancing MCPS about two years ago and for introducing the Proximity Housing Grant (PHG) last year. But there continues to be a demand.

Firstly, there are still young couples who sincerely hope to secure a new flat near their parents for mutual care and support but have been unsuccessful in their ballot despite the priority. This challenge is exacerbated when their parents live in mature estates, where flat supply is already scarce and where competition is also keener.

Secondly, the PHG is meant for resale flats and, while the resale prices are no longer going up, many young couples continue to find the prices beyond their purchasing power. Hence, while the PHG helps to offset part of a resale flat's price premium over a subsidised one, it is still not enough to make a resale flat within the affordability range to them. As such, could we seriously consider increasing the quota of flats set aside under MCPS per BTO development?

Thirdly, we need to continue to entrench the belief that mothers can continue to contribute and value-add in the workplace and society. We need employers and colleagues to be understanding to mothers who go on maternity or childcare leave. Once, a young mother wrote to me to share her woes about her employer who would make scathing remarks when she took maternity leave. Her employer approved of the leave anyway because it was mandated, but were the remarks necessary?

We need to enable more flexi-work arrangements so that mothers can still contribute fully even as they take childcare leave. We need fair appraisal systems that focus on the quality of work done and that do not mark down mothers simply because they are out of action for a few months. Such behaviours – mean remarks and unfair appraisal systems – are manifestations of an underlying prejudice that mothers are liabilities at work, thereby negating the value that they can offer professionally and to our society. We should work to improve the situation in Singapore so that women can thrive in both motherhood and career.

Madam, I have just shared my thoughts and suggestions on how we can better care and enable our elderly and young families in Singapore. At this juncture, I would like to highlight that active citizenry runs through almost all the points that I have made. Indeed, I believe that all Singaporeans have a shared responsibility in the many works of our nation. A truly caring society is not one in which the caring is only done by the Government or a selected group of people. A great nation is not one in which its people care only about themselves.

Thankfully, I would say that Singaporeans do care. From the time I served as a grassroots leader, which would have been about 11 years ago, I have witnessed how many Singaporeans are prepared to sacrifice their personal time, space and resources to help others. I am constantly touched by their concern for the less fortunate or more vulnerable and, even more so, when those who needed help in the first place are also helping others. Such care and concern for our fellow men and women build trust, strengthen our community and keep us together. It inspires us to do better, to think about how our actions affect the others around us. It makes life worth living.

Therefore, beyond policy debate or discussions of current affairs, we must continue to focus on building an active citizenry. This has to happen at all levels – within the community, we should enlist Singaporeans to form a network of support; within the nation, we should encourage volunteerism and charitable causes and engage citizens to give ideas for Singapore and to participate in building a better future for ourselves and our children.

Finally, it is a privilege to serve and to stand in Parliament. Singaporeans sent us into Parliament because they trust us and hope that we can give voice to the challenges, worries, hopes and dreams that they have. We, all of us in this House, including my hon Non-Constituency Member of Parliament colleagues, must do our best. Such a privilege cannot be transferred. We must cherish it and, hence, in this Thirteenth Parliament, we must continue to speak up actively and work hard together to fulfil the five aims that the President has shared with us.

SG100 takes time to build, but it is not that distant a dream. Let us continue to build on one another's strengths in fulfilling the vision of a safe, secure, caring and united Singapore. With that, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

4.34 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Marine Parade): Mdm Speaker, we celebrated SG50 last year. As one Singapore, we rallied together, we reminisced, we rejoiced, we reflected. And we also came together in one unbelievable moment in the outpouring of grief when our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew passed on. The range of emotions we shared served to bring Singaporeans closer together, like never before.

We are still only a fledgling nation, but we have had much to celebrate of our achievements over the last 50 years. It is nothing short of a remarkable success story. But at the same time, we must recognise that all of that is now firmly in the past. We can live in the past, or we can move on. We can strive to build on our past successes, but we can never assume it to be a given that the next 50 years will be anything like the last 50.

By all accounts, the litany of challenges for us on the horizon is, indeed, very daunting. What we make of it and how we overcome them will define us as a people and successive generations will measure us by what we put in place and achieve today for the Singapore of tomorrow.

How do we tackle the road ahead? Over the last few days in this House, we have heard many suggestions. There have been many passionate calls for bold new directions, policy changes – as my hon colleague Ms Denise Phua said – redreaming and calling for the slaying of the sacred cow as well. There is much richness in the broad canvas of these ideas but we have to find a way to tie them together. I have got some competition.

At the very heart of our success has been the stability and cohesiveness which we have enjoyed as a society. But that has not come about by chance. Inclusion, mobility and opportunity delivered by a sound political system which is fair, transparent and stable, has allowed successive Governments to design and implement policies to benefit and uplift society. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need good politics to make for good policies.

In my view, therefore, behind every successful society – and, indeed, as Acting Minister Ong said, if we want to achieve, "faster legs, stronger hearts and wiser minds" – we have to have a sound political system.

Politics and political systems shape and drive social norms – it is a point I will come back to later – but politics is never very far away from the way we run our society.

In his Opening Address, President Tan spoke of the "innovations" to our system which have served us well. These innovations are unique to Singapore. We might have started with the British system, but our founding fathers had the foresight, political will and gumption to adapt and bespoke it to meet the specific needs of our society, our Singapore society.

Take the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) scheme, for instance. We have had to adapt and change the original system because we are a pluralistic, multiracial society; quite unlike the British, from whom we inherited the system; quite unlike almost every nation in the world.

Singapore is almost synonymous with multiracialism. So much so that if you went to google "multiracial society" now, you will find that two-thirds of the hits on the first page mention or are about Singapore.

Carefully nurtured and cultivated over the years of our history, multiracialism is now self-evident in almost every facet of our life – in our schools, our HDB flats, our common spaces, our food and our shared heritage. And, yes, even in our politics.

In June 2015, US President Barack Obama observed this about Singapore in a dialogue with young Asian leaders and he said:

"And the truth of the matter is that one of the reasons that Singapore, as I mentioned earlier, has been successful, is that it has been able to bring together people who may look different, but they all think of themselves as part of Singapore. And that has to be a strength, not a weakness, but that requires leadership and government being true to these principles."

It is, indeed, a unique strength, but we must jealously guard it for it could so easily turn into a weakness – a fault line in our society to be exploited. When you look around the world today, some of the deepest fault lines in civil society are drawn precisely on racial or religious lines and we, in Singapore, are not necessarily immune to that.

Our racial and religious harmony and the Government's role in maintaining this through good politics, can never be taken for granted. Indeed, not very far away from us, in Malaysia, we see an example of a society fractured by their political and social lines being drawn precisely on racial differences.

Two recent examples come to mind and you would have seen them in the press, both involving scuffles at an IT mall, one in July 2015 at a popular IT mall called Low Yat Plaza and another one in December 2015 at the Kota Raya. Both involved Malays and Chinese clashing over unhappy business transactions.

In themselves, the incidents were not necessarily remarkable. But what I found staggering was the Malaysian government's response. Instead of seeking to bridge the divide, they decided to designate a "bumiputera-only" mall in response; that opened in December 2015. In fact, it came with free six months' rental to Malay entrepreneurs. Can we imagine for a moment that taking place in Singapore? But why has this happened just across our shores?

As I have mentioned, politics drive social norms and shape behaviour. The origins of the recent racial tensions in Malaysia can, in some ways, be traced to the racial stratification that has been deeply entrenched in the Malaysian political system for many years, for decades. Political parties were formed along racial lines. The Barisan Nasional coalition is made up of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu (PBB) and the Chinese-based Malaysia Chinese Association (MCA), as well as the Indian-based Malaysian Indian Congress. Can we imagine any of these taking place in Singapore? A racialised political system has resulted in significant lines of divide in Malaysia's society which still persist today.

That is why politics is not an abstract. It is not distinct from the policies we seek to make, or the type of society we seek to build. Politics touch and affect the way we live in a very real and tangible way.

That is why the GRC scheme, an "innovation" which we have introduced, must remain a very fundamental tenet of our political system. It is the bedrock which safeguards multiracial representation in our Parliament and, ultimately, in our Government.

The GRC system was implemented in 1988 precisely to prevent politics in Singapore from being polarised along racial lines. Aside from guaranteeing minority representation in Parliament, the requirement that at least one candidate of each GRC belongs to a minority community means that candidates and their political parties cannot campaign on racial lines. These objectives remain relevant, if not more relevant, today. I, therefore, support the continuation of the GRC scheme and I should add that this scheme is by no means a political tool to marginalise the prospects of success for Opposition candidates in an election. In fact, having taken Aljunied GRC on two previous occasions, I am surprised we still see the Workers' Party continuing to make such an argument.

At the same time, I also welcome the move to have smaller and, therefore, more GRCs and more Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) in the next election. I think this makes for better options and choices for the electorate and the Workers' Party surely cannot complain about smaller GRCs! The question of economies of scale in the running of a Town Council can, I think, be easily overcomed by having more than one GRC make up a town, which is currently not the case.

Another innovation we will re-look is the Elected Presidency, first mooted by then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1984. Two White Papers later, the Elected Presidency became a feature of our political landscape, as an additional check and balance on the Government of the day – an additional insurance for the people of Singapore.

The question is whether this office has outlived its relevance and should be abolished. I think not. Far from heeding the calls to abolish the Elected Presidency, I think it is now even more important than ever that we retain and enhance it.

We have heard from the Prime Minister yesterday that our foreign reserves have grown almost 10 times in the period 1988 to 2015. Our GDP per capita has grown about eight times in that same period. These reserves, carefully accumulated over years of careful, considerate and conservative budgeting, need a strong second key to safeguard them.

The President, therefore, fulfils more than just a ceremonial function. Though his powers are reactive in nature, he is the custodian of Singapore's accumulated foreign reserves and acts as a check and balance on public service integrity and against possible excesses of power by the Executive. In order to achieve that, it is, therefore, necessary for him to act with a mandate and moral authority and that is why he is elected and not appointed. However, the review of some key aspects of the office of the Elected Presidency is timely and appropriate and I will suggest two points.

First, as a starting point, it can surely brook no dissent that only the very best, the most qualified, experienced, competent and honest persons of the highest calibre should even be considered. There can be absolutely no political agenda behind this.

Yet, we have previously seen the Workers' Party complain bitterly about this programme – complained that the stringent prequalifications for Presidential candidacy has made it much harder for aspiring candidates to become nominated. Why? Why should we feel apologetic about imposing the very most stringent conditions and criteria on a person who is to be carrying out heavy constitutional burdens to safeguard your reserves and mine? Only the very best people should be the Head of State, not an inexperienced or under-qualified one and certainly not a populist one.

In fact, I would suggest that we would need to strengthen the qualifying criteria from at least two perspectives.

First, obviously, the paid-up threshold has become obsolete and that should be reviewed. But, second and, perhaps more fundamentally, I hope the Constitution Commission can look into this, that we look beyond just the numbers. Just because a candidate has been a CEO or a CFO of a company with $x million of paid-up capital or turnover does not necessarily make that person the right person or, indeed, a suitable or appropriate person to become the Elected President.

In my view, there is every reason to impose far more stringent qualifying criteria because this is not a popular contest. It is serious business making sure that the constitutional duties are properly discharged. If the Elected President fails as the guardian, Singapore fails. So, if we elect either a populist or a partisan President, what kind of an effective second key can we expect?

Second, we should review the current make-up of the CPA which advises the President on a range of matters. I think we can all agree that the members of the Advisory Committee should be well-qualified – they should be strong. The question is: how should we select them and who should they comprise?

I would make two suggestions. First, to have more than just the current six members available as advisers to the President. The CPA should be enhanced with competent experts appointed from across a diverse range of fields as well as from across a spectrum of civil society who, collectively, can represent a broad cross-section of stakeholders in Singapore.

Second, I would also suggest that these advisers be required to outline the grounds on which they give their advice, save on matters of national security. This ensures transparency and accountability and engenders public confidence.

Finally, the last innovation I would like to deal with is the NCMP scheme. Mr Low Thia Khiang said earlier good politics is not shaped or monopolised by the ruling party – alternative voices, dissenting opinions should be heard. That is precisely what the NCMP scheme, as now currently revised, seeks to achieve. It will be enhanced, it will be enlarged, it will be made more robust and it will give the Opposition an expanded voice in Parliament.

I heard the press quoting Mr Low last evening as saying that "the NCMP is still weak because he does not have roots, unlike elected MPs. He is not grounded in a Town Council. He does not have a constituency to run."

I think Mr Low has missed the point. The privilege to run a Town Council and to manage a constituency is one that can only be bestowed by the electorate of that constituency. It is a mandate from the people. And if, in elections, the electorate does not choose the Workers' Party to run their Town Council, perhaps because they feel that the Workers' Party is not qualified to do so – that choice has to be respected.

The NCMP scheme does not, in any way, take away the ability or opportunity of any candidate to contest freely for the privilege to run a constituency or the Town Council. If you win your seat, then you run the Town Council. You grow your roots.

But if you do not, then the NCMP scheme still gives the Opposition a second chance. Hence, in cases where the Opposition candidate has tried but failed to win the mandate of the people, then, in those cases, the best losers are, nonetheless, offered a seat in Parliament – now with all the parliamentary privileges of an elected Member. Clearly, the NCMP Scheme has brought a more diverse range of views into Parliament and we heard that in the last Parliament.

At the same time, it has also served the Opposition well, even if they do protest a little loudly. They have, in many instances over the years, taken advantage themselves of the NCMP seat precisely for the advancement of their own political agenda.

A good example of this is the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. As the Prime Minister noted, she was first elected as an NCMP in 2006 before winning her seat as a Member of Parliament for Aljunied in 2011 and again in 2015. I think even Ms Lim would agree that her presence in Parliament, as an NCMP, gave her the exposure and contributed greatly to her eventual success as an elected Member.

More recently, we have seen the Workers' Party opting to re-assign their NCMP seat from Mr Gerald Giam to Mr Leon Perera, both of whom were members of one of the best losing teams on the East Coast GRC slate. This presumably was to allow the younger and newer members, such as Mr Perera, to gain experience and exposure. Why? Clearly for increased exposure, for their own agenda, so that he would be better placed at the next elections.

So, the fact of the matter is that the NCMP scheme not only introduces greater diversity and debate in Parliament, it helps Opposition Members gain exposure and recognition. I, therefore, cannot see the basis on which the Workers' Party continues to mount this complaint.

Let me conclude, Mdm Speaker. I am heartened by the changes that the Prime Minister has announced. They not only improve the political landscape and make for a solid infrastructure in which to take Singapore forward. Far from navel-gazing, as Mr Low has said, I see in these steps the hallmark of strong political will, great foresight and a determination to build for the future, not for this term, not for the next term even, but for the future. And with the Sigmoid Curve theory, transformational changes have to be made before the peaks of success are achieved, to ensure that success continues uninterrupted.

Let me conclude by going back to the point that good politics make for good policies. That is, indeed, true. But it takes two hands to clap and good politics also means that Singaporeans, too, must remain engaged with the Government. Singaporeans, too, must continue to be proactive in active citizenry and play a part in shaping our country's destiny. This is a crucial partnership, as we head into SG51 and beyond, if we want to build on the legacy of our founding fathers and leave Singapore in a better shape for successive generations to come.

We all have a part to play. So, in the words of someone recently made famous all over again: "Do or do not. There is no try". Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, you have a clarification?

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Yes, Madam, thank you. Madam, Mr Low is not in the Chamber, so I would like to clarify with Mr Tong on part of his speech. I am not sure whether I heard Mr Tong correctly, but was he trying to imply that the Workers' Party is arguing for NCMPs to be on equal standing with elected Members? Because from what I understood from what Mr Low said, basically, he was making the point that they are not the same. And speaking for myself as a former NCMP, I can say definitively that while yes, we are in the Chamber to contribute to debates, but it can never be the same as being an elected Member representing constituents.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I was referring to Mr Low's point where he was suggesting that the NCMPs create duckweeds. I do not think that is true. As the Member Ms Rahayu Mahzam mentioned earlier, you really make what you will of it yourself. You have the opportunity to make your house visits. You have the opportunity to grow your roots in your own constituency, whether you are an elected Member or an NCMP. The fact of the matter is that the scheme being expanded gives the NCMP greater voices in Parliament in terms of numbers, at least, and also with the proposed amendments by the Prime Minister, they are now voting on an equal footing with elected Members. And those were the issues I took issue with.

Ms Sylvia Lim : Madam, just to clarify on the Member's most recent exposition, did he say that NCMPs have the same capacity to grow their roots in the constituency that they are contesting? Was that what he said?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai : I said you can make what you will of it yourself. If you choose to be proactive on the ground, you can be present well beyond what the current NCMPs might well be doing. But the fact of the matter is, nothing in the scheme today precludes the NCMP from being visible, present and active on the ground.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, would the Member not agree that if a non-incumbent person, meaning not the incumbent Member of Parliament – besides if you are not a grassroots leader as well, under the People's Association – if you try to organise any activities in an area where you have no locus standi, you will need permission from other authorities to have the space to run those activities?

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: I think the fact of the matter is that whenever we choose to run an event, we hold a show, we all get the necessary permission, even for myself.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Lim, your last point is actually no longer a clarification. You are making a new point. So, I think I will stop your clarification at this point. I call now Mr Heng Chee How.

4.54 pm

The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Heng Chee How): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join this debate.

In the days of the Cold War, there was an East German person who braved the landmines and the machine gun fire in order to cross the border into West Germany to freedom. So, when he got to the other side, the Western media at that time were very interested to find out what happened – why this guy did this. And they were all gathered. The first one asked, "Why did you risk your life? I mean, you risked your life to run from communism to freedom. Therefore, what do you think of democracy and capitalism?" So, this man said, "I think democracy is chaotic and I think, in capitalism, men exploit men".

This was not the sort of answer that the reporters had expected because this guy braved the machine guns. Stunned, they asked again, "If that is what you thought of democracy and capitalism, then why did you risk your life coming here?" The man thought for a moment and he said, "Because I think that there is more bread here."

Mdm Speaker, certainly, man does not live by bread alone, but I think bread is also important. And before I go into my text for today, I just also wanted to reflect some of the things that Mr Low said just now.

He said the first 50 years – not his exact words, but that is what I understood to be what he was saying – that it was a journey where Singapore came out of very difficult circumstances, hostile environment, hostile neighbourhood to make it this far and that the next 50 years is different and, therefore, we have to change the model of our boat. I say it is not so simple.

I would agree that the first 50 years is a journey fraught with difficulties. We came out of difficult circumstances, people did not expect us to go very far or to survive very long. And we made it this far, taking those necessary and difficult decisions along the way, good leadership, good people working together. The next 50 years, totally different, we have arrived and it is just about aspirations – I do not think so. I think it is on top of these constraints. If anything, I think the world is becoming ever more complex, more difficult to deal with and, therefore, I say that the aspirations that we have, the values that we want to espouse, we build it on top of and never neglect that.

So, Mr Low says that as a result of that, one thing that we have to do is to buy insurance for our political system. I ask Singaporeans to consider: in this world, where all the original constraints continue to bind us and it is becoming ever more complex, think of what insurance to buy.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister spent a good deal of his speech explaining to Singaporeans and this House how we should enhance our system, precisely because – and he recognised that – we need that diversity of views. For one, for the NCMP system, he is expanding it not only in numbers but in the powers that they would have, voting in this House. Look at that. That is a practical example of a political party which understands what the people want and taking steps in order to ensure that their interest, what they want, is also reflected here. I say, buying insurance is correct, but please know which insurance policy you are considering.

Madam, in this House, we have heard many adjectives used by our hon colleagues in their speeches these past few days describing the vision of the Singapore that they want to see – wise, united, confident. Indeed, these are important elements of a successful society and nation because they help us imagine the ideal collective spirit of the nation that we should commit ourselves to protecting, to co-creating for the future.

That said, it is equally important that we think clearly about what needs to be done to achieve those ends in practical terms and in practical ways. For today, I would just limit what I want to say in the context of a maturing population and local workforce.

Madam, whenever people consider the future, sometimes, there is a tendency to speak in terms of the young inheriting the future. The young will certainly be there to inherit the future – that is true. But what is often assumed, perhaps not spoken, is that the older population has less of a part in that future because they are, willy-nilly, fading away, or that they are more there to be cared for than to contribute. And I think we must strenuously disabuse ourselves in Singapore of that notion and I would explain why.

All of us know that we have an ageing population, brought about by ever-improving longevity and prolonged low birth rates. We are told that we have, by a recent count ,some 300,000 citizens above the age of 65 and that by the sheer movement of the baby boomers through time, that the number will triple to 900,000 or more by the year 2030. And, of course, if we were to count from those aged 50 and above, the numbers would be even bigger.

Therefore, this is not a question of a possible black swan appearing on our horizon. This one needs no guesswork. It is an inescapable fact. The older population amongst us is not fading away. It is, in fact, an expanding segment.

So, does it really matter if the older population is an expanding segment? The answer is yes, it does. If this growing segment is strong, healthy and capable, then we have an advantage nationally. If it is weak, sickly and outdated, we will have to find more resources in order to pay for its upkeep. This is a core part of our social and economic defence.

If we look around us − and for those of us, middle-aged, you just look at our cohorts − I think it is fair to say that, by way of physical health, mature Singaporeans today at whatever chronological age are, on the whole, in a better shape than those of equivalent-age citizens two or three decades ago. And this has led some to say that the 60s are now the new 50s.

This is an important notion, in my view, because if the condition of mature citizens today is equivalent to those much younger in days gone by and, with improved assistive technology and design that the physical disparities between the older and the younger could also be compensated for, then what does that mean? It means that we can and we must retune our thinking and mindsets about what each age cohort is capable of doing, not only as individuals but within corporations and for this country. The whole idea of what constitutes that bracket called "Working Age population" is itself shifting. It is expanding. And for us to fail to take note of this as individuals, as companies, as HR and companies, I think it is for us to live in the past and to be guilty not only of mindless ageism and misjudgement, but, indeed, of wasting national resources, to our own detriment.

So, the old is, in a relative sense, getting younger. Interestingly, even as that is becoming clearer to us by the day, I think something quite the opposite is happening to those who are, by chronological age, younger.

We hear much about the ever-accelerating pace of change in science, technology and societal tastes and norms. We acknowledge that whatever content we may learn in school and University will very quickly become obsolete as a result of this relentless whirlwind of change. The young people emerging from our institutes of learning in their twenties will also find themselves falling behind the technology curve within, let us say, 10 years of graduating and be considered by companies to be outdated if they have not kept up with upgrading. Thus, strangely, those younger in age are also feeling the pressure of obsolescence that we typically think are associated with people maybe 20, 30, 40 years their senior and the physical fitness that they have, conferred by youth, is not an antidote for that.

MOM released today an Employment Report showing that net local jobs growth in the economy for 2015 has basically become flat, following more robust growth previously. So, it is continuing with its efforts to promote quality growth, to get quality jobs for locals, to maintain and strengthen the Singaporean Core, even as our economy and the local labour supply do not grow like before.

I look at these trends with keen interest, because what do we make of them? My belief is that they do not necessarily bode ill for us, if we play our cards well.

This is because these trends actually help us focus and they help educate us that we must abandon the deep-seated assumptions and biases about this correlation between chronological age and one's potential and capabilities on the one hand; and on the other hand, it makes it crystal clear that all of us, regardless of age, the chances of being able to take up good jobs, of being able to be matched to good jobs when jobs are, perhaps, not as plentiful as before, rest upon continual broadening and deepening of capabilities. And, I say, regardless of age.

The data also show us what our realistic options are in terms of our sources of manpower. In short, we have to make the best use of every single person. And if a segment in that workforce, namely, the older segment, is growing, then you want to make the best use of that certainly, especially when we are told by previous reports by MOM, by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) that this workforce will, in fact, peak, on an overall basis, sometime between 2020 and 2025. Foreign sources will not be easily available and have to continue to be tightly managed for social and security reasons.

Mdm Speaker, numbers aside, there is also a rich store of value in mature working people, the value accumulated and distilled through years of experience, networking and overcoming challenges. If companies and industries fail to intelligently tap and hold on to persons with such valuable assets and lose them, say, through unnecessary and premature retirement or short-sighted retrenchments, then when they need them, they cannot find them, they lose important institutional memory, knowledge and expertise. This is, to my mind, the equivalent of inflicting upon themselves a form of corporate or industry dementia.

In order to avert this lose-lose scenario, HR systems, policies and training opportunities must certainly adapt to the evolving realities. Investment in mature workers' training and development, done over a longer time span and runway, certainly, is not about tokenism. It is not even about fairness. It is straightforwardly, in our case, about smart decision-making by those accountable for business continuity and competitiveness. If you have a mature worker, you may say, by way of analogy, that you have a saw. If you do not keep that saw sharp, you neglect to sharpen it, then you will find that your sawing operation will be less efficient. You created that result. Do not belittle or blame the saw.

Madam, for our people to confidently make a good living in future, we must anchor our hopes on staying relevant to changing needs and being able to adapt quickly. At the same time, we must continue to innovate and enable options for more earning years.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

As of December last year, through surveys done by the NTUC, 85% of unionised companies are consciously employing workers beyond the age of 65. Tripartite partners are finalising the implementation schedule of raising the re-employment age ceiling from 65 to 67 and I am confident that the agreement will be made public soon. And with that, I think it sets the stage for us to, once again, think ahead to what may be possible beyond that.

For example, can we conceive of giving workers the chance and the choice to work beyond 67 on a regular basis? And, if so, what safeguards would be necessary and appropriate to put in place to address both the interests, as well as the fears, of workers and companies? Can there be more scope for customisation of arrangements according to industry or job types? How about, where there are company groups, the whole concept of where do you re-employ people to? Could it see a possible extension in a responsible way? These are some of the issues that I think are good for the tripartite partners to begin thinking about and discussing.

I think there is also room for Government policy to be reviewed to enable more earning years in a responsible way. I will give Members an example.

In June 2014, at my Meet-the-People session, one of my residents from Whampoa, Mr Ng, came to see me. Sixty-nine going on 70, he had a heavy vehicle licence and had been using that to drive heavy vehicles for a living for years and brought up a whole family. Problem was that the policy says that when you reach 70, you cannot renew that heavy vehicle licence which, to him, meant what was he going to earn a living with? I looked at him, he looked very fit, very alert and he said to me, "Send me to any health test, eye test, reflex test, test me. If I am good, let me through. If I am no good, stop me." I thought that was reasonable, I appealed for him. The appeal was rejected. I did not think it was right. I did not think it was fair. We must, of course, ensure safety for all road users. And I felt that appropriate tests, indeed, ought to be put in place to safeguard that aspect and then allow those who pass to continue earning a living. So, both he and I persisted in our appeals.

And I was glad that the Government heeded the needs of groups of Singaporeans in that kind of situation and updated the policy. So, in December last year, it raised the age limit from 70 to 75, subject to the motorist passing specified medical and driving proficiency tests. This shows that enabling, giving a chance and a choice, is possible. If you think about it, think about what is it that makes a person employable, is it fitness, is it attitude, is it skills? Address those things. It can be done.

There is also more that the tripartite partners can do to further bolster retirement adequacy provisions. For example, various measures were implemented in last year's Budget to boost that. From the CPF angle, higher CPF salary ceilings, higher Supplementary Retirement Scheme (SRS) contribution cap; raising CPF contribution rates for older workers, equalising those aged 50 to 55 with younger workers; enhancing progressivity through extra CPF interest.

The CPF LIFE scheme would also pay CPF members a stream of income in old age, with the Silver Support Scheme providing additional support for low-income seniors. We should continue to consider what further steps could be put in place, at the appropriate times, to enhance retirement adequacy through both CPF and non-CPF pathways.

CPF contribution rate ceilings, differences and interest rates should, of course, be periodically reviewed to ensure that they keep in step with changes in, for example, nominal income, as well as changes in conditions of the labour and money markets.

There should also be a deeper study of the apportionment of CPF savings between the various uses, to ensure that the original and primary purpose of the CPF scheme to help strengthen retirement adequacy is sufficiently assured.

It is still common to hear the phrase "Asset Rich Cash Poor". Hence, the Government should also examine the experience of facilitating the monetisation of property assets in retirement. Anecdotal evidence suggests that people are still generally reluctant to sell or partly lease-back their property in order to derive cash in old age, for cultural reasons. So, how then, if they have locked the money in there, can we help people make more rational allocations and monetisation?

Finally, we must tap ever-improving assistive technology and world-class age management and job design practices in order to enable productive employment, regardless of age.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the economy's chances of successful renewal and achieving a sustainable Singaporean Core rest squarely on how the Government and society rally and mobilise the entire population and workforce to lifelong learning, skills upgrading and adaptability. And this is not just a question about programming and funding.

It is about clear-headedness, effort, judgement, perseverance and, above all, an unwavering commitment to creating a better future for each and for all.

Our goal must be that every citizen is a stronger and more versatile person and that, together, we will build a more resilient and dynamic Singapore. To this end, I wholeheartedly support the Motion.

5.14 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address and to join in this debate.

Just this morning, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) released a set of manpower and employment data for 2015.

There are critical ups and downs that I would like to bring to this House.

Employment growth in 2015 is down and the lowest in 13 years. Redundancy is up in 2015. Unemployment is flat but we must not assume it will stay flat or low. I expect an uptrend, especially for PMEs.

Indeed, a timely reminder to all of us of the pressing need to redouble our efforts to restructure and find breakthroughs, lest we run the risk of having many of our fellow workers, especially PMEs, left behind or, worse still, left in the lurch. The data reflect a worrying trend that I have been seeing in the increasing cases of PMEs coming to the Labour Movement for help.

Allow me to elaborate. There are PMEs entering the workforce who want to land a job or are looking to move up within their jobs; there are also female PMEs who have left the workforce to look after their family and now want to re-enter the workforce; and then there are the mature PMEs, many of whom are above 40 years of age, who may be out of job or are vulnerable to job loss or returned from an overseas job role and looking for jobs to move across or move into.

I personally know some of them and have spoken to those who visit our U PME Centre. Some are demoralised, some are resigned, some are fearful and some dejected.

I strongly feel we can do more and do better in this area of jobs and job security for our fellow Singaporean PMEs because, if we do not, we will run the risk of more ups and downs. We run the risk of an increase in the unemployment of PMEs and PME redundancy. We are also likely to see a dip in employment creation and, subsequently, a drop in the hiring of locals.

In short, in the next couple of years, the likely reality will be that workers and, in particular, PMEs, may need to brace themselves for redundancies, unemployment, slower employment growth and, possibly, under-employment.

So, what can we do for our PMEs? We must, first, recognise the three mismatches or challenges our PMEs face. What are these three mismatches? They are the mismatch of skills, mismatch of jobs and mismatch of expectations.

First, mismatch of skills. I often hear complaints from some employers that our local PMEs lack the skills and experience for certain jobs and, therefore. they have to look elsewhere. Some employers feel our workers lack the regional and global experience and so cannot promote them or fill them up with our local PMEs. Then again, there are those who are over-skilled or over-qualified for the jobs, resulting in an under-employment situation.

Second, mismatch of expectations. My colleagues at our U PME Centre and e2i have highlighted that there are some PMEs who go to them with unrealistic expectations in terms of the type of jobs and conditions. Then, I also hear of employers who lament and do not hire mature PMEs because they claim many of them cannot change, they cannot adapt to the new requirements expected of them and a host of other ageist remarks.

There are some PMEs who may not be able to keep pace with the new job demands. There are also companies which do not take proactive steps to re-design, re-create or re-size the jobs or manage the change. Our society, too, must recognise and expect that we have a growing ageing workforce and that there will be an ever-increasing number of PMEs, mature ones, in our midst.

Third, the mismatch of jobs. There are cases where PMEs are not well-matched with their current jobs. They do jobs which they have neither passion nor interest for. Sometimes, the job size is too small or quality of the job is not good. They become less motivated and less productive. There are those whose characters or personalities do not quite fit or match the kind of requirements the job entails.

So, with these ups and downs and three mismatches, how can we help our future workforce of PMEs grapple with the Future Landscape and land themselves in Future Jobs?

Is there a way to help us overcome the challenges of the employment landscape in the months and years ahead? Can we do more to minimise the gaps? I strongly believe we can and we can do so through strengthening what I call the 3Cs.

What are these three Cs? They are: (a) strengthening the Core – the Singaporean Core; (b) strengthening the Connection – the Connection between PMEs and jobs; and (c) strengthening Careers – the Careers of PMEs to ensure they stay future-ready.

First, strengthening the Singaporean Core. PMEs I speak to highlight the issue of nationality bias in the workplace. Two situations arise. One is where the entire workplace is filled with PMEs of a particular nationality. The grouse is not with their presence but the excessive presence and stark visuals. Second, is where foreign PMEs take jobs which Singaporean PMEs can fill, such as hiring a foreign PME to handle our local SME market or doing support or administrative functions, including basic HR functions.

The Fair Consideration Framework and National Jobs Bank had been rolled out in 2014. This is a good start. However, the test now is whether it has helped create a Singaporean Core in all sectors and all companies.

I still hear murmurings about certain sectors, the IT sector and the financial sector, in particular. The feedback is that there are still companies in these two sectors where there is a weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to create a Singaporean Core.

The employment data fleshed out this morning seemed to have confirmed the ground feedback about the IT sector. We should and must take more resolute steps. However, it should not be a broad sweep. We should target at specific sectors and companies which remain recalcitrant and show a disregard or weak commitment to forming a Singaporean Core. Mr Cedric Foo and Ms Foo Mee Har had, on Tuesday, sounded the same concern. I am now putting forward two suggestions.

The first is to impose a PME dependency ratio, similar to that for Work Permits and S Passes, for problem sectors which display the two "weaks" – weak Singaporean Core and a weak commitment to hire and develop Singaporeans.

The second is to impose stricter Employment Pass application conditions and requirements for companies with the two "weaks". We need to move not just from a manpower-led to manpower-lean economy, but a Singaporean PME-led and foreigner PME-lean economy for our locals to fully exploit the labour market and, yet, be able to fully realise their potential and skills.

As we have seen in recent weeks, certain sectors have started laying off PMEs. This may well be just the tip of the iceberg. We need to brace ourselves and, when employers do downsize and retrench, we urge them to let go of our Singaporean PMEs last.

Second, strengthening the connection of PMEs to jobs. Many of the PMEs who come to the U PME Centres are experienced, knowledgeable and skilled. However, they may not know that with their experience and skills, there are other jobs, other sectors, that they can move across to.

Hence, we need to strengthen the connection of jobs to our people and minimise the information gap. We need to know where the in-demand jobs are and the gaps in supply. We have the National Jobs Bank and other job portals where we can easily aggregate the job openings, mine the data and get a good sensing and greater insights.

Our national programmes and agencies would be the best source of sussing out the demand and supply, particularly now, with SkillsFuture and the sectoral manpower plans and EDB/MOM data. With all this information, we can strengthen our employment facilitation. There are lots of analysis, synthesis, forecasting and analytics involved. It is hard work and it has to be a joint and collective effort by all, across agencies, tripartite partners and different stakeholders.

In the same vein, even as we recreate current jobs and create new jobs, we should provide diversity and variety so that we can marry aspirations, passions, skills with good jobs and quality jobs. PMEs are increasingly more vulnerable to job losses and retrenchments. With the uncertain economic outlook, I worry for them. I, therefore, recently revisited the idea of better protecting our PMEs through unemployment insurance.

I do not think unemployment insurance is an impossibility, whether privately-run or publicly-run and universally administered, but it needs closer study and scrutiny.

We have to ask ourselves some important questions, such as: who can, should or shall be on the scheme? How much premium does one pay? What if you are in an industry which is more vulnerable or, in the converse, one which is more secure? How much and for how long should the monthly payouts be?

At the end of the day, it all boils down to whether we can ensure the livelihood of the individual. Instead of a short-term and temporary fix like an unemployment insurance, why not give our PMEs the best insurance – that of a decent-paying job with a decent pay?

Many employers and PMEs I speak to are not aware of the Career Support Programme (CSP) which was rolled out on 1 October last year. I urge all to take a closer look. The CSP provides subsidies to employers who hire mature PMEs 40 years and above for jobs paying $4,000 and above. Whether in peacetime or in the event of a downturn, the CSP not just helps PMEs land a job through direct wage subsidy to their employers, it ensures all PMEs affected have a job, a monthly salary, for the longer term.

Better still, no premiums need to be paid. And if you ask how long it can sustain the PME, I would say it is for as long as you do your job and do it well. I suggest we should further promote, position and expand the CSP to provide targeted help to all PMEs.

The CSP must drive and alter the behaviour of our companies and businesses and the mindsets of employers to seriously consider our mature PMEs. It will also provide our PMEs more options and opportunities in a challenging landscape.

Third, strengthening the careers of PMEs. We need to arm our people with the right skills, put them in the right jobs with the right experience and expectations so that they can embark on a right career.

As part of SkillsFuture, we must focus on the skills required for our PMEs to progress and prosper in a rapidly changing world. In the past, training was about imparting knowledge. Today, it is about providing each individual with the tools to navigate an increasingly uncertain, volatile world.

One answer would be promoting skills-oriented learning throughout workers' lives and integrate it into the workplace and outside the workplace. It has to be a continuum from Primary education to work and adult learning. It is not just to up-skill but to deep-skill, second-skill, to stay future-ready and future-proof themselves and also reskill if old jobs are gone and new jobs created.

Training and lifelong learning needs to be both employer-supported and individually initiated and will require the involvement of every sector of society, from tripartite partners to various stakeholders. All said, the future will depend on individuals and their willingness to take advantage of the opportunities and invest in their own futures to stay future-ready.

To conclude, we can overcome the ups and the downs and better match the three mismatches by: strengthening the Singaporean Core; strengthening the connection to jobs; and strengthening the careers of every worker, especially PMEs.

As we move into an increasingly unstable, unpredictable and uncertain economic landscape, our workers need to re-calibrate ourselves and re-set our mental models. Employers and businesses must not be content with just re-adjusting but need to re-innovate and restructure. The Government needs to rethink and recreate. We need to triple our collective efforts to retool ourselves to be ready, relevant and resilient. On this note, I support the Motion of thanks to the President.

5.28 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Motion. Sir, The President has set us on course in his speech and we are charting the path for the future. Singapore, as a nation, has to find our way amidst the shifting sands of global economic, societal and political developments. But as the economy and society evolve rapidly, Singaporeans are in an ongoing struggle to survive and thrive.

As we continue to adapt and develop, we must go beyond merely acquiring skills to developing an outlook that is enlightened and progressive, being confident in ourselves and having the strength to welcome the participation of some non-locals into our workforce to complement and supplement us in areas where we lack resources. But in the process, it is our deeply rooted Singaporean Core and sense of belonging which will inspire Singaporeans to continue to propel the nation forward.

Sir, a component of a sense of belonging is a firm belief that there are equal opportunities for all Singaporeans and every citizen knows that he or she has an equal chance to participate in and benefit from the nation's future progress.

As the President pointed out in his Address, we must strive to leave no one behind, even as we create opportunities for all. The Prime Minister yesterday highlighted the importance of upholding multiracial diversity in our political system; in particular for minorities to have equal opportunities for political representation in the Elected Presidency as well as the GRC system.

This assurance of representation in leadership contributes towards all races having a sense of belonging to this nation. And it is, of course, also the case that all Members of Parliament – regardless of our ethnicity – are required to prove ourselves in the course of our terms. We must demonstrate our competence in our duties and that we represent and protect the interests of all Singaporeans, not just any particular race. Smaller GRCs – as proposed by the Prime Minister – will enable us as Members Parliament to connect more closely with our constituents and represent them even better. This is what makes Singapore strong, that we all look out for one another, regardless of our various backgrounds, for the benefit of our nation as a whole.

We are also justifiably proud of our system of meritocracy. But along with that, we must also work towards ensuring that all citizens have equal opportunities for social mobility. As science and technology advance at an exponential rate, we may soon be confronted with many chasms – one of which could potentially be between those who are able to use technology and those who are left behind. In addition, a lag in skills catch-up could lead to technological or structural unemployment, making matters worse.

Programmes have already been put in place to help train all Singaporeans and narrow the skills gap. There have been many useful training and educational opportunities to help to level the playing field for all Singaporeans, no matter what their starting point. These include the SkillsFuture and the recently set up Future Ready Committee in MENDAKI, amongst others.

I would like to, first, focus on the progress that my community, the Malay/Muslim community, has made as well as the opportunities and challenges that we face. Deputy Speaker, Sir, at this point, please allow me to speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Malay/Muslim community has made significant progress over the last 50 years. This improvement was the result of various programmes by the Government and Malay/Muslim bodies. However, our community can achieve much more and we should also seize more opportunities in Singapore and the world. The Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs has outlined three challenges for the Malay/Muslim community. One of them is staying relevant in a rapidly-changing economy.

If there is a good time in our community's history where we can all rise and build a better future together, that time is now. We have many young people with a median age of 31.4, compared to the national median age of 37.4. In a few decades, we will have the opportunity to build a larger middle class that is highly educated and successful. This group will become an important component of a strong Singaporean Core – as positive contributors who are essential to the nation in all areas.

Nonetheless, this opportunity can also be viewed as the biggest challenge to our community. If we fail to harness the potential of our youths, it can turn into a major and great loss.

We should also focus on efforts to encourage and channel our youths into sectors that have the potential for high growth. These sectors can provide high salaries and the community should try to penetrate and take advantage of these sectors. These include new areas that are required by digital transformation, special production activities, applications and modern services, which we will see in our future economy.

We must also maximise the potential of youths who do not have tertiary education. I would like to highlight the findings from the journal of the Third AMP Convention, whereby, out of the cohort of Primary 1 Malay students, about 60%-65% of them will not receive higher education. About 45% will go to ITE, while 20% will become post-secondary school students.

If we look at the job market now, 40% of people who seek employment through "MENDAKI Sense" in 2015, for instance, are those who have "N" or "O" level certificates as their highest qualifications. The other 30% have ITE or Polytechnic diplomas.

If this trend continues and if economic recession takes place, it is very possible that this will have a cascading effect on the economic status of Malay/Muslim families.

At the other end of the spectrum, initial findings from a study commissioned by MENDAKI about employment prospects, which was done on over 100 Malay/Muslim graduates, managed to give a peek into the situation involving our Malay/Muslim graduates. The study was done by Prof Tan Khee Giap titled "Longitudinal Study on Comparative Employability and Career Advancement Path for Tertiary Educated Malay/Muslim Singaporeans and Chinese Singaporeans".

Over 70% of respondents showed a risk-averse attitude and cannot see themselves moving to another industry in the next five years. Almost 60%, for instance, are unaware of the latest SkillsFuture initiatives. More than 60% feel that they will need assistance to enable them to progress in their careers.

If these findings are taken as an indicator, future PMETs from this cohort will be facing major challenges. Therefore, it is important to prepare our youths and younger workers to face future challenges. Workers without new skills or those who have lower qualifications and skills will be affected.

The recent call about SkillsFuture is timely for our Malay/Muslim youths. Recently, MENDAKI set up a Future Ready Committee that aims to play an important role in this issue in a more consistent manner for the long term.

It is also important to strengthen our sense of belonging, especially in the efforts to ensure racial harmony and also increase the confidence of the Malay/Muslim community, so that we can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the other communities at the workplace.

Hence, I would like to stress the importance of improving fair practices in job opportunities. In the current situation, where we face a landscape of a slowing economy in the future, tight labour market and disruptive technology, it is crucial that focus is given to overcoming the perception that the available opportunities are unequal and there is discrimination. This is important in order to avoid potential social and security issues from emerging in this country in the long term.

Singapore's economic challenges will impact everyone in Singapore and not just the Malay/Muslim community. We may see a future scenario where current Malay/Muslim workers and those who will enter the job market must be ready to compete on an equal footing in the job market.

I am sure that the Government will do its best to help those who are affected to find employment. Hence, while no Singaporean will be denied the opportunities, it also means that no one will be given special treatment.

I end with a poem stating that there are opportunities being made available for everyone equally and we should also ensure that we have a broad view of the entire situation.

"A major lane outside the city

Travelling by car in the evening

Opportunities are available equitably

We have to keep an open mind."

(In English): Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall now continue in English to discuss enhancements to our employment practices as well as the challenges that the PMETs face. We all remember the bad old days of the job advertisements in our local newspapers which would boldly state, for example, only a certain race can apply. Thankfully, those days are firmly in our past.

I am particularly pleased to note that, based on the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP)'s 2014 annual report, the number of complaints lodged against discriminatory practices in 2014 had been almost halved from 2013. Employers are proactively seeking out resources to hire previously-disadvantaged groups of people. The number of enquiries in this regard has risen by about twice from the year before. This is very encouraging, as it is a clear indication that outreach exercises have been helpful and more companies are developing into conducive workplaces on their own accord.

While TAFEP has been inspiring and supportive, greater enforcement is necessary to get passive employers on board. The Australian Government's Fair Work Ombudsman comes to mind as a model statutory agency that not only educates, but investigates and enforces. If there is a serious breach of a workplace law, Government officials will conduct the relevant investigations.

The offending employer can be taken to Court, depending on the outcome of the investigation. The Australian Employment Act prohibits discrimination against employees based on race, religion, age, gender, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer's responsibilities and pregnancy, amongst other factors. Employers guilty of unlawful discrimination could be fined up to A$54,000 per contravention for a corporation and A$10,800 per contravention for an individual.

Likewise, in Finland, Finnish employment law specifically prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of a similar range of factors. Employers found guilty of discrimination can be fined or imprisoned, while victimised employees may claim compensation for illegal discrimination.

The employment laws for both countries have essentially made discriminatory practices prosecutable by law, in order to emphasise the importance of equality.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, the TAFEP framework deserves to be equipped with more teeth to be more effective in weeding out discriminatory workplace practices. MOM is introducing the Employment Claims Tribunal which covers PMETs earning above $4,500. The Tribunal will have the power to make orders for employers to reimburse employees for employment-related claims. Parties who disagree with the decision of the Tribunal or with the quantum of the award made by the Tribunal, will have the right to appeal to the High Court to review the decision.

These enhancements will go a long way towards ensuring that all PMETs and non-PMETs are protected under the law. However, I propose that we take things a step further. If we, as a nation, are serious about ensuring that all Singaporeans have equal employment opportunities, we must also have the power to impose meaningful sanctions upon errant employers, as the laws in Australia and Finland allow. In addition, these sanctions should be extended to cover incidences of discriminatory practices during the hiring process.

We must ensure every person has the same opportunities, giving each citizen the same platform to excel by their own merits. This is even more important in an economic environment where labour market competition runs high. Meaningful sanctions will go some way to ensuring optimal employment practices.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, employment growth in Singapore in the first three quarters of 2015 was the lowest in six years. Disproportionately hard-hit are the PMETs. The hon Member Patrick Tay has highlighted some of that earlier, but the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) reported in the first three quarters of 2015, a significant majority of seven in 10 of employees laid-off from their jobs were PMETs, many of them degree-holders aged 40 and above.

This is an escalation of the trend which has been growing in the past few years. Between 2014 and 2015, the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) experienced a more than doubling of the number of PMETs approaching the organisation for assistance. From 128 applicants in 2014, e2i saw 337 applicants registering their interest to undergo intervention programme last year.

Within my own constituency, we have seen a slow increase in PMETs attending the Meet-the-People Sessions, requesting assistance because they have not been able to find new employment. One such constituent is a 56-year-old tower crane operator, who was working for an offshore oil and gas company. Due to the downturn in the industry, his contract was not renewed and he had been searching unsuccessfully for employment in any industry for the past year and e2i is currently assisting him to obtain a Class 3 driving licence, so he will be able to find work as a driver.

Another constituent is a 52-year-old IT Systems Director who, in his last job, earned in excess of a quarter of $1 million a year but was retrenched over a year ago and is still unable to find a new job.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, my great concern is that this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as Member Patrick Tay has mentioned, as many PMETs, because of embarrassment, perceived loss of face, or the belief that we would be unable to help, are reluctant to approach Members of Parliament for assistance.

It is hard to hold on to that sense of belonging, of being Singaporean, when you are not able to provide for yourself or your family in your own homeland.

The e2i's Employability Coaches in its Career Services Centre highlighted the following. First, mid-career jobseekers have to grapple with acquiring new skills and to accept lower salaries. Second, workers with long years of service without acquiring new skills or increasing their scope of responsibilities, find it challenging to find a similar job matching their last-drawn salaries. And, third, employers are unwilling to offer jobs with higher salaries to potential employees who have not built depth in their field of expertise.

We must also consider how to effectively redeploy the segment of workers mentioned above. They do have specialised skills which are valuable. In addition, employers need to be more open in recruiting older PMET workers who are likely able to pick up new skills faster due to their technical background.

One approach would be to match PMETs with our SMEs in a more structured way. SMEs make up 99% of the companies in Singapore, employ 70% of the workforce and contribute to nearly 50% of our GDP. And as SMEs are currently facing three key business challenges, namely, high labour costs, manpower shortage and increasing competition, the channelling of displaced or retired PMETs into appropriate SMEs makes great sense.

To further help PMETs to adapt, we need more transparency at the macro level to examine where the demand is in terms of skills, so that Singaporeans can make timely informed choices in their skills accumulation to meet future demands. The displaced PMET workforce remains a significant potential contributor to the economy. Every displaced PMET matters.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every Singaporean wants to achieve great things – for themselves, their family and the nation. As we face ever-developing challenges, we, as parliamentarians and individuals, have a duty to our fellow citizens to continue to ensure that every Singaporean has the best possible opportunity to reach their fullest potential. This is how we strengthen our Singaporean Core and prepare ourselves for the next 50 years and beyond. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion of thanks.

5.46 pm

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. Alexander Fraser Tytler, born in 1747, was a History professor at the University of Edinburgh. He said the following about democracy more than 200 years ago:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

He further said that the world's greatest civilisations always progressed through the following sequence:

"From bondage to spiritual faith;

From spiritual faith to great courage;

From courage to liberty;

From liberty to abundance;

From abundance to selfishness;

From selfishness to complacency;

From complacency to apathy;

From apathy to dependence;

From dependence back into bondage."

Prof Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in the United States was of the view that the US is now somewhere between the "apathy" and "complacency" phase, based on Prof Tytler's definition of democracy.

What about Singapore? I was concerned that Singapore could be on the brink of passing from abundance to selfishness after GE 2011. However, the milestone events in 2015, from the passing of our founding Prime Minister, followed by a series of SG50 events and GE 2015, appeared to have steered Singapore away from the phase of selfishness. There are fewer incidents of the likes of the Maplewoods residents' protest against the launch shaft site blocking the entrance of their condominium during the construction of Downtown Line 2. There are also fewer complaints about the building of an eldercare centre in the neighbourhood in general.

But, is Singapore immune from the downfall of a democratic nation, as mentioned by Prof Alexander? Far from it. Singapore has defied all odds to survive. Singapore has gone against the grain to thrive, moving from Third-World to First-World in one generation. Singapore is special, in the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Singapore needs to remain special if we want to see a glorious SG100.

Our political system is a key factor. It enables us to remain special. The institution of the Elected Presidency is a key safeguard against loose fiscal policy. I agree that we need to review it to make it a stronger safeguard, as said by the Prime Minister. The NCMP scheme is another unique feature that makes us special and has strengthened our political system. Since it started in 1984, with an upper limit of six NCMPs, this was increased to nine in 2010 and Prime Minister Lee said that he would like to raise the number to 12. The intention to increase the NCMP numbers entrenches the importance of the NCMP scheme; at the same time, it recognises the contributions of past NCMPs. The political parties of the best-performing losing Opposition candidates that have accepted the NCMP nomination have benefited from the system. So, instead of calling names, let us all embrace the NCMP scheme as a unique feature of Singapore's political system.

This is also consistent with what President Dr Tony Tan has said, "to remain special, we must first resolve to move ahead together". The President further said that "we strove to leave no one behind, even as we created opportunities for all".

Yes, no one should be left behind as we progress as a nation. No one, including the persons with disability, or PWDs, should be left behind. Singapore has made much progress thus far in educating and assisting PWDs. The Enabling Master Plans I and II have significantly improved their livelihoods. The spending on special education has increased 50% over the last five years and the Open Door Programme, launched in 2007, has gone some way in encouraging employers to hire PWDs.

On the employment front, however, the progress is painfully slow. In reality, for every success story which is highlighted, there are far more PWDs who have taken a long time to secure a job, if at all. This runs the gamut from the low-skilled disabled who lost the job of cleaning airline headphone sets to technology, to a hearing-impaired university degree holder who missed her employment opportunities, many a times, due to the fact that HR personnel failed to note that the job seeker can only respond to SMS messages and not telephone calls.

There are no statistics on the local employment rate amongst the disabled in Singapore, who are defined as those with physical, sensory, intellectual and developmental impairments.

However, a strategic market research consultancy, Spire Research and Consulting, conducted a survey of 100 companies in January 2014 which showed that while 20% were open to hiring PWDs, only 7% actually did so. This is a classic case of "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak".

We can pump resources into training and assistance for PWDs and we can try to encourage employers to hire PWDs. However, we are still reliant on the goodwill of the employers. Perhaps, we could consider introducing legislation to compel large organisations with more than 500 staff to employ PWDs, with some effort to redesign jobs to suit the PWDs.

Countries which have quota systems in place include Germany, Thailand and Japan. In Japan, for example, private-sector organisations with at least 56 employees must ensure that at least 1.8% of their headcount comprises PWDs. If these quotas are not met, the organisation is usually required to pay a levy towards a fund used to promote the employment of PWDs.

Alternatively, some countries like Australia, Canada and the US have introduced anti-discrimination laws. It is illegal for employers to discriminate against current and prospective employees on the basis of disability.

China employs a hybrid of a quota system and anti-discrimination laws. Singapore has neither.

With the right training and set-up, PWDs can become self-reliant and contribute as much as their able-bodied peers. PWDs are also a valuable addition to the diversity of the workplace. We do not want PWDs to be left behind as an Annex as Singapore progresses, a phrase often used by fellow parliamentarian and Mayor Denise Phua.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at this juncture, please allow me to declare my interest as I am a staff of ComfortDelgro before I touch on public transport in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, when the Government implements its policies, it is important to look after Singaporeans' needs in terms of food, clothing, housing and travelling. Today, I would like to touch on the issue of travelling and hope that the Government can make public transport more user-friendly.

In the Addendum to the President's Address issued by the Ministry of Transport (MOT), the Ministry states that its mission is to connect Singaporeans from their homes to schools and workplaces all over Singapore. As the train network becomes more extensive, many are willing to take the train, which is comfortable and convenient, but they are hampered by the connectivity from their homes to the train station. For residents staying within 800 metres of a train station, most abled people are willing to walk to the station. Beyond that, residents typically ask for feeder bus services. Unfortunately, the authorities often cite resource constraints and cannot meet the residents' demand for more feeder services. I am sympathetic towards this.

If resource is, indeed, a constraint, perhaps LTA could consider boldly reorganising bus routes, especially long distance cross-island routes. For example, bus service 51 plies from Hougang Bus Interchange to Jurong East Interchange, covering close to 38 kilometres and the average traveling time is about two hours and 42 minutes. In contrast, a train ride from Hougang to Jurong East takes only 53 minutes, that is, a saving of almost two hours. Imagine how many Singaporeans will be willing to take the bus instead of MRT to work or school!

In fact, along the route of Bus 51, there are a number of MRT stations. Residents also use Bus 51 from the nearby estates to the MRT stations. For example, many residents at Ayer Rajah rely on service 51 to bring them to Jurong East MRT Station. How reliable can service 51 be when it has to travel about 30 kilometres before reaching Ayer Rajah? No wonder our fellow Parliamentarian, Ms Foo Mee Har, has been complaining about the reliability of service 51 when it serves as a pseudo feeder service for her Ayer Rajah residents.

Does it make sense to continue with such cross-island bus services?

If we are able to eliminate 14 bus services with bus routes longer than 30 kilometres, we could easily use the same resources to run 40 new feeder bus services. That is 14 long trunk services for 40 new feeder services. Does it not sound attractive? These 40 new feeder bus services will go a long way towards improving the first- and last-mile connectivity and persuade more Singaporeans to switch to public transport and help achieve the goal of a car-lite society envisioned by the Minister.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on the economy, the President said that "we cannot predict the future, but we must adapt as the world changes". The future of Singapore lies in encouraging innovation and creating value. People and businesses need to adapt and change. While the Government has provided funding to people and businesses to explore new ideas which will benefit the society, the Government also has to constantly review existing rules. Some rules and regulations which might have been necessary previously are now harmful and not beneficial to value creation.

This is particularly relevant now, given the rise of the "sharing" economy in which people rent beds, rooms, cars and other assets directly from one another through the Internet and mobile phone apps. Regulators worldwide do not quite know how to deal with this phenomenon, which is estimated to generate US$335 billion in revenue worldwide by 2025.

Take home-sharing sites like Airbnb or Onefinestay. These sites allow a growing global community of people to rent out personal spaces to travellers and transient tourists. Since 2008, over 60 million people have used Airbnb to book accommodation in over 190 countries, but Singapore is not one of these countries. At least, not yet in a big way.

In Singapore, private homes can only be rented out for six months or more, while HDB flat owners are not allowed to sublet their units or rooms to tourists for short-term stays. Nonetheless, we could still find more than 300 listings in the Airbnb Singapore website. The owners who let out their units or room through Airbnb may be fined or jailed if caught.

This is a lost economic opportunity. In a study done in San Francisco in 2012, it was found that Airbnb travellers spent US$56 million in a year. About US$12.7 million went to the hosts and US$43.1 million to San Francisco's businesses. But beyond the money, what Airbnb travellers relish most is the novel experience of staying in an affordable and unique local space which could be someone's home and seeing the "authentic" side of a country. In Singapore's context, this could be a HDB flat, a condominium or a shophouse. There is much value in terms of local Singapore charm and a dash of real Singaporean hospitality, which could be offered to visitors and keep them coming back.

There are concerns over rampant profiteering and neighbours may be uncomfortable with a constant flow of foreigners staying next to their apartments. However, rules can be modified to make sure that there is compliance with local laws. In London, Airbnb was legalised in March 2015. So, home owners can rent out their places for up to three months a year, with certain conditions attached, of course.

Similarly, car-sharing apps like Uber and Grabcar have been popular among commuters but have also created uproars as taxi-drivers all over the world decry the unfair competition.

Unlike home-sharing, car-sharing has already taken off in Singapore. A basic regulatory framework was introduced last year where all third party taxi booking services are required to comply with certain conditions. Many taxi companies complained that Uber taxi drivers do not have to obtain a taxi driver's vocational licence, unlike licensed taxi drivers. Uber cars also need not go through the stringent safety checks, as compared to existing players, thereby compromising the safety of commuters. To regulate, we must. Otherwise, it is like tying the hands of the traditional brick-and-mortar companies and having them compete with online companies on a 100-metre tight race.

The Government is still reviewing the need for further regulations. But at the end of the day, the desire to even out the playing field must be for the safety of the commuters rather than inconveniencing the commuters − like making them wait 15 minutes before they can get onto an Uber taxi, which has been the case in Paris since 2013.

Change is never comfortable, especially when livelihoods are threatened. If Singapore is to remain competitive and future-centric, we have to edit the rules to support value creation and innovation and not stifle them.

In conclusion, I urge all Singaporeans to continue to keep Singapore special. At the same time, we all need to do our part to help the vulnerable, the disabled and those who are sometimes forgotten, so that Singapore can continue to march towards SG100 with no one left behind. With this, I support the Motion.

6.03 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is, indeed, a privilege to listen to the President's Address in the House. I thank him for his encouraging and illuminating words which will certainly continue to echo in this House throughout the sessions of this Parliament.

President Tan said in his Address that "good policies and good politics go together". We are known around the world for having an effective and honest Government that comes up with good policies, but there are also areas in which we did not do well enough. I would like to point out three common factors that lead to less-than-ideal results.

The first one is not planning for the long term. For example, in 2015, we saw a spate of MRT disruptions in February and March, as well as the worst disruption in the history of the MRT in July. Many of the commuters, including my residents at Khatib MRT station, were greatly inconvenienced.

The problem lies in engineering issues which were not properly addressed from the early days of the MRT system. We did not train a pool of engineers and technicians to specialise in maintaining the rail system. Having in-house expertise is very different from using subcontractors. We cannot be always using economic benefit as the sole yardstick in making decisions. Now, Minister Khaw Boon Wan and his team have the unenviable task of completing a major overhaul while maintaining normal services.

Then, we have the grass pitch issue at the Sports Hub. The pitch was not ready for many sports, the roof leaked and even the sound system got complaints from many concert-goers.

We have to accept that the Government could have done better, expertise from our National Parks Board could have anticipated the problems and exercised more oversight over the project execution, especially with all the public money invested in the project. Perhaps, the Government had drawn the line too fine, too clearly and washed their hands too early.

The second is not keeping in mind how things are for the man-on-the-street. One example is MOE's naming of a new JC − Eunoia JC. The word was chosen for its meaning, but did anybody think whether the man-on-the-street can pronounce it easily? Would an English, Chinese, Malay or even Tamil word have been easier for the common man-on-the-street to pronounce and relate to? Now, MOE is faced with unnecessary flak and even petitions to change the name.

Another example is our hawker centres. To the man-on-the-street, a hawker centre is the place to get good food at a reasonable price. But how can the price be reasonable if the hawker has to pay $6,000 for his stall? To be exact, I was told by the taxi-drivers who live in Nee Soon South, it is $5,000 rental plus $1,680 for cleaning services and this is charged in a new hawker centre. In Chinese, we say 羊毛长在羊身上. And I certainly hope that the new hawker centre in Yishun will not have this kind of rental for the stalls. And the Yishun residents do not just hope to have good food at reasonable prices, many also hope to get a stall to provide them with employment. Therefore, I hope that NEA is open to the concept of working with the community, perhaps with the social enterprises, to operate the new hawker centre in Yishun.

The last area is coordination between Ministries. Recently, I was involved in trying to provide a covered linkway from the nearest HDB block to the nearest bus-stop in my new BTO, Acacia Breeze. For many months, HDB and LTA could not resolve their differences. I was trying to call a meeting for both parties to sit down to seek a solution. And, you know what? LTA officers refused to have the meeting. Why? I do not know.

In fact, even our Deputy Prime Ministers have pointed out these issues recently. Deputy Prime Minister Tharman said at a public service leadership dinner that we need to develop the habit of looking at issues through the eyes of ordinary citizens and bringing policies from different agencies together to serve their needs. Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean also said at a Civil Service award ceremony that the public service needs to stay connected with the people they serve. I quote: "…to listen deeply and better understand aspirations and concerns and to work together with Singaporeans to make Singapore a better home for all of us".

I must emphasise that I am not here to point fingers or to make anyone uncomfortable. I am bringing this up because I hope that the Government can do even better than before. To do this, we need to look beyond the near term, beyond our individual agency responsibilities, at how we can maximise benefits for the man-on-the-street.

We need people at all levels to be more than just carrying out the formulation and execution of policies. We need people who are committed, trustworthy and serve with heart. I know that in many instances, the civil servants are doing their best, but they are stretched as the public gets more vocal and they have to balance the different demands. Perhaps, we should pay more attention to the quality of the officers, their career path, training and the motivation for them to excel, innovate and give their best.

There are three areas in which we need even more dedication and foresight from the Government. They are the environment, housing and the economy. I would like to expand in Chinese.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is famous for being clean. However, if you walk around the HDB neighbourhood at 4.00 am in the morning, you will realise that this cleanliness is, in fact, an illusion created by our cleaners. In comparison, Japan and Taiwan have fewer cleaners than us but their environment is cleaner than ours.

Can we inculcate a similar culture? I started the "No Cleaners Day" project in Nee Soon South. I noticed that when we have to pick up the litter ourselves, we tend not to litter and we will also remind others not to do so.

Can we expand the "No Cleaners Day" scheme and let our children clean their campus themselves, like Taiwan and Japan, so that the young will see a clean environment as their own responsibility?

I read a Straits Times report a few days ago. Last year, the amount from fines for littering was the highest in six years. It looks like not only our SMEs need to innovate; NEA also needs to be more creative in dealing with litter-bugs.

Our smoking rate is gradually going back up. How can we ensure a smoke-free environment and that non-smokers do not have to inhale second-hand smoke? The Designated Smoking Point scheme piloted in Nee Soon South has achieved its desired outcome. This year, we will build 50 smoking points and extend the programme to the entire Nee Soon South. I would urge the Government to consider making the Designated Smoking Point scheme a national policy.

Second, housing. I am delighted to hear from the President that the Government will continue to create a caring home for Singaporeans by building more affordable and comfortable HDB flats, higher quality infrastructure and convenient public transportation. I hope these plans can be implemented more smoothly. We do not want to see the situation again whereby new estates do not have enough childcare and transportation facilities even after the residents have moved in. I also hope that the singles and the divorced people, especially those with children, can have their own flat as soon as possible.

Third, the economy. This year and next year, Singapore will continue to face challenges, such as a shrinking manufacturing industry and China's slow economic growth. The economic outlook is not very rosy. I believe many Members, just like me, would have met many residents who came to seek help because they cannot find a job. I would like to ask the Government if it foresees large-scale unemployment this year and next year. There are many unpredictable factors when it comes to the economy. Does the Government have plans to deal with a slow economy and unemployment?

Early this month, a resident came to seek help from me. He is a crane operator at a construction site. He said that his company, starting from last year, would lay off one crane operator every month and it just so happened that, each time, it was a Singaporean who was laid off. My resident, who has diligently worked for the company for more than 10 years, was also laid off at the end of last year.

Another resident of mine works in the IT industry. He told me that he was under a lot of pressure lately. Why? Because his company has brought in a foreign talent, who is his boss now. Soon after, this foreign talent brought in his own countrymen and asked this resident to teach them. He is under a lot of pressure and does not know when he will be laid off himself. He said, "In Singapore, to have someone laid off is not difficult. You just need to cite the reason of the company restructuring." And his company has restructured many times.

According to MOM's report this morning, last year, we witnessed the slowest job growth in 13 years. I guess, after the Chinese New Year, there will be even more companies which will undergo "restructuring".

Would the Government consider that each time a company lays off a Singaporean worker, it will subsequently lose a Work Permit? If a company lays off one Singaporean, it will lose one Work Permit; if it lays off two, it will lose two Work Permits.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we did a great job in our first 50 years. I hope we will do even better in the next 50 years. Let the Singapore Spirit continue to shine. I support the Motion to thank the President.

6.17 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I enjoyed the speech by the hon Member Er Dr Lee Bee Wah. I agree with her. She mentioned that to retrench one Singaporean, the company must cut one Work Permit. I think it is not enough. Because in Singapore, it depends on the sector and there is a dependency ratio. For the services sector, the ratio is one is to five, if I am not mistaken. So, it should be proportionate to this dependency ratio, then, it would be fair.

I wish to support the Motion to thank the President for his Address. Last year was a watershed year for us. We celebrated 50 years of Independence. The founding father of modern Singapore, Minister Mentor Lee, passed away. Twenty sixteen is the first year of the post-Lee Kuan Yew era. The world is watching us, as they have been for the past 50 years. Can we make it? Well, we have proven to ourselves and the world, over and over again, yes, we can. We sing lots of patriotic National Day songs every year.

In particular, one song "We are Singapore" expresses best for me what I want to say today:

"There was a time when people said that Singapore won't make it, but we did.

There was a time when troubles seemed too much for us to take, but we did.

We built a nation, strong and free, reaching out together for peace and harmony."

We have overcome lack of resources, lack of water, a few rounds of recessions, the Asian financial crisis, SARS, Lehman crisis. Time and again, we have emerged stronger and more resilient.

At the last General Elections, we witnessed a show of unity. We demonstrated our determination to carry on the Singapore spirit, to forge ahead like our forefathers did.

We had nothing and now, we have everything. In Chinese, 我们什么都没, but 我们什么都有. We did not have water; we now have four national taps, including NEWater. We even sell treated water. We do not have oil, but we process oil and is the hub for the fuel trade in Asia. We may be small but we have a big impact. Let me share an example.

In September 2011, a fire broke out at Pulau Bukom refinery. It was Shell's largest refinery in the world. This incident caused the premium of October oil gas swaps over November to increase to the highest for an inter-month spread in three years in anticipation of an oil shortage. We may be a little red dot, but whatever happens here also can move the markets in the world.

To survive, we constantly reinvent ourselves. We evolve, as hon Member Mr Ong Ye Kung had described so poetically on Monday, "to adapt to the changing global environment".

We have to be the first country in the world which gives free lifelong scholarships to everyone through SkillsFuture – I call it scholarship, no other country I have heard of so far is giving this scholarship to every citizen – so that our people can upgrade themselves while pursuing their interests and passions. Minister Mentor Lee studied until he passed on. He showed us the true meaning of lifelong learning 活 到 老, 学到老, 甚至学到死.

We upgraded our new skills, we are equipping Singaporeans to be multi-skilled and versatile so that they would qualify for fulfilling future jobs. When one is in a vocation one loves, then a job becomes fun and satisfying. People who work at jobs they love are usually good at them because they are motivated and naturally inclined to put in their best. This is working hard and working smart. With Singapore's natural constraints, our workers have to be among the best for Singapore to survive.

SkillsFuture is the way the Government takes care of Singaporeans. Not by providing them with fish but teaching them to fish for themselves. SkillsFuture is not about pursuing qualifications. Its many modules offer training across a wide range of sectors and levels of mastery. A new mindset towards broad-based and lifelong learning is important. We have to go beyond the paper chase and broaden the definitions of success in our society.

SkillsFuture will enable Singaporeans to stay relevant and ahead of competition throughout their lives. It enables skills acquisitions and constant improvement in a fast-changing environment where the lifespan of a know-how may be increasingly shorter.

May I suggest that for SkillsFuture, the Government raise awareness of its benefits through public education, similar to the efforts CPF has been making to get Singaporeans to start planning their finances for the future early? SkillsFuture is the key to Singapore's success. It will strengthen the Singaporean Core as we will be less reliant on foreigners in highly skilled and niche areas where fulfilling and better paying jobs will be available.

I agree with the President that in the face of a very competitive global environment and with our limited resources, we have to restructure our economy. The journey ahead will not be easy. Singaporeans must stay resilient and united and forge ahead as our forefathers did. We cannot afford to shut our doors in this competitive world. Protectionism will do more harm than good. We will continue to need foreign investment and promote free trade with other countries.

Hence, I am glad that MOF had announced in its Addendum that the Government will be putting in measures to transform our economy from one which focused on value-adding to value-creating, to develop innovative and differentiated products and services.

MTI's Addendum also listed out the Advanced Manufacturing, Logistics & Aerospace, Biomedical Sciences and Smart & Sustainable Urban Solutions Growth Clusters which it will be focusing on. I am excited by the opportunities these sunrise sectors will be offering us as a nation and for our people.

To meet the requirements of these industries, we have to equip Singaporeans with the knowledge and skills and update technology regularly to take on these new challenges. Otherwise, our prospects will diminish if our competitors make it with the same skillsets and lower wages. Shielding Singaporeans from the reality of competition from other countries and their people will prevent us from improving. In the meantime, we will not be updated on a timely basis of how much advance the competition has made. It is better that we recognise and face up to the challenges and overcome them together.

Next, I would like to speak on our SMEs, particularly, the need to reduce business costs. I support the recent call by the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) to set up a cost review committee to look into the main contributors to rising business costs.

Rising manpower, rental and compliance costs and foreign worker levies are a burden on our companies in a slowing global economy. For smaller firms which are struggling to make ends meet, the combination of high costs and slowing demand could deal an irreparable blow which they will not be able to recover from. Remember that our SMEs employ 70% of our workforce and their survival is critical to their employees and their families who depend upon them for their livelihoods.

As we have already in place quotas for foreign workers in every sector, the levies are unnecessary as a mechanism to regulate demand by businesses. I appeal to the Ministry to consider reducing the levies to lighten the load on our SMEs.

To incentivise our SMEs to become more productive from mechanisation and technology, the Government had implemented measures, such as the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) Scheme. I hope that the Government will continue to provide tax breaks and cash incentives to our SMEs so that the drive to move to more productive technologies will be maintained. Constant renewal and updating of technology should become a culture of our SMEs.

It would be good if our SMEs can link up with our tertiary and research institutions to work on productive advancements jointly. Our SMEs need the edge to break through to the global market as our domestic market is too small.

I also hope the Government will double the Special Employment Credit from 3% to 6% to support workers above 65 years old who wish to work. This would be at a level which many of our SMEs will find very useful, as manpower is one of the key components of their business costs, especially when our population is ageing. Nine hundred thousand Singaporeans will turn 65 years old in 14 years' time in 2030 and, probably, we will be only left with two working adults to support an aged Singaporean if nothing is done.

To support our ambitious plans for the future, we have to tackle the root of the problem of our manpower shortage which is our low fertility rate. There are implications for our economy, security and defence if we do not have enough Singaporeans from our next generation to replace us. Our total fertility rate (TFR) has grown slowly from 1.15 in 2010 to 1.25 in 2014. That is good news. The Government has provided many incentives to encourage couples to have more babies, but the response has not been as good as we would like it to be.

In my view, one of the most effective measures so far has been the easier access to accommodation and flat ownership. The correlation between the availability of accommodation and fertility has been very encouraging.

More than 100 babies were born to couples living in the first batch of 1,150 temporary flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS).

I hope the Ministry will continue to ensure a good supply of flats. Perhaps, the Ministry could consider maintaining a year's worth of BTO flat supply ahead at any point of time, for example, between 10,000 and 15,000 units. With shortened waiting times, our couples will find it much easier to plan for their families.

I would also like to suggest that we build more affordable, bigger flats to encourage families to have more children. These flats will be different from the usual 5-room HDB flats. They may have four or five bedrooms built over 1,600 square feet with absolute priority given to families with four children or more. Such flats can be built in both mature and new estates and buyers can choose between leases of 99 years or the shorter leases of 60 years, which may be more affordable to them.

Next, I would like to voice my support for the Fresh Start Housing Scheme which will help public rental households to own homes again. I hope this scheme can be extended to include third timer families. These are third-timer families which had tapped upon housing subsidies or grants twice, sold their flats and have become public rental tenants. Many of them had sold their flats due to poor planning or very difficult personal circumstances or unfortunate circumstances. However, they now want to have their own homes again.

Everyone deserves a fresh start. To ensure affordability, the BTO flats under the scheme will be smaller – 2-room – with shorter leases. We also need to put in place conditions to ensure that the scheme is not abused, such as restricting them to only reselling their flats to HDB.

One of my concerns with the families involved is that they face multiple problems – financial, relationship and at work, or the lack thereof. The Government would have to assist them beyond their accommodation needs and provide longer term counselling, especially if there are children in the families. We must help prevent their children from getting caught in the vicious cycle of low education, poverty and unemployment.

Another worry I have is that a number of these families have more children and may also have elderly members living with them, so the living conditions will be cramped. Is there any way we can help these families cope by offering them some form of advice on how to maximise their interior layout and living arrangements? Mr Deputy Speaker, continuing in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The success of Singapore's public housing policy and Home Ownership Scheme is universally recognised. More than 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats and many Singaporeans are proud to be owners of their HDB flats. Many foreigners are envious that Singaporeans can own their own flats and hope to learn from our experience in public housing. Several new public housing schemes introduced during the term of the previous Government were well-received by Singaporeans. These good policies stabilised prices and assured Singaporeans.

In the previous term, I spoke on the state of housing prices and resale flats at that time. I felt that the strong demand was, to a certain extent, a panic reaction to the rising property prices. This is similar to stock market reactions: when the stock market is hot, investors will chase after the market; once the bear market emerges, investors become hesitant and stay on the sidelines. To a certain degree, this also reflects the state of the property market today. Those who need to sell their existing private property or HDB flats now, find that there are not many buyers. This is in stark contrast to the flurry of activities seen previously. Many who want to sell their properties now face the dilemma of reducing prices to sell their house, or face the pressure of falling prices.

There must be continuation of good policies and I hope that the Government will continue to delink the prices of new HDB flats from the open market and use the average annual salary of Singaporeans as the basis for determining prices, so as to ensure that Singaporeans and their descendants will not have to worry and that they will always be able to own a flat that they can afford. Let me suggest that the Government further consider fixing HDB flat prices such that it does not exceed a maximum mortgage tenure of 20 years. This is to encourage Singaporeans to manage their finances and not over leverage.

I also hope that this term of Government will consider extending the Lease Buyback Scheme to bigger flats and not just 4-room and smaller flats.

On executive condominiums (ECs), I also hope that the Government will consider regulating the prices of ECs and use the pricing model of new flats as a basis to determine the prices of ECs. This will prevent the re-emergence of a bubble in our property market. At the same time, it will provide a relatively stable environment that allows Singaporeans to make long-term plans to upgrade and work towards achieving their dreams.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan, you have run out of time, half a minute.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I also agree with my fellow Parliamentary colleagues with regard to Australia's measures to prevent property speculation by foreigners. We can follow the example of Australia, whereby foreigners, including permanent residents, can only sell their houses to Australians.

In terms of the design of 2-room flats provided for singles, I also hope that the Government will bear in mind the needs of these singles during their twilight years. I support HDB's policy of co-locating 2-room flats with other flat types within a block of flats. This will prevent single flat owners from facing the difficulties of living alone.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is better to teach our people to fish rather than to feed them. We have to strive to give every Singaporean lifelong opportunities to not only pursue one's interests but also do well and be the best, if not the best of the best.

This will ensure Singapore will continue to attract quality investments that provide quality jobs for Singaporean entrepreneurs and workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan, your time is up.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: Give me one more minute, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In the General Elections last year, Singaporeans sent a very clear signal: Singaporeans want a stable, safe, prosperous, caring and harmonious society, a Singapore that is fair and just, where all are treated equally, regardless of race and language. They want a responsible, efficient, clean and good Government that is willing to serve the country and the nation, to create a beautiful home together with the people. They also want an ideal and reliable Opposition party in Parliament, to have more voices in Parliament without affecting the Government's efficiency or crippling the administration. Therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister's political reform proposals. They will be able to meet the needs of the country and expectations of Singaporeans.

6.39 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President. I would like to especially reflect on the third and fifth key aims, which are to foster a more caring society and engage and partner Singaporeans in nation-building.

As the last new Member of this House to speak, let me first start by saying that I am humbled, we all are humbled and honoured to be given this opportunity to serve this House, to serve Singapore and to serve Singaporeans.

I am humbled to be given this opportunity to help shape policies and programmes and help make Singapore even better and improve the lives of Singaporeans significantly as we move towards SG100.

I am here to speak my mind, to speak up constructively, to help ensure that we have the best policies in place for Singapore and Singaporeans. I am here to help ensure that we become an even more caring and compassionate society but still remain the economic powerhouse in this region and the world.

We have talked and debated a lot about the hardware of this nation, about the software as well but I hope we place or continue to place equal emphasis on the heartware of this nation. This is not something new but something I hope we can focus more on.

Acting Minister Ong Ye Kung had earlier cautioned against excessively viewing ourselves in numeric terms and I wholeheartedly agree with him. While numbers are important as we debate on issues, my sincere hope is that this is not just a numbers game. Let us also discuss and debate even more about the morals and ethics, about Singaporeans' dreams, hopes and aspirations, more about the heart of the matter.

As we progress as a nation, we have achieved a lot in the past 50 years, we have made significant economic progress, but we must continue to place moral and ethical progress on par with economic progress. We need to ensure that Singapore is not run as a Singapore Incorporated and that economic growth is not the only measure of success in our country.

Numbers and dollars and cents are part of the equation, in fact, very important parts of the equation in this complex world we live in, but there is more to it and it has to be more to it in order for us to progress.

My fellow Member of this House, Mr Seah Kian Peng, said in Parliament almost a decade ago, and I quote, "Minister Mentor speaks of how we want to be in the first half of the First World. We can only truly do that, join the ranks of the civilised countries, not just by cranking up our economy, churning ever brighter students, but by caring for those who cannot speak and are 100% dependent on us for their quality of lives – animals."

And when we talk about animals, let us not talk about them as purely numbers, numbers of animals we trap and cull, but talk about them as sentient beings who live amongst us in the community and who share this island with us.

Let us ensure that we fight animal cruelty and we find humane long-term solutions to the human-animal conflicts in Singapore. There is no doubt that we have to do something to address the conflicts but, at the same time, we need to ensure that what we do addresses the root of the problem, not the symptoms of the problem but the root of the problem.

We need to ensure our policies are humane. The very essence of being human is being humane. We need to ensure that the policies we implement address both residents' and animal welfare concerns and are scientifically justifiable.

When we talk about the environment and climate change, let us not only focus on the economic losses due to climate change, not just the monetary values of trees and the ecosystem, but focus on our moral obligation to ensure a sustainable future for all and the intrinsic value of our trees and ecosystem.

We need to focus not only on recycling but also, more importantly, the other Rs, Reuse and, most importantly, Reduce.

Several Members of this House have used quotes from Einstein and, so, I will also share one of his quotes which reads, "Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."

Members of this House know me as a strong activist for the past 15 years, in particular, a strong champion for animal welfare and environmental causes.

Lately, I am known as the guy hunting the cat killers. Let me take this opportunity to assure this House and members of the public that those are not the only issues I will champion.

Through monthly townhall and dialogue sessions, I will also be championing other concerns of fellow Singaporeans. Through my monthly work experiences, I will learn more about different professions and help champion improvements. I have been a healthcare worker, a driver and, earlier this month, a cleaner, and it truly has been a worthwhile journey. These are jobs which are important in the progress of our country but where the workers receive too little appreciation at times and should receive more recognition.

I am also a new parent of a 2-year-old daughter and having a child has been one of the most rewarding journeys of our lives. My daughter lights up our lives and seeing her grow up, seeing her smile and laugh, hearing her start to talk have been an amazing experience and always puts a smile on our faces.

She is also a beaming activist already, having launched her first campaign, which is to end my 17-year habit of smoking. I am delighted to say that she has succeeded.

Her copy-and-paste function has also now begun and so she has made me a much better person as she now scrutinises and copies every single word we say and do, and all my bad habits are very quickly gone. So, any bad habit she has is clearly not from me. And to make sure I do not sleep on the couch tonight, any bad habit she has is also clearly not from my wife.

But I worry for her future. I worry about the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I am sure we all know that it is a worrying trend. But as we talk about the TFR, we also need to make sure that this is not just a numbers game again. I fully understand, appreciate and am experiencing the costs involved in bringing up a child in Singapore. So, the Baby Bonus Scheme, which helps to lighten the financial costs of raising children, has been very useful.

The maternity and paternity leaves have been useful as well even though we heard that fathers are not taking up the paternity leave, but I did. And I hope we can do more to promote parenthood, the positive aspects of parenthood and to share positive stories.

We need to inspire people to have kids. Our policies need to focus on making sure we have time to have kids, to look after our kids and bond with them. We need to focus more attention perhaps on flexi-working hours for parents without compromising productivity. I support what Mr Desmond Choo had earlier said about more flexi-working hour arrangements following maternity leave.

I hope we can also relook our childcare leave policies, leave policies and base the amount of leave not just on the age of the children but also the number of children one has. Quite simply, the more children you have, the more childcare leave you should have. I hope we can do more to help those who have kids to have more kids.

I do not think I have all the answers to the million-dollar question of how we can increase our TFR, but I have ideas and suggestions I hope we can try out and see if they will work. I have stories to share about the journey my wife and I have embarked on and, personally, I will walk the talk. I will help increase the TFR by having another child soon, I hope. [Applause.] There really is no greater reward than having a child.

Another area that concerns me is an overarching one and, that is, how we can mobilise our most important and valuable resource in this country – our people. We can mobilise them so we continue this journey, the Singapore story together. How can we mobilise everyone to step forward to volunteer, to serve and to make a difference? If we succeed in this, then this will help in a lot of the issues we will discuss in this House.

This will help the lower income families where we need to do more than provide financial assistance. With the help of the community, we can do more and do more to ensure that these families can get out of the poverty cycle.

We have launched a new programme for our lower income families in Nee Soon East where I serve and I am glad that more and more people are stepping forward to help. The beauty of the programme is that it is planned by volunteers, run by volunteers and funded by volunteers.

Having this strong community spirit is vital in times of crisis, be it a terrorist attack or an economic downturn. It is this community spirit, this caring society where we look out for one another, that will keep Singapore going and allow us to recover quickly.

To mobilise people and get the active citizenry we want, we need to make sure people are engaged, empowered and inspired. Engaged, empowered and inspired so that we have a nation committed to helping, giving and sharing. But this also cannot just be a numbers game. It is not just about sharing the total number of volunteers we have or the number of volunteer hours. It has to be more meaningful.

To engage people, we need to listen more, listen more than we speak. I quote, "The most basic of all human needs is the need to understand and be understood. The best way to understand people is to listen to them." So, we are not just there to explain policies to people, to throw them with facts and figures but we are there to truly listen and understand. The Our Singapore Conversation and The Future of Us dialogue are fine examples of engagement and they have been impactful. And I urge the Government to conduct more of such dialogues.

But we also need to empower. We need to make sure that the debate on policies, programmes and legislation takes place beyond these four walls. In fact, I think the most important work Members of this House do is beyond these four walls.

We need to ensure that the views of people are not just sought, but worked on, developed and presented in this House. We need to ensure that the debate we have in this House is started outside these four walls. We need to ensure people feel and are empowered.

The robust debate we have in the public arena is crucial and will ensure that we truly understand what the ground concerns are, the various ideas out there are and the different solutions available. Because, ultimately, we do not have all the answers.

Let us also empower by setting up committees comprising people on the ground, a committee of people who are not like-minded but who will come together to argue, to debate and to find common ground. To move forward, it is committees like these, like the Animal Welfare Legislation Review Committee, where I feel we will get the best policies drafted.

Empowering is vital and we need to empower our constituents and ensure that they have a voice in this House and a role to play in shaping Singapore. And we need to inspire them with positive stories of the Singapore story, of the amazing Singapore story and how, with their help, their views and their partnership, it can continue to be and, perhaps, be an even more remarkable story.

Sir, I am thankful for the Singapore we have today, thankful for the opportunities that she has given me, for the Singapore story I have lived for the past 37 years.

We are, indeed, the island of possibilities, the island of the impossible, the island where miracles can happen, have happened and will continue to happen, if we continue to believe, if we continue to fight passionately and continue to be determined for a better Singapore. In this island where the impossible has been achieved, my choice of pursuing an unconventional career 15 years ago has been made possible.

Many sceptics laughed at me 15 years ago when I started my charity ACRES, when I told them I was going to become an activist, an advocate for change. They told me that I would fail, that this is not something feasible to establish and sustain in Singapore and that I would not be able to engage, empower, inspire and mobilise anyone.

And so, if there is one lesson I have learnt in the past 15 years, it is that nothing is truly impossible in Singapore.

As we pass our 50th year mark, it cannot be business as usual. In fact, we cannot run this nation as a business. I hope that "Home" is not just a song we sing at events but that Singapore continues to be a place we call our home, a place we treasure and a place we build up for our children. I hope we leave behind a legacy of compassion, of giving, of hope for a stronger Singapore as we move towards SG100. And as far as my medical checks have shown, I believe, and I hope, I will be here for SG100.

Let me end with a quote that I hope Singaporeans will hear that I have used for all my school talks to mobilise students. And it reads, "I am only one but still I am one, I cannot do everything but still I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do."

Each one of us has that part to play, an important part to do something and, together, we can make Singapore even better, even stronger and even more beautiful. We can make Singapore the caring society and continue to be the shining red dot our President spoke about. Sir, I reaffirm my support for the Motion.