Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [17 April 2023].

"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 she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Murali Pillai].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Derrick Goh.

1.30 pm

Mr Derrick Goh (Nee Soon): Sir, Singapore’s growth from third world to first within a generation has been nothing short of remarkable. Through the triumphs and tribulations, our forefathers have forged a nation not just through resilience but also unity.

The responsibility to bring Singapore forward now lies upon our shoulders. We face challenges and opportunities like our forefathers, though of a different nature amid evolving ideologies and complexities. The popular saying is that it is easier to grow an organisation but always harder to keep up its successes. So, it is, all the more, that we must be alert not to succumb to complacency.

For me, the prorogation and our President’s Address provided valuable opportunities for introspection as a first-term Member of Parliament (MP); and today, I summarise my reflections in three key themes.

The first is the importance of an effective Parliament. In an age of flux and dynamism, policy considerations are seldom linear and there may not be past blueprints and playbooks to rely on.

In most solutions, society is overall better off but there is often a cost where a segment may not benefit, and this is where different views expressed during a debate is important for the clarity and transparency of all.

In such situations where we articulate different perspectives, I would like to echo Mdm President’s message that our conversations must be constructive, respectful and responsible, so that we draw strength from our diversity. To uphold trust in the effectiveness of Parliament, we must conduct ourselves with integrity and civility, with truth and logic as the bedrock of what we say; so that at the end of the day, we galvanise our citizens towards a common direction.

Like Singapore’s progress, we cannot take the effectiveness of our Parliament for granted. We should be careful not to follow the path of some parliaments in the world, where divisive politics and appealing rhetoric cloud genuine debates, such that they are not effective in making sound decisions and they confuse the people they serve.

In an effective Parliament, the responsibility also lies with all of us to be courageous in tackling difficult and potentially unpopular issues, and to make tough decisions for the benefit of Singaporeans.

Looking back at the first session of this parliament, I believe this House has done well and demonstrated decisive leadership. I had the opportunity to participate in many of these debates.

In passing the multiple Budgets through COVID-19, we have protected lives and livelihoods, averting an economic meltdown; and even though we fared better and emerged stronger compared to many other countries, this House did not shy away from debating on how else we could have done better and how to proactively draw learnings from our experience to ready ourselves for future threats.

In the repeal of section 377A, we tackled this important topic even though we could have dealt with this further down the road. Importantly, we did not push the responsibility to the Courts to decide what is good for our society. We debated this issue sensitively with maturity and empathy, and we arrived at a balanced and win-win outcome.

And in increasing the Goods and Services Tax (GST) rate, we bravely acknowledged the need for fiscal sustainability and prudence to support higher and longer-term expenditures, yet effectively transformed what is a potentially regressive tax regime into a holistic and progressive system through the innovative use of enhanced GST Vouchers and the Assurance Package, so that those who are vulnerable are protected, while those who are more well-off contribute more.

In these examples and others, considerations and trade-offs were put forth openly, so we could debate these robustly and transparently. As we look forward to the second session of the 14th Parliament, it is imperative that we continue to uphold the effectiveness, leadership and public confidence of this House.

Sir, this brings me to the second theme of my speech – that is of clearly recognising the costs, trade-offs and constraints in the debates we make. Failure to recognise these “costs” defies the fundamental concept of scarcity in economics and could leave room for populist politics which will mislead and polarise our society.

Singapore has enjoyed remarkable growth and development. While we continue to cheer and enable every citizen to maximise their potential and lift their ambitions, the hard truth is that it is impractical for our Government to fulfil all desires. Matching limited resources to meet ever-increasing and sometimes near-infinite expectations is an equation that cannot be solved by any government. Hence, this requires us to make choices and strike a balance for our policies to be sustainable.

For example, in debating housing accessibility, we all fully agree with younger Singaporeans’ aspirations towards convenience and proximity to their parents' home. However, it is simply not possible for everyone to be availed a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat in a mature estate as space in such areas are finite. The key question will then be how to allocate them. And in terms of affordability, how should the Government balance between buyers desiring lower prices and sellers expecting higher valuations?

An even broader example concerns Singapore’s finances. The Ministry of Finance (MOF) has already stated that Singapore’s expenditures will increase and is projected to rise to 20% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. The many calls for the Government to do more will mean that spending can easily increase beyond 20%. It is important for us to address transparently, how we are going to fund these increases without kicking the can down the road.

I listened carefully to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) position on this. They oppose not just the GST increase but also the overall GST system, that today contributes $17 billion to our revenues.

The WP has offered some policy alternatives, such as to spend more from our Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework. However, the proposals are not viable to address funding shortfalls.

I said, at the GST Bill debate, that to spend more from our investment returns and to save less is an attractive but not a responsible approach. Singapore’s Reserves serve as a strategic asset and insurance to support us during crises and provide us a long-term, recurring and growing annuity to fund our rising national expenditures.

MOF has projected that NIRC contributions will be maintained at about the same percentage of GDP over the coming years; and we all know that norms in the economic and investment climate have turned to be more challenging. If we were to spend more from the NIRC now, it must mean that we leave behind less for our next generation. Should we take this path, I worry that our children will be the ones to bear the costs of a much bigger fiscal burden to fund future expenditures.

The WP is entitled to a different view, and I respect that. However, they need to be honest about the full implications and costs of their proposals for current and future generations.

We should guard against short-sighted policies that go against our values and principles of how we uphold fiscal prudence. If we do not manage this carefully, the trust in our fiscal stability, that we have painstakingly built over the years can be destroyed overnight.

In its manifesto and in this debate, the WP has put forward many proposals, all of which will require more spending. In the coming session of Parliament, I look forward to hearing more from them the details of how the proposals will be funded, especially without GST.

In our debates, there will be some areas where we agree and some that we do not, like in the use of Reserves. I am confident we will highlight our arguments and debate robustly about these issues. It will then be for Singaporeans to judge which is the more responsible and better approach to take Singapore forward.

In the end, it is not a battle between political parties. This is all about us, Singaporeans. How successful we will be depends on how we approach these conundrums and trade-offs to make balanced policy choices for our society and for our society to see them as fair.

It is challenging, but I can see that our Government is dedicated to doing its best; and better relative to many other countries including the ones where I lived in, which is why I chose to return to Singapore; in fact, it is exactly because our Government sensibly acknowledges costs and trade-offs that it is able to prioritise well and work hard so that our citizens benefit.

A microcosm of this is reflected in my own constituency at Nee Soon Link, that has many new Housing and Development Board (HDB) Build-To-Order (BTO) precincts. I have worked with many agencies to initiate and improve amenities, including launching a new bus service and building many new bus stops when none were earlier catered for. And I am thankful to my residents who had moved in earlier for exercising patience, as we appealed successfully to improve the frequency of bus services when more residents settled into the estate.

It is from this perspective that I can attest to the dedication of our Government agencies towards serving our residents, demonstrating empathy and flexibility in calibrating public resources to meet needs on the ground, while ensuring value for money.

Sir, an effective Parliament and dedicated Government are essential; but both by themselves cannot ensure Singapore’s progress. The final theme of my speech is how we all need to be hands on; for all of us, citizens to play our part.

In my maiden speech in this House, I spoke about how effective governance is not just about good policies but also about good execution. Through the various Ministries’ addenda to the President’s Address, I am heartened to learn about the strong reaffirmation and refresh of their plans to take Singapore forward.

Ultimately, while the Government can steer through sound policies, it is for our businesses, community partners, families and individuals to take their respective steps towards building a better Singapore.

In overcoming the crisis of a generation, we have seen first-hand how a formidable force is built from everyone playing a role, as well as from the partnership and trust between the Government and its people. It is also heartening to see that within our towering metropolis and residences, the kampung spirit of old is well and alive.

I encourage all of us to uphold this sense of personal and collective responsibility, as well as to continue to look beyond personal interests, so we contribute to building a caring and more resilient society where no one is left behind.

The Forward Singapore exercise, aimed at renewing our social compact, encapsulates this ideal best. This social compact is an implicit agreement across Government, individuals, families, community and businesses on what kind of society we want to live in and what each of us are willing to give – and give up – for one another. It aptly circles back to recognising trade-offs and requires all of us to answer, given constraints, what we desire to build and what we are willing to do more together with the Government for a better Singapore.

Sir, we now live in a world characterised by volatility; and where our long-held notions of geopolitical peace, globalisation and trade flows, and economic stability are challenged.

I started today’s speech on how the responsibility to bring Singapore forward now rest upon our shoulders. As we forge ahead in the new normal with cautious optimism, we ask not for a lighter load, but for greater strength.

I am convinced we can surmount the challenges and capture the opportunities that lie ahead if we come together as one Singapore because we are, Stronger Together! Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

1.45 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, in her speech, President Halimah spoke about shifts in the geopolitical landscape and the implications that this will have on the Singapore economy. She described trends that we have been concerned about for a few years now – growing obstacles to global trade and economic nationalism. Both of these trends are expected to persist in the years to come and both of these trends are inflationary.

Indeed, the latest Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) data showed that core consumer prices rose by 5.5% year on year in February, with food prices up more than 8%. We have not seen food prices go up so quickly since 2008.

Although the MAS expects inflation to “slow more discernibly in the second half of this year” and hopefully “reach around 2.5% year on year by the end of 2023”, the projection for core consumer prices to rise by 3.5% to 4.5% over 2023 as a whole and for headline inflation to average 5.5% to 6.5% is still elevated, compared to recent history and certainly out of the comfort range for many Singaporeans.

Last year, wage growth for those of us who are employed full-time outpaced inflation but only barely. Real median incomes grew just 2% in 2022, almost half as fast as it used to grow in the pre-COVID-19 years.

Working Singaporeans’ earnings power will be reduced again when the second GST hike kicks in in January 2024. I find it ironic that in its latest monetary policy statement, it appears the MAS took pains to highlight that the higher inflation rates we have seen at the start of the year “reflected in part the increase in GST” and that “when the impact of the GST increase is excluded, core inflation would be even lower and closer to the historical average”. Why add fuel to fire?

The Government’s support measures are designed to ensure that Singaporeans “with greater means contribute their fair share of taxes”. But from an inter-generational equity perspective, you can see why so many younger Singaporeans feel anxious and uneasy about the future. Some have even given up on the aspirations to raise a family here. Even some senior citizens I have met tell me that they worry most about how the higher cost of living impacts their children and feel compelled to carry on working, even though they may not wish to do so.

As workers and business owners, we will strive to be more productive and more competitive, and hope that our wages can go up higher than inflation. But I also hope that the Government can avoid introducing more pressure into the system through an untimely GST hike, especially if wage growth remains uneven or weak.

Because when the cost of living – real or perceived – is too high, that hurts Singapore’s attractiveness as a liveable city, it weakens our younger ones' confidence to take risks and we become less competitive globally. Just last month, The Business Times reported that in a business sentiment survey conducted by the Singaporean-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce, almost half of German employers in Singapore polled, or 44%, said “psychological distress and lower work performance is visible among staff” due to the unpredictable housing situation.

My second point is about income security for workers who may find themselves displaced if labour market conditions deteriorate.

Last week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that inflation is much stickier than anticipated even a few months ago and the chances of a “hard landing” for the global economy have risen sharply. Here in Singapore, gross domestic product (GDP) already fell sequentially by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, with goods producing industries seeing a sharper 4.1% decline. While the Government has not updated its expectations for GDP growth of 0.5% to 2.5% in 2023, the risk of a recession is only getting higher.

Some of you would know that I work in the banking sector, for a bank which is the subject of an emergency takeover. The recent turbulence at our firm has taken a very deep emotional toll on my friends and colleagues. In Singapore, job security is especially vexing because there is no nationally defined social protection floor that our workers can stand on to feel secure. There is also no law mandating retrenchment benefits in Singapore, which could be critical in ensuring displaced workers and their families have sufficient liquidity to meet basic living needs. This is especially pertinent during periods of recession and labour market weakness, where a longer time is needed to secure employment.

I was therefore heartened to hear President Halimah say that the Government will study how it can extend support schemes similar to the COVID‐19 Recovery Grant beyond the pandemic. We should explore how the administrative arrangements for the COVID-19 Recovery grant can be adapted for a wider redundancy insurance scheme. The Workers’ Party (WP) has consistently been pushing for a redundancy insurance scheme since 2011 and had also published a consultation paper on this back in 2016.

As our economy matures and as economic cycles become shorter and more unpredictable, many of us will have no choice but to make more frequent transitions between jobs and career paths, even when we are not financially prepared to do so.

By providing displaced workers with immediate income security, a redundancy insurance scheme can raise efficiency in the labour market and reduce underemployment. It will allow workers to take the time that is required to reskill and find a stronger job fit, instead of being pressured into choices that could hamper their longer-term career mobility, just so that they can pay the bills.

With intensifying risks to our economy and labour markets, I hope that legislation on redundancy insurance can be put in place as soon as possible, even if it is called something else like a targeted re-employment scheme. Let us roll it out now before the next recession, when it will be needed.

My third point is about a topic which is increasingly a key concern for many Singaporeans and that is housing – to which I wish to first declare my interest as an equity research analyst in a financial institution covering the real estate industry.

We have had an extensive debate in this House about this topic just two months ago and I will refrain from repeating much of the points which I have raised back then. However, as I have shared in my speech on the housing Motion debates, the root cause of much of our housing woes today relate to supply and the solution really is for the Government to take urgent and decisive steps to increase the availability of public housing and ensure that the housing needs of all Singaporeans are met.

After all, while President Halimah spoke of running up against more binding constraints in land, labour and carbon over the coming years, when it comes to having enough space for future generations, Prime Minister Lee gave us an emphatic assurance late last year that “Our problem is not finding the space to build enough flats, nor keeping homes affordable for Singaporeans. We know how to do that”.

I am thus comforted to read that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong shared in a Budget roundtable discussion last month that the root of the problem is a supply issue. However, while I recognise Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s confidence in the Government’s ability to bring stability to the market again and perhaps this could eventually come when recession hits our shores, manifestations of the demand-supply imbalance in our housing market continue to persist in the meantime.

House prices have continued to climb, where, based on flash estimates for the first quarter of 2023, private residential prices rose 3.2% in the quarter while HDB resale prices rose 0.9%, with both public and private prices up for 12 consecutive quarters now.

Over in the public housing rental market especially, The Straits Times reported last week that “overall, HDB rents shot up 27.7 per cent in February compared with a year earlier – a rate of increase not seen in 15 years”, with January too seeing a similarly pace of increase.

Based on estimates by the real estate consultancy quoted in the article, the town of Sengkang which I represent had the unfortunate honour of seeing rents rise the most across HDB estates, at 40.4% over a one-year period, with median rents now at $3,200 a month, compared to around $2,200 a month a year earlier.

During the Ministry of National Development (MND) Committee of Supply (COS) debates last month, I called on the Government to support Singaporeans who may need to rent in the open market to address their immediate housing needs, given soaring open market rentals. At that point, Minister Desmond Lee shared that the Government will “keep an open mind and keep a close eye on the rental situation and will be prepared to take necessary measures in order to support Singaporeans”.

I still hope that the Government will consider intervening in the market sooner than later, rather than continue monitoring the market, in order to preserve open market rental affordability.

On that note, I am heartened to note that the MND recognises that we have more singles and caregivers in our society, and more young Singaporeans who aspire to live independently. In particular, I am excited to read that the MND is working on developing more inclusive housing options especially for singles, seniors and those with disabilities. Just as I have mentioned in my Adjournment Motion last year, I believe this is the right step to take for our public housing policies to be “inclusive” and to “reflect the diversity of our society”.

As part of these options, I would like to once again reiterate my calls made in prior Adjournment Motions to support Singaporeans’ diverse aspirations through expanding on rental housing and to lower the BTO eligibility age for singles from 35 to 28 years old.

Our younger Singaporeans aspire to have a place of their own and this is a trend which I believe the Government would have been closely monitoring as well. This is why I have called on the Government to significantly increase the stock of rental flats across flat sizes, thereby creating a viable and expanded public rental scheme, with an emphasis on ensuring that our lower- to middle-income households’ housing needs are well looked after.

This is also aptly captured in a recent Mothership series on housing, which documented couples who are affected by the delay in BTO flats but are not lucky enough to secure a flat under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme (PPHS) and are faced with an option to either stay at their parents’ homes with no private space or pay an increasingly expensive rental lease.

Even if the Government still believes in home ownership as a superior model, a pathway to ensure that younger Singaporeans’ housing needs are adequately met is to lower singles’ eligibility age for HDB BTO flats from the current 35 years to 28 years of age. This is when most Singaporeans would have been in the workforce for a few years and have begun to lead more independent lives.

This proposal would be a critical change, yet a continuation of the Government’s efforts over the years to expand HDB options for singles while still allowing HDB to give priority to providing for families. In fact, we believe lowering the threshold for owning HDB flats to 28 years would go a long way towards HDB’s stated aims for Singapore’s public housing to be “inclusive” and to “reflect the diversity of our society”.

Yet, even as we refresh our social compact on housing and reimagine a range of housing options for a more inclusive housing programme, the next chapter of our housing story still leaves one big question unanswered: what about the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) and the end of the 99-year lease?

Together with my hon friends Mr Leon Perera and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim, I asked Senior Minister of State Sim Ann for more details about VERS at the housing Motion debates in February, given that we know hardly anything about it despite it being introduced about five years ago.

I am sure the Government would have been monitoring and studying this issue for a long time now and I was carefully scrutinising Mdm President’s speech and the MND addendum to the President’s Address for any mention of VERS and solutions to address the elephant in the room – the lease decay issue – but to no avail. Is this an issue that the 4G leaders are prepared to address?

At the housing Motion debates, my hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim highlighted the fundamental tension between housing as a retirement asset and as a home. Our current HDB and CPF policies may be a dangerous game of musical chairs: if one is able to offload one’s flat before its price collapses – as it must, eventually – then we can retire comfortably; but then, the one holding the bag is a fellow Singaporean who bought your resale because they needed the space for a growing family and could not afford to wait for a BTO. Essentially, what goes up must come down. The higher the climb, the harder the fall.

And it is not just the WP that is worried about this increasingly untenable link. In a commentary published by The Straits Times earlier this month, Assoc Prof of law Eugene Tan spoke of the trap of ever-spiralling expectations in the housing market, which will be too much to bear for all stakeholders. He shared that “looking ahead, the reality of leases decay – as flats built in the 1960s and 1970s rundown their 99-year leases – will increasingly bite harder. This sobering reality will have to be adjusted to as well even as older Singaporeans hope to leave their residential property to their children”.

The WP had proposed a universal sale and lease back scheme that provides a floor price for HDB resale prices where the HDB is the buyer of last resort for all lessees, where each individual lessee is empowered to exercise the scheme and not be subject to a voluntary process which is out of the hands of the individual. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann shared the same notion of having the Government coming in as the purchaser of last resort, although it remains to be seen how this can pan out in practice if VERS, as the name suggests, is voluntary and subject to voting by residents in the precinct.

But critically, I struggle to see how amid all of these concerns and the eventuality of the value of HDB flats reaching zero at the end of the 99-year lease, the PAP Government can honour its promise to all Singaporeans as shared by Prime Minister Lee last month, “that your HDB flat will be both a good home for you and your family, and a valuable nest egg for your retirement”.

I of course hope that what Prime Minister Lee shared can materialise. But for the sake of the current and future generations of Singaporeans, it is imperative that we lay out our plans to achieve these increasingly untenable links between affordable housing and retirement adequacy. Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In view of the economic slowdown and weakening job market, I would like to urge the Government to roll out redundancy insurance for workers as soon as possible so as to enhance their income security. I would also like to know details of the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) and the Government’s plans to address the problem of decaying leases of 99-year leasehold HDB flats.

Currently, the provision of retrenchment benefits is not mandatory by law in Singapore. However, this is critical in ensuring that jobless workers and their families have sufficient liquidity to meet basic living needs. It is especially important when there is an economic downturn and the job market is weakening, as workers may need a longer time to find employment during these periods.

Since 2011, the Workers’ Party has always advocated for the implementation of redundancy insurance and we hope that the Government will legislate this as soon as possible. We must plan for rainy days and be prepared for the next economic recession.

On the issue of housing, I am glad that the Ministry of National Development (MND) is aware that there are many singles and caregivers as well as many young Singaporeans who desire to live on their own. It is even more heartening to know that MND is focusing on developing more inclusive housing options. Thus, I would like to reiterate a call made during an earlier Adjournment Motion, which is to expand rental flat options to meet the diverse housing aspirations of Singaporeans and to lower the age requirement for single citizens to apply for BTO flats from 35 to 28 years old.

Even as we update our social compact on housing and offer new housing options, there is still a major unresolved issue in the next chapter of Singapore’s housing story. With regards to the VERS and the problem of decaying 99-year leases, what are we doing to address these issues? I have looked into the President’s address and MND’s addenda in detail, hoping to find out the solution to the problem of lease decay but to no avail. Is this a problem that the 4G leaders plan to address?

It is difficult to understand how the PAP Government will honour the promise made by the Prime Minister last month, considering the fact that the value of HDB flats will trickle down to zero when their 99-year lease ends. On the one hand, we need to ensure that flats remain affordable. On the other hand, we must enhance the value of HDB flats so that Singaporeans will have adequate reserve funds when they retire. So, the Government needs to come up with plans as soon as possible and involve Singaporeans in the discussion.

(In English): In closing, I have one final reflection. This concerns President Halimah's remarks that in so many societies, political parties aggravate rifts instead of bringing people together.

I hope it is clear to the House and Singaporeans from the positions that I and my fellow WP colleagues have put forth, that we speak always to advance the larger public interest. It would be foolish and self destructive for us to do otherwise. We are Singaporeans too and have just as much of a stake in the well-being of this country as the ruling party does.

So, even though my colleagues and I do not enjoy the same access to information, networks and resources that some of our hon Members do, we continue to strive to make constructive contributions to the policy debates of this House.

On that note, I look forward to having more robust yet respectful debates in this House – for let us not forget that the capacity to have respectful contestation of ideas and views is a key piece in building public trust in Singapore's institutions.

Mr Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

2.03 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Radin Mas): Mr Speaker, I rise to thank Mdm President for her address. Before I begin, I declare my interest as President of the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE).

Sir, as the world continues to evolve post-pandemic, the way we consume goods and services is also changing rapidly. The digitisation of almost every aspect of our lives has led to a new trend in consumer behaviour – and that is, convenience. Today's consumers have become accustomed to the instant gratification facilitated by technological advancements. With a few clicks on their smartphones, consumers can order anything they want, from delivery of their favourite meals to buying groceries from an online market. Companies that can offer the most convenient solutions are gaining traction among consumers, and this trend is likely to continue.

A report released by Meta and Bain & Company in September 2022 forecasted that e-commerce sales in Singapore will reach $19.6 billion by 2027, despite slower growth in 2022 caused by inflationary pressures and COVID-19-related supply chain disruptions. A report released by Shopee Singapore in March 2023 found that there is growing adoption of e-commerce among older users, with 70% of respondents aged 55 and above indicating that they have integrated e-commerce into their daily routine.

While e-commerce and online transactions have made life easier, they also carry significant risks and dangers. As more transactions are being conducted over the Internet, the number of online frauds has also increased significantly over the years. My speech today will focus on the need to enhance our consumer protection laws for e-commerce, strengthen safeguards for digital payments, and regulate trending consumer credit schemes such as Buy Now Pay Later services.

First, let me start with the need to enhance our existing consumer protection laws for e-commerce.

While the general position is that existing consumer protection laws are broad enough to cover online transactions, these were enacted at a time when consumer transactions were predominantly offline via brick-and-mortar stores. Our laws do not sufficiently address the distinction between online and offline transactions and correspondingly, the issues that are specific to online transactions.

Sir, I have three proposals to strengthen consumer safeguards in the e-commerce space.

First, we need to authenticate the sellers on online marketplaces. The duty of ensuring the legitimacy of sellers should be placed on the online marketplaces. By charging platform fees and commissions, online marketplaces are expected to ensure that the merchants listed on their platforms are genuine and legitimate. Online marketplaces should vet, verify and authenticate the credentials of sellers before allowing them to list and sell products on their platforms. Mandating seller verification, which is already being implemented in jurisdictions such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), will ensure accountability of sellers for their product listings, reduce scams and aid resolution of consumer disputes.

Second, online marketplaces should ensure that there are mechanisms in place to protect consumers’ payments. One way to do this is to incorporate escrow into the transaction process. This means that when a consumer makes a purchase, the payment to the seller is temporarily held by the platform for a period and only released to the seller when the consumer confirms that the item is delivered in good condition. Mandating escrow accounts would give consumers greater peace of mind when shopping online.

Third, we should extend our consumer protection laws to cover consumer-to-consumer transactions made through social media platforms. Today, our consumer protection laws do not adequately cover sales transactions made between two individuals via a social media platform such as Facebook, Instagram or TikTok. According to some analysts, the social commerce sector in Singapore is expected to reach more than US$1.25 billion by this year.

To foster a safe and trusted online marketplace for consumers, CASE led an industry-wide effort in 2020 to develop Technical Reference 76, Singapore’s first national standards for e-commerce transactions. CASE also introduced the Standard Dispute Management Framework for E-marketplaces in 2021 to guide e-marketplaces resolve consumer disputes equitably and efficiently.

I am happy to share that CASE will be launching a new CaseTrust accreditation scheme for e-businesses which will cover the entire range of e-commerce practices from pre-sale to post-sale and address common consumer pain points when shopping online.

Sir, as e-commerce and online shopping become part and parcel of our lives, we must ensure that our laws provide the same protection for our consumers, offline and online.

Next, let me move on to the Government’s push for greater use of digital payment, which has undoubtedly also facilitated and fuelled the increasing popularity of online shopping.

Digital payment has risen sharply in recent years. The convenience of being able to make payments without having to carry cash or visiting a bank is a significant advantage. However, I would like to highlight three risks associated with digital payments.

First is the risk of data breach. With digital transactions, there is a rise in data collection, processing, sharing and storage of personal information. Hackers can steal this information, which could lead to identity theft, financial fraud or other forms of cyber crime. Debit card fraud and phishing attacks are now a common occurrence, which could impact not only the individual but the entire banking system.

Second is the risk of system failure. Digital payments rely heavily on technology and any system failure or technical glitch could result in significant problems. Last month, DBS customers were unable to log in to the bank’s online banking platforms, including its PayLah! mobile wallet, for almost a day. DBS' digital banking services previously suffered a two-day disruption in November 2021. Such incidences can create inconvenience and, in some cases, financial losses.

Third is the risk of scams. The rise of digital payments has provided an opportunity for scammers to create fake e-wallets, websites and mobile applications to perpetuate their fraudulent activities. In October 2022, the MAS reported 610 cases of banking-related phishing scams involving PayNow transactions in 2021 and the first half of 2022. Victims lost large sums of money when the scammers deceived them into sharing their digital banking credentials.

Sir, while digital payments provide convenience, it is important to be mindful of the risks that come with it and further strengthen our safeguards. Cybersecurity should be a top priority, and financial institutions need to implement advanced safety measures to prevent data breaches, system failures and fraudulent activities. More needs to be done also to educate vulnerable consumers, such as our seniors and those who are not technologically savvy, to stay updated and cautious when using these services.

Finally, let me highlight the risks of unregulated short-term financing services such as "Buy Now, Pay Later", which is prevalent today in many e-commerce platforms, and the need to establish more stringent limits on such transactions.

According to a 2021 report by Mileu, close to a fifth of Singaporeans aged 16 and above have used a "Buy Now, Pay Later" service. According to a report by WorldPay, "Buy Now, Pay Later" transactions are expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 40% between 2021 and 2025.

Such short-term financing services can appear enticing with their zero-interest deals, flexible payment options and convenience of access, but they come with a set of risks that can put unsuspecting customers in financial distress, especially for younger consumers below 21, as many of them do not yet have a stable income.

The first and most obvious risk is the accumulation of unforeseen fees and charges. Customers who fail to pay the required instalments on time are slapped with hidden fees and added interest, pushing up the total balance and making it harder to pay off the debt. "Buy Now, Pay Later" schemes also typically do not conduct credit checks, hence there is no pre-determined limit to how much a customer can borrow. This puts consumers at risk of overstretching their financial capabilities, leading to a spiral of debt.

Another risk comes from the psychological impact of these schemes. With no immediate payment obligations, consumers may spend more than they would otherwise, as they feel less connected to the actual cost of purchases. This can lead to overspending and, in some cases, an addiction to online shopping.

CASE has called for safeguards to be introduced, including limits to be set on purchases and penalty fees, credit assessment of potential users and integration of "Buy Now, Pay Later" spending data with credit ratings. Some of these proposals have been included in the industry’s Code of Conduct, which came into effect in November last year; but only some. We can and must do more. I urge the Government to impose regulations to better protect vulnerable consumers, such as the young and those already in debt, from exploitation by these schemes.

Sir, in conclusion, e-commerce has made significant progress in recent years, from the way businesses operate, to the way consumers find and purchase goods and services, to the way products are delivered to our doorsteps. It has opened a new world of possibilities and opportunities, but also presents new risks and dangers to consumers, both young and old. We must therefore review and update our consumer protection laws accordingly. Our laws must provide the same protection for consumers, regardless of whether we shop offline or online. Sir, notwithstanding the above, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Muhamad Faisal Manap.

2.15 pm

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During the President’s Address on Monday last week, Mdm Halimah touched on several issues related to the steps which we need to take to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

One of the things that caught my attention was about national politics. Essentially, good politics is necessary to further advance Singapore’s progress, harmony and stability. The opposite type of politics could spark polarisation and divisions.

For my speech in this debate, I aim to share my own perspective on what would be considered as good politics. The content of my speech is meant for all participants in national politics, especially members of this House, including myself, and it is meant for all of us to conduct some self-reflection or introspection. In the words of a contemporary political phrase, “ownself check ownself”, in a positive manner. When we point a finger at someone else, we should be mindful that our other fingers that are pointing back at ourselves.

Sir, what constitutes good politics? Among the factors that can produce good or healthy politics are firstly, having a level playing field; second, being able to agree to disagree; and thirdly, avoiding actions that cause fear among the public, or in English, “fear-mongering” especially during elections for the purpose of gaining support.

Sir, having a level playing field is fundamental to achieve a democratic society, which is something that we want to attain as inscribed in the national pledge – building a democratic society.

It is publicly known that Members of Parliament (MPs) who are not from the ruling party need to put in more effort at the grassroots level to meet the needs of our constituents. This is because we do not have access to the resources of the People’s Association (PA). This is because non-ruling party MPs who were elected to represent and serve their constituents during the general elections have been set aside in the appointment of Grassroots Advisors.

The reality is, for a constituency won by a non-ruling party candidate, the defeated ruling party candidate will assume the role of the Grassroots Advisor. Conversely, for a constituency won by the ruling party, the elected ruling party candidate is concurrently appointed as the Grassroots Advisor.

Sir, in reality, we, as non-ruling party MPs who are not appointed Grassroots Advisors, are unable to utilise the places under the purview of the PA such as the community clubs and the Residents’ Committee (RC) offices. Apart from the usage of such places, the PA funds meant for the benefit of the constituents also could not be touched. The same goes for manpower resources. The manpower provided by full-time constituency managers and directors is invaluable.

This practice is not aligned with the phrase in our pledge which is to build a democratic society based on justice and equality. Why do I say this?

Sir, the Grassroots Advisor is a position entrusted with the power and responsibility to manage public funds, which is collected through taxpayer money, for the use and benefit of the residents of a constituency.

It certainly does not align with the values of justice and equality when the ruling party candidate who lost and was rejected by voters at the elections was appointed and recognised by the Government to hold the position of grassroots advisor while the non-ruling party representatives elected by the voters were set aside.

To illustrate the circumstances more clearly, I will give an example.

To date, after almost 13 years constituting two and a half terms which I have served as the MP in Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC), I still hear comments from my residents during my house visits that the People's Action Party (PAP) seem to be organising more events than the Workers’ Party (WP). However, when I ask for details of those events, it turns out that they were referring to events held at the community club as well as those organised by the RC. They said so because they saw the PAP branch chairman, who is also the grassroots advisor, present at these events as the guest of honour or the event organiser. In fact, some residents also said that their children received their Edusave awards from the PAP.

Undeniably, the funds utilised by the bodies under the purview of the PA are for the benefit of the residents in a given constituency. However, it is also undeniable that the existing system creates the impression and assumption that events organised by the PA are events organised by the PAP.

Sir, I have proposed in this House previously that the position of grassroots advisor should be granted to individuals who are not linked to any political parties so that the PA may be released from any political elements. This proposal was also part of the WP manifesto in the previous General Election – ensuring the freedom of national institutions from party politics.

I understand that some efforts have been undertaken in this matter. For example, in the Sengkang GRC, the appointed Grassroots Advisors are not members of any political party. Nevertheless, as shared in social media recently, a Sengkang branch chairman from the PAP was invited as a guest for the Edusave awards ceremony and took photos with the recipients and Grassroots Advisor.

The question here is, in what capacity did this individual attend a ceremony which was jointly organised by the PA and the Ministry of Education (MOE)? What is the message that was meant to be conveyed? And why was the elected MP not invited? Or at least, have both of them invited to this event. Fundamentally and more importantly, where are the values of justice and equality?

Sir, although we, the non-ruling party MP, lack public resources, we still serve with dedication and direct our total efforts to carry out the responsibilities entrusted by our constituents.

I do not mean to complain, Sir. Rather, what I want to raise is whether this is the proper practice in our efforts to build a democratic society based on justice and equality as inscribed in our national pledge? Reflect on it!

I now wish to touch on the factor of “agree to disagree”. Staying respectful while navigating differences is important and fundamental in our efforts to preserve and further strengthen unity in society.

Differences of opinions and views are a fact of community life. The approach that should be taken in managing and balancing such differences is the “agree to disagree” approach. Failure to do so could lead to conflict and division.

Sir, during the debate on the repeal of section 377A last November, there were differences of opinion among the MPs of the WP. Some of us supported the repeal while others did not.

On this issue, the MPs of the WP had discussed and could not find common ground for agreement on this issue, and thus moved to “agree to disagree”. As such, the decision was made to allow each WP MP to vote on the matter as they saw fit. Although there were differences in this matter, we all agreed that we needed to embrace unity in diversity.

In my perspective, what happened to the WP was a reflection of reality, in parallel to what was happening among Singaporeans on this issue, whereby society was divided into two sides – those who were supportive and those who were not. Despite the differences in opinion and principle, these differences did not cause divisions that could have damaged our society because of the existence of tolerance, mutual respect and a willingness to agree to disagree when facing a situation with no mutual consensus. This is what is known as unity in diversity.

Sir, unity in diversity is a value that we must uphold as a democratic society as we traverse and advance to a new era of living whereby differences of opinion and principles will become more pronounced. Upholding these values will enable us, as a democratic society, to overcome “cancel culture”, which is a worrying practice because it could adversely impact our unity and lead to divisions.

The final matter relates to “fear mongering”. Efforts to scare voters are unhealthy political practices that could lead to polarisation and division. For example, once upon a time, fears were raised that if a political party other than the ruling party is elected and runs the town council, it will lead to bad management to the extent that garbage will pile up as high as a two-storey flat. It was also remarked that the prices of houses in constituencies held by political parties other than the ruling party will be adversely impacted and plunge.

In the 2015 General Elections, there were last minute efforts during the campaigning period to spread unfounded accusations to the residents of Punggol East. It was said that the WP had failed to explain what had happened to $22.5 million worth of funds which had been transferred from Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council. These are among the political practices which are unhealthy and should be rejected.

In summary, Sir, in a healthy democracy, the decisions of voters in electing their political representatives should be made based on their considerations on the facts that have been put forward by all parties contesting in the elections and not because of fears which had arisen from unfounded claims. The practice of fear mongering by anyone is irresponsible and goes against democratic values.

Sir, in conclusion, if we want to avoid political divisions and polarisation, worries which had been raised by Mdm President, we must practice and strengthen the aspects which I have mentioned, which are: having a level playing field, agreeing to disagree and, at the same time, rejecting “fear mongering”. If we are able to do that, it can also enhance the level of trust held by our citizens towards the national leadership system, which is another important factor mentioned by Mdm President on that occasion. Overall, it will strengthen our efforts to build a democratic society based on justice and equality as spoken each time we recite our national pledge.

Sir, I wish to reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech, that what I am sharing in this debate is not intended to point fingers at any particular individuals. Rather, it is an invitation to all Members of this august Chamber, our elected leaders and to myself in particular, to engage in introspection and self-reflection with a view to improving what needs to be improved so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for Singapore.

May I say once again that when we point a finger at someone else, we must be mindful that our other fingers pointing back at ourselves. Nonetheless, sir, there is a saying in Malay that goes “whoever eats the chilli will be the one to feel the spiciness”. Let us self-reflect! Thank you, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin.

2.30 pm

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in the Second Session of the 14th Parliament of Singapore. The first Parliament of our nation was convened in 1965 and in 58 years, those who came before us built Singapore into who she is today. It is not lost on me that we are still a young nation, a little red dot with homes in the sky, willed into existence by the tenacity of our forefathers and carried by the resilience and harmony of our people today.

Statistics show that as a whole, people are living wealthier, healthier, safer and more informed lives than ever before. But we are also facing new challenges that threaten our very existence, from climate change to social economic inequality, the rise of nationalism as the war rages on, reshaping our global order and threatening food security. But despite the uncertainty and fragmentation, there are reasons to believe that humanity and that Singapore is capable of overcoming the challenges facing us. As a society, we are more than a sum of our parts and we can work together.

In her speech, President Halimah Yacob highlighted that we will continue to support the society where we care for and help one another, and pitch in to make a difference. I would like to thank her for her voice on issues that matter and for setting the tone. Indeed, it is our collective responsibility to shape our new social compact. Beyond providing support, the Government will also reinforce individual and family efforts and bring forth contributions including through committed businesses and a passionate civic society.

To ensure that Singapore thrives in another 58 years, we must create an environment where complex challenges are collectively owned and solved, and where each part of society is empowered to play to their strengths where we do not take what we have for granted. My speech today will centre around three points.

First is collective action. If there is anything I have absorbed as truth in the past two and a half years or so, is that the person I am, is made possible by the sacrifice and support of my loved ones, and the work that we are able to do on the ground is made possible by a team as well as residents who look out for each other and the many volunteers.

I have witnessed so many everyday miracles that defy the natural divisive forces that threaten to tear social fabric, in particular, during COVID-19 and social distancing. When people on the frontlines went above and beyond their duties; corporates who sent regular food packs to those in need; when a resident receiving welfare put aside some of the money she had received to order confinement food for a new mom, her neighbour, saying that is what she wanted to do with the money; and an uncle who walked to the market despite his weak legs because he wanted to cook a meal for the volunteer befrienders from our amazing Chengsan-Seletar X-teams who came to check on him every week without fail.

Over and above, the Government's implementation of schemes such as the temporary relief fund, COVID-19 support Grant, Job Support Scheme (JSS), and the disbursement of $236 million in financial aid in its financial year ending March 2021 – there was a sense of responsibility of what we owe each other as we operate in a society. Zooming out to a societal and global level collective action is critical in tackling issues like climate change which pose an existential threat to our island state.

In the President's speech, she highlighted Singapore's commitment to decisive action to reduce carbon emissions and take resolute steps towards meeting our net-zero commitments. Individuals play a role in climate action, for example, through personal choices in consumption energy use and advocacy. But personal sacrifices can never be the sole solution. Systemic change requires large amounts of capital and mindset shifts which means states, institutions and companies have a duty to ignite this transformation.

How do we encourage the different sectors with different primary objectives to work together? On this I would like to declare my interests as Legal Council and Senior Project Leader in Tri Sector Associates, a social impact consultancy working on cross-sector social innovation.

In a speech last year at the Transition Finance towards Net Zero Conference, researchers highlighted that we are 55% below the emissions reduction required by 2030 and 35% below the investments required for net zero by 2050. Bridging this gap requires concerted and collective action and effective transition finance needs close partnership among the public, philanthropic, private and people sectors. While governments own the green agenda and can take good outcomes to scale, private and philanthropic investors play a crucial role in providing capacity building and concessional capital to new innovative ideas that may be untested.

At this point in history, in order to meet climate goals, we must nurture a collaborative environment that truly embraces co-creation, cultivate solutions that restores not extracts and tries new ways in order to ensure a habitable planet for generations to come.

Second is caring for our seniors. A whole of nation approach is not just important for climate change but also for issues like mental health. I was heartened to hear the commitment to tackle loneliness and social isolation in Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech. Today, ageing research in Singapore and Japan has shown that lonely older adults not only lived at least three years less than their peers, but also spent less of their remaining life in good health. As of 2020, about 10% of Singapore residents aged 60 years and above lived alone. In their older years women are more likely to live alone than men.

As a Member of Parliament (MP) to a constituency with many older residents, it was sobering when I first came in to see many empty nests or single seniors. Further, in 2020, in the heart of the pandemic, nationally, we saw the most number of elderly suicides since 1991 – among people aged 60 and above, a total of 154 took their own lives.

I felt each elderly suicide that I knew of from the ground keenly. In their golden years, why did things feel hopeless? Is there anything we could have done better to offer a listening ear to have been what they needed at that point in time? At each wake, I unearth that while some had strong support from family members who were devastated and questioning what they had missed, others had invisible health conditions or burdens, which felt too great to bear – especially if they were alone.

Research has also shown that chronic social isolation increases the risk of mental health challenges like depression, anxiety and substance abuse, as well as chronic conditions such as high blood pressure. It also raises the risk of dementia. Other advanced economies are grappling with this issue too. In 2021, Japan appointed a minister for loneliness. The UK has had a ministerial lead on loneliness since 2017, later announcing its inaugural loneliness strategy in 2018 and a loneliness engagement fund, which provided grants between £15,000 and £50,000 to organisations, which could engage at-risk groups.

Here, in Singapore, an Interagency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being was set up in 2021 and it was announced in 2022 that an SG Mental Well-being Network was formed, and that the establishment of a permanent National Well-being Office was being considered.

I am grateful that we are moving the needle and hope that we consider more support along the mental health spectrum, including considering the availability of insurance that does not discriminate against mental health conditions, lessening the load on Institute of Mental Health (IMH) as an acute hospital and offering more varied inclusive options of care for the community as well as for those who care for them. A whole-of-nation approach is needed: peer support by friends, friendly neighbours by our people, responsible businesses to adapt and hire inclusively and targeted direction of resources by the Government. We may not be able to save everyone but we must try.

In Chengsan-Seletar, we are building on our efforts over the past two years to implement strategic plans for our seniors using a three-pronged approach, based on the theory of change, to increase the awareness of available resources and to remind our seniors they are not alone. Early detection and screening, creating social support networks and making our elderly feel valued. We are training eyes and ears on the ground through partnerships among postmen and postwomen with SingPost, hawkers and trained psychological first-aid responders, running our 100x Seniors Club to encourage them to come out of their homes and targeting to launch Calm Corners in each of our residential zones to test out evidence-based programmes by ground-up initiatives. Through all this, I hope to remind our seniors that they are not alone and that they are valued.

Third, our youths would lead us into the future, by population, youths are approximately 25% of the residential population today, but 100% of our future. Youths today are dealing with a more challenging landscape as they come of age, confronted with the climate crisis, fierce competition both in terms of placements for local Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs) and the global talent pool for work. Many also feel sandwiched.

However, despite all these challenges, they are the ones who will lead Singapore into the brighter futures. We must invest enough in our youths to empower them to take us forward or face the consequences of them leaving for other pastures. Our youths are equal parts resourceful, creative and resilient and willing to put their hand up and be counted on. For example, two National University of Singapore (NUS) students, Tim and Jen, who volunteer their time on the ground by joining a National Parks Board's (NParks) working group targeting human wildlife conflict, to interview residents, conduct overnight surveys and actively participated in an Otter Relocation Exercise throughout the night. We are facing new unexpected challenges, and I am grateful to youths such as them, who are willing to take ownership in finding workable solutions.

But youths cannot do it alone, I have called many times for more space towards ensuring meaningful youth participation not just for quotas or at dialogues. If we want youth to show up, we must also trust them and make space at the table for youths to have a say and stake in their futures.

As the co-chair of People's Action Party (PAP)'s MAB Muda, it has been my privilege to meet youths from all walks of life with a variety of interests. For International Women's Day this year, two of our youth activists, Anatasha and Nadia interviewed everyday Malay/Muslim Singaporean women to give their stories, values and thoughts or voice via an interview series called "Dengar Suara Kita". They ran this independently and I am very impressed by their conviction to take quiet action on this matter close to their hearts. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This Ramadan has been a meaningful one for our community. For the first time since COVID-19, we witnessed our community coming together to break their fast and perform their prayers at the mosques with family and friends.

In the earlier part of my speech, I highlighted some of my concerns and suggestions relating to seniors and youths. During a mass iftar recently in Ang Mo Kio, I teared up when a grandmother gently patted my face and told me she will pray for me to continue to have the strength to perform my duties. Many of the elderly attendees like her faced mobility challenges and required assistance from a caregiver and needed to use personal mobility devices, wheelchairs or walking canes.

With the average life expectancy in Singapore being above 80 years, it is important for us to look into the quality of life in our seniors’ golden years. In order to do so, we must encourage more seniors to take care of their health and incorporate healthier nutrition into their lifestyles. We should raise more awareness among them that they should not be afraid to undergo early health screening because they will be able to take steps, if necessary, to take care of themselves and their loved ones.

On youths in our community, I have confidence and faith in their capabilities. It is not only student leaders or scholars who are doing us proud, but everyday youths among us who are taking the time out to be active citizens. For example, during this Ramadan, there were various ground-up efforts by informal volunteer networks of students like the IM Volunteers Network SG, faith groups and motorcycle enthusiasts, for example, Kazoku Riders, who spend time to make volunteering a part of their life. We must continue to find ways to support such groups.

In addition to us moving forward in a post-COVID-19 world, we must ensure that all walks of society are involved in building the future that they want. As the Malay saying goes, "Climb the hill together, descend the valley together" – we must continue embodying this spirit so that each generation can achieve an equitable outcome.

As more people become involved in society, there will definitely be different views among them. The PAP does not shy away from different views and does not say that we have a monopoly on ideas. We hold many dialogues at various levels and welcome constructive discussions. However, good leadership and good politics should involve a willingness to raise difficult issues and explain its merits and disadvantages before making decisions in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans based on the facts available at that time. Sir, that is good politics and good leadership.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.45 pm until 3.15 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.15 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

3.17 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, the last time Parliament opened in 2020, we were in the heat of battle against COVID-19.

I am grateful we have come through the pandemic well. With minimal casualties, livelihoods intact and our people united.

Not many countries can say this. We owe much to our healthcare and frontline workers’ steadfast efforts and sacrifices, and to Singaporeans for your trust and support. I am glad that we have smoothly transitioned to living with the virus.

Last month, this House took stock of what we did right and where we need to do better the next time. Now we must stay firmly focused on the challenges ahead.

As a small country, our external environment has a huge impact on us. Thankfully, relations with our closest neighbours are stable and positive.

With Indonesia, we have made major progress. Last year, President Jokowi and I witnessed the signing of a set of three bilateral agreements under an Expanded Framework, comprising the Flight Information Region (FIR) Agreement, the Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) and the Extradition Treaty (ET).

Airspace, military training, and extradition – these are three long-standing sensitive issues in our bilateral relationship, going back decades. Airspace is vital for Singapore, and politically important to the Indonesians. The FIR agreement provides both sides a workable way forward.

The DCA covers Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) training, including in traditional areas in the South China Sea. It is particularly important for our Air Force and Navy. The ET is something that Indonesia has long pressed for, but it was not straightforward to do because our legal systems are so different.

If we had left these issues unresolved, they would have festered and quite likely one day turned rancorous. This would have soured the entire relationship, which would have benefited neither side. I am very happy to have now settled these issues with President Jokowi. We signed the agreements in Bintan a year ago. Now, both governments have ratified them.

So, we are almost there. Both governments have submitted the new FIR arrangements to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) for approval. Once the ICAO has done so, all three agreements – FIR, DCA and ET – can come into force simultaneously.

By putting these long-standing issues to rest, Indonesia and Singapore can move forward with greater confidence and trust and focus our energies on collaboration. We are working on promising new areas, like the digital economy, sustainability and renewable energy. We are making headway. We signed several memoranda of understanding (MOUs) on them when President Jokowi visited Singapore last month.

With Malaysia, we also have a broad cooperation agenda. It spans many different areas like trade, investments and connectivity. At the same time, we have some significant bilateral issues to tackle, including Singapore’s development works at Pedra Branca, delimitation of maritime boundaries, water issues and airspace issues.

I hope to make progress on them with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim. It is important that both sides manage these issues well and not allow any single issue to dominate and disrupt our overall bilateral relationship.

I am glad that we are maintaining frequent exchanges at all levels with Malaysia. I hosted Prime Minister Anwar in January for his introductory visit, and we met again recently in Boao in Hainan Island and took our discussions further. Also last month, at the invitation of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, President Halimah made a State Visit to Malaysia, where she was very warmly received.

Our two countries have much to gain by working together, both in new areas, like the green and digital economies, also on ongoing projects like the Rapid Transit System (RTS) Link between Singapore and Johor Bahru. We are building the RTS Link marine viaduct across the Straits of Johor, starting from both sides and meeting in the middle. Construction is progressing steadily. The next big milestone is when we complete the drop-in span to join up both sides of the marine viaduct. And I look forward to witnessing this with Prime Minister Anwar before too long.

So, with our immediate neighbours – Indonesia and Malaysia – relations are stable and encouraging. But further afield, the situation has turned much more troubling, even dangerous. Singaporeans need to realise the gravity of the external situation. We are facing not just one storm, but several. And let me highlight three big ones.

First is the war in Ukraine. After more than a year, the war is deadlocked, with no good outcome in sight. Neither side can win, nor can either afford to lose. In fact, things have been at a stalemate since last November. The Ukrainians are understandably reluctant to stop fighting before they reclaim all of their territory, but this will be very difficult. The Russians are most unlikely to be defeated entirely despite heavy losses. They have a large population and can still conscript more troops and mobilise more resources.

There is always a danger of the conflict escalating. The US and NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with more and more sophisticated military equipment – like longer-range artillery, the Patriot air defence system and main battle tanks. If the Ukrainians, using these Western-supplied weapons, make a breakthrough on the battlefield, we cannot predict how Russia may react.

What does this mean for the rest of the world? Even short of worst-case scenarios, the impact is bad. The war continues to disrupt global energy, food and fertiliser supplies. We are all feeling it in higher prices. There are also significant implications on international relations. Relations between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, the US and Europe, have completely broken down and will not return to normal anytime soon. Two months ago, Russia suspended its participation in the New Start Treaty, its only remaining nuclear arms control treaty with the US.

For China, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has presented a difficult problem. The US and Europeans want China to use its influence to get Russia to stop the invasion. China would prefer not to aggravate Europe and the US, by providing military support for Russia’s war in Ukraine. But China is hard-pressed to condemn Russia’s invasion, or pressure Russia to stop fighting. It shares a very long land border with Russia, and it has to consider its own substantial relations with Russia. So, the war has made it difficult for China to improve relations with Europe, even though I think both sides would like to do so. It has also complicated China’s already very troubled ties with the US.

Which brings me to the second big issue – which is US-China relations. When I visited China last month, this was on everyone’s minds. Likewise, in all my recent meetings with US visitors. Between the US and China, there is deep mutual suspicion and fundamental mistrust.

In America, the Democrats and Republicans disagree with each other on almost everything. But they are united on one issue – China.

The prevailing view in America is that their efforts to work out a cooperative relationship with China have failed, and China’s growing strength and assertiveness is becoming a grave threat to US interests and values. And therefore, the US must go for “extreme competition” and maintain “as large a lead as possible”, in their words, over China, in foundational technologies such as semiconductor chips, quantum technology, artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology and green technologies – all the things that count.

And it is not just the US government. Negative perceptions are prevalent among the population too. The latest Pew survey found that over 80% of adults in the US have an unfavourable view on China, and nearly 40% – four in 10 – would describe China as an enemy of the US rather than as a competitor or partner.

Surveys in China similarly show that Chinese public perception of the US has deteriorated. More consequentially, China’s leaders have become convinced that the US is seeking to “contain, encircle and suppress” China, in the words of President Xi Jinping.

They believe that Washington wants to hold back China’s growth and weaken the Communist Party of China’s hold on power. They say the East is rising and the West is declining, and they think the time has come for China to take its rightful place in the world. They consider issues like Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet to be China’s domestic matters, vitally affecting its security and integrity, on which they see no room for discussion or compromise.

But the most dangerous flashpoint of all is Taiwan.

Singapore is good friends with China, and we are also old friends of Taiwan. Singapore rigorously upholds our “One China” policy and continues to support the peaceful development of cross-strait relations. China considers Taiwan as the most important issue and the “One China” principle to be the reddest of its red lines.

But in the West, an alternative narrative is gaining currency – that the problem in cross-strait relations is a broader ideological issue of democracy versus autocracy. This is even though most countries, including most Western countries, have officially adopted “One China” policies.

This difference of views is very worrying. Right now, tensions over Taiwan are high. All sides continue to make moves, responding to one another.

After Dr Tsai Ing-Wen met US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy during her recent stopover in the US, China launched three days of extensive military exercises all around Taiwan. A CCTV report described them as "comprehensive and precise simulated attacks on the key targets in the island and surrounding waters". The risks of a miscalculation or mishap are growing.

US-China relations will not improve anytime soon. Even if the two powers avoid a direct conflict, which thankfully, I believe neither side wishes to see, enduring enmity and bad relations between them will be very costly for both and will mean big trouble for the rest of the world.

It is a very worrying outlook, but we still hope that relations between the US and China do not get worse, and that both sides can keep lines of communications open and with time, gradually repair their relationship on the basis of mutual trust and respect.

The third big issue is that the global multilateral trading system is under siege. This has very serious implications, especially for small, open economies. For Singapore, a stable, well-functioning international trading system is vitally important. We cannot survive other than as an open economy. We rely on the free flow of trade and investments across the world and a common set of rules that applies to all countries, no matter their size. This has helped us greatly to compete against bigger countries, attract investments from around the world and to grow.

For the last few decades, there was a broad international consensus supporting globalisation. Countries were lowering tariff and non-tariff barriers, harmonising rules, seeking win-win economic cooperation. The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) economies talked about their vision of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP). Even when countries clashed on political or security issues, they still continued to do business with each other. And, from time to time, countries might violate the rules set by the World Trade Organization (WTO), but even then, the exceptions had to be justified and defended.

Now, things have changed. All over the world, countries are prioritising domestic and national security considerations. Countries no longer talk about trade being win-win. Too often, when countries quarrel, their bilateral trade becomes embroiled in these disputes. They impose restrictions on imports or exports. It depends – if you need my imports more than me, I restrict my exports. If it is the opposite, you will restrict your imports. So, sometimes it is high-tech items like semiconductor chips and sophisticated machinery. Sometimes it is agricultural products like bananas, barley or wine. They seek to inflict maximum political pain while blandly denying any hostile intent.

It is a vicious cycle. Countries trust others less and less to play by the rules. Therefore, they are increasingly going their own way, and "on-shoring" or "friend-shoring" supply chains. This then triggers a tit-for-tat response from the other side.

We are once again heading towards a world where protectionism is a default and trade rules are secondary, like what happened in the period between the First and Second World Wars. The economic cost to the world will be very high. The The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently estimated that fragmentation of the global economy could, in the long run, reduce global gross domestic product (GDP) by 7% cumulatively. Seven percent is a very high figure – but I think it is a conservative estimate because the reality is probably worse. Seven percent is the effect on goods and services not traded, but deglobalisation will also impact on the exchange of ideas and innovation, technology development and diffusion, as well as capital flows and cross-border financing – all of which to growth prosperity and human well-being. These are all vital for economic growth, especially for an open economy like ours.

A deep decoupling of the world economy would undo what has taken countries decades to collectively achieve.

What can we do? The current global situation, both strategic and economic, is graver than we have experienced for a very long time. Singapore has survived difficult periods before – the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, and closer to home, the proxy fights in Vietnam and Cambodia; the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Crisis; public health crises like SARS and most recently, COVID-19.

But what we have now is unprecedented. A hot war in Europe, deepening hostility between two superpowers, which are closely interlinked with each other, and protectionism undermining the foundations of the multilateral trading system. These three simultaneous crises will set in train a whole series of changes and shocks that will severely disrupt the world, our region and surely, Singapore. In such a troubled environment, what can we do?

First and foremost, we must remain one united people. We have come through repeated challenges over the last six decades, because we worked together, took adversity in our stride and kept faith with one another. We painstakingly created the harmonious multiracial and multi-religious society. We avoided the schisms and factions that have troubled other societies. In recent years, we have tackled sensitive issues that could easily have caused deep rifts among our people.

Two years ago, we allowed Muslim nurses to wear the tudung with their uniforms. Last year, we repealed section 377A of the Penal Code while safeguarding the institution of marriage. We handled these issues firmly and fairly, in a way that maintained mutual trust and understanding between different communities and kept ourselves together.

You may think, "Nothing happened, so what was the fuss about? We should just have done it – and a long time ago". But look what has happened elsewhere – opposing groups getting worked up, mobilising their followers, pitting citizens against each other and dividing society. This could easily have happened here too and it can still happen to us.

Many foreigners, especially our critics in the West, do not understand this about us. In Singapore, when faced with a divisive issue, our approach has always been to find a middle way, bridge the differences, strike compromises and heal divisions. Not grand posturing, not playing cultural or identity politics, not dividing and polarising people. Our instinct always is to keep Singaporeans together.

We have to keep thinking and acting like this. Please do not take our harmony for granted. It is a very precious thing, very fragile. We must continuously work on it and build up our social cohesion and national strength.

The troubled external environment will create new stresses and strains in our society. High inflation because of the Ukraine war will cause difficulties for many households, especially lower- and middle-income families. Tensions between China and the US will expose our population to emotional pulls, commercial pressures and influence campaigns, from one side or the other, to take their point of view and support their cause. The fracturing of the global trading system will mean slower, more uncertain growth and greater disruption to industries and jobs, businesses and workers.

We must not allow these pressures to divide Singaporeans along fault lines in our society, whether old or new, like the "haves" versus "have nots", the "liberals" versus "conservatives", the "locals" versus "foreigners", "new" versus "old" citizens and above all, differences between races and religions.

In this new troubled world, it is all the more important for us to close ranks. Divided, we stand no chance. We must do our best to see eye-to-eye on the fundamentals and try to appreciate each other's perspectives, even if we cannot always agree. We must not shy away from hard choices, but deal squarely with difficult issues based on facts and sound analysis. We must nurture the deep and precious trust that we have – between the Government and people, and also among Singaporeans – and work hand-in-hand towards a shared vision of our future.

This is what Forward Singapore is about – bringing Singaporeans together to refresh our social compact and come up with a collective roadmap for our way forward. Members have heard Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and other 4G Ministers outline the Forward Singapore agenda earlier. We will make sure meritocracy works for all. We will leave no one behind, as Singapore progresses. We will enhance safety nets against the uncertainties of life. We will fashion a common understanding and purpose that binds us together.

All this is absolutely essential and the Government will fully back this agenda with policies, programmes and resources.

It is an ambitious agenda that will not be easy to realise even in good times. In these turbulent times, it is all the more important that we get it done and get it right, so that we can stay united as one people, one Singapore.

But just being united will not be enough. It is equally important that we have the go-getter spirit of self-reliance and enterprise, to create prosperity for our nation and achieve the best we can in a very troubled world. This has always been our attitude.

Long ago, in 1968, Singapore was heading into a major storm. The British forces were here, they contributed about one-fifth of the economy and they were soon to withdraw from Singapore. Our unemployment was already 10%, dangerously high. We faced the prospect of mass unemployment and economic collapse.

Mr S Rajaratnam had just become Minister of Labour and was girding Singaporeans for tough measures and hard times ahead.

Speaking in Parliament at the end of the debate on the President's Address – not this debate but that debate in 1968 – he said, and I quote: "Industrial development requires at all times a sustained effort, a willingness to mobilise savings, a readiness to take risks, a propensity for innovation, a passionate vision of the future, a willingness to make the painful adjustments required by modernisation and, most important of all, a readiness on the part of the people as a whole to postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future...If we are not prepared to pay this price", he said, then, there "will be little or no economic development".

Mr Rajaratnam went on to say: "We in Parliament can, if we like, fool the people into believing that we can bring them prosperity without the tears and effort". But he warned that if we did that, then "we would go the way of many independent countries – into bankruptcy and despair". Only in Singapore, we do not have an "escape hatch", the hinterland, that many other countries have.

This mindset of grit and self-reliance was crucial. Because Singaporeans heeded Mr Rajaratnam's words and set our hearts and souls to nation-building, we survived the withdrawal of the British forces, we overcame many more subsequent crises and created today's Singapore.

Now, once again, we are headed into difficult times. Mr Rajaratnam’s rallying call more than 50 years ago remains just as valid and critical for us today.

I can hardly improve on the words that the drafter of our National Pledge used. Again, we need “a sustained effort, a willingness to mobilise savings, a readiness to take risks, a propensity for innovation, a passionate vision of the future, a willingness to make the painful adjustments required by modernisation and, most important of all, a readiness on the part of the people as a whole to postpone immediate rewards for greater gains in the future”.

This formula has long worked for us and it will continue to do so. There is good reason to be confident that Singaporeans have not gone soft and forgotten these fundamentals.

Last June, I visited Rwanda for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Africa is not the first place that comes to mind when Singaporeans think about venturing overseas. But there, I met several young Singaporeans living and working in Rwanda. One was running a poultry farm supplying chickens to restaurants in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital. Another was working with startups to raise financing. A third had started a distillery, brewing premium spirits; not just any hooch, but premium spirits. I asked him what it was, he said it is special rum. And he is hoping to make his rum brands as famous as single malt Scottish whiskeys. And there were a few more, too, including some women, who dared to take the path less travelled, and struck out on their own in these less familiar lands.

Last week, at the reception after the Opening of Parliament, I met a student from National University of Singapore (NUS). He had spent a year in Silicon Valley on the NUS Overseas Colleges (NOC) programme and he found it exhilarating. He picked up new skills, was inspired by the culture of innovation and the entrepreneurial spirit of the people he met. I asked about his plans after graduation. He told me he intends to start his own business, together with a few of his NOC Silicon Valley classmates. He does not know if his business will succeed, but he is prepared to take that leap of faith to start a business of his own.

And in my daily work, interacting with Ministers and their staff, I come across young officers who are passionate about their work, feel a sense of mission serving the nation and are keen to improve the lives of Singaporeans through their ideas and efforts.

Many young Singaporeans think and act the same way. Growing up in Singapore, they have benefited from a good education system, opportunities, exposure, and stimulation. They have made the most of all this. They know that nobody owes them a living. They will work hard and blaze their own path forward. Mr Rajaratnam would have been proud and delighted.

But we are not just asking Singaporeans to work harder as individuals. We have a strategy to make a living for our nation as a global city and an international hub. It will be tough because globalisation is going the wrong way. Countries with larger populations and bigger domestic markets are turning inwards. It will cost them. But maybe, they can afford to do so.

But Singapore cannot turn inwards. We are a small island state. A little red dot. That is our reality.

Our survival depends on our being able to do business with the world, to deliver value to others. So, our strategy must be to double down on staying open and connected to the world and continue making ourselves useful as a global city and an international hub. We must work hard to form good relations with other countries, big and small, and find ways to work with them. Even with wars, tensions, and protectionism in the world, countries still need to trade, there will still be opportunities and, therefore, we can still make a living.

Hence, Changi can still be one of the busiest and best airports in the world. Our Singapore port can still be a highly efficient and reliable transshipment hub, connected to other ports all over the world. We can still be a financial centre, financing trade flows and infrastructure investments in the region and beyond. Our city can still be a magnet for talent and enterprise, a centre for technology and innovation, and a base for trusted services and advanced manufacturing.

All these, we can still be. We just have to work harder and smarter than before. In a world of troubles, not every country will prosper, but Singapore will not perish. Of course, we must make the right moves to continue thriving.

Staying open and connected means exposing ourselves to competition from the world. We must be able to do things more competently and efficiently than our competitors to maintain our edge. This means continually upgrading existing capabilities and building new ones, transforming and restructuring our economy to stay abreast of technologies and industries.

Take, for example, AI, a rapidly developing field. You have all heard of ChatGPT and maybe even have tried it out. It did not write this speech for me yet, though it probably can already summarise it quite well.

But ChatGPT is just one AI application out of many. AI will affect jobs across all sectors, including white-collar jobs. Some will be enhanced, others will be eliminated.

At the same time, AI technology will create immense opportunities to improve productivity across the board. To respond to AI and many more technologies to come, our businesses will need to adapt and transform, to develop new ways of operating and explore new markets. Our workers need to upskill and reskill to do the new jobs which will replace the old ones. We need to complement our own talent with skilled professionals from all over the world who have the expertise and experience to help us make this transformation. And we have to integrate these foreigners into our workplaces and communities so that they fit well into our society.

It will be challenging. We will feel tensions; we will experience disruptions. We will have to manage the problems and deal with the trade-offs thoughtfully and sensibly. But we have some things going for us.

Most importantly, we stand out, compared to competitors. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) recently ranked the business environment of countries for the next five years. Singapore came in top among 82 countries that the EIU looked at from across the world. Singapore has ranked top now for 15 years in a row. Businesses, investors and talented individuals in the region and beyond show great interest in Singapore. They want to come here, to bring in their talent, capital and investments. We welcome them. We must welcome them. How can there be any doubt?

Take pharmaceuticals, for example. After COVID-19, every country wants to be able to make its own vaccines. But not every country can. We have a strong base of biomedical activities, from R&D to manufacturing, and the prerequisites for building vaccine plants.

The Economic Development Board (EDB) has secured several vaccine projects. Everyone has heard of Pfizer-BioNTech. Many of us have taken their COVID-19 vaccine. But you may not know that Pfizer and BioNTech are two companies and that both, separately, are making major investments in Singapore to produce drugs and vaccines for the global market.

Other pharmas and other industries are keen on Singapore, too. They value the Singapore brand, they have a good view of Singapore, and that is how we can continue to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

Which brings me to my next point – we must uphold Singapore’s good reputation and standing in the world.

When I meet foreign leaders and businesspeople, whether here or on my trips abroad, many express their admiration for Singapore. They are not just being polite. They are effusive. They talk about having read Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s books; they tell me how they wish their countries could become like Singapore.

Many Singaporeans take this good reputation for granted. They are glad to carry our red passport. Overseas, they are proud to identify themselves as Singaporeans and not be mistaken as someone else. But they do not realise how important this high standing we enjoy is to us, nor how astonishing it is for a small island state with no natural resources to enjoy this standing.

What do I mean? Based on our land size, Singapore is barely visible on the world map. By country population, we are hardly worth mentioning. China and India are each 250 times our population. The US and Indonesia, more than 40 times. Malaysia is five times bigger than us. Even compared with other major cities, by population size, we are not in the top 50 in the world.

If we did not stand out from the rest, there would be no particular reason why other countries and investors should pay much attention to this little island and no particular reason why Singaporeans should enjoy a quality of life and a standard of living that we can be proud of and is among the highest in the world. Yet they do, and we do. Why?

It is because of the strong international reputation that Singapore has built up over the years. People know that the Singapore system works and COVID-19 has made our track record stand out even more. People know our people are of high quality, our workers are hardworking, skilled and reliable, our professionals are competent, honest and trustworthy. People know that we honour our commitments. We act based on principles, which we uphold consistently. Our leaders speak with the mandate and authority to deliver on what they say because they enjoy the support and confidence of the people. Our policies do not chop and change or get reversed from one election to another.

Thus, when Russia invaded Ukraine, we took a clear principled stand to oppose this flagrant violation of the UN Charter. We did the same decades ago when the US invaded Grenada, and Vietnam invaded Cambodia. Any part of the world, any power, any decade, same answer from Singapore, because that is where our enduring interests lie. And people can depend on that.

People know that we make useful contributions on global issues. For example, the Director General now of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – a UN outfit – is a Singaporean, Mr Daren Tang. Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is co-chairing the Global Commission on Water Governance, whose first report was discussed at the United Nations Water Conference held in New York last month.

Our Ambassador for Oceans and Law of the Sea Issues, Ms Rena Lee, presided over negotiations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) – that means, on the high seas, belonging to nobody – and the negotiations had been going on for many years. Rena was President of the negotiations for the last five years and, last month, she successfully brought all the parties together to conclude a new international agreement – the BBNJ Agreement or High Seas Treaty – which is expected to be adopted later this year.

There are many other Singaporeans working in different fields all over the world also distinguishing themselves and enhancing our international reputation.

Because of all these and more, confidence and trust in the Singapore brand has grown. This is a precious asset in an uncertain world. So, I ask all Singaporeans, through you, Mr Speaker, to uphold our country’s reputation, especially when you are overseas. Make full use of the Singapore brand, but remember, never sully it. Build on it, enhance it for future generations. A high international reputation makes all the difference to Singapore.

I have spoken about the importance of unity, a go-getting mindset and a good reputation. But the quality of a country's government and leaders matters too.

Last week, I met the CEO of a major pharma company. We talked about his projects in Singapore. He listed the reasons why they had decided to invest here big time – high quality people, predictable policies and a government that is doing the right thing.

He said that ultimately, companies value good government, stable politics and a system that works. He said, "What I want is a place that I can trust. This" – meaning Singapore – "is a country you can trust and which the world can trust."

But there is no formula that can guarantee that our system will continue to work well for the long term.

Last year, when the Parliament debated the importance of honesty and integrity in public life, I spoke about the importance and the difficulty of maintaining the ideals and values of a country beyond its founding generations.

Honesty and integrity are a crucial part of our success formula, but it goes beyond that. It is equally essential and hard to keep the whole system working through the decades. Attitudes and mindsets change. New stresses and strains will appear. People forget the values and experience of the founding generation. Slowly, things can go awry and start to fall apart. Nothing can magically prevent Singapore from going down this road.

What we can do to give ourselves the best chance of staying on the right track is to make sure that our economy is sound, and our institutions are in place and strong. Our people have the skills and instincts to work hard, work together and earn a living for ourselves. Our accumulated Reserves are well managed, well protected, earn credible returns and give us a critical advantage in major crises. Our leaders are capable, dedicated and trustworthy stewards worthy of their responsibility to Singapore, to this and future generations.

To ensure good leadership for the long term is an unending and demanding challenge for successive generations, but what I and my older colleagues can do and will make sure of, is to prepare a strong and capable next team to take over from us. Then, the new leaders can take Singapore further forward and the country has the chance to produce and support new generations of leaders to come after them, who will be up to the job.

This, we have done.

The 4G team is in place. During the pandemic, Singaporeans experienced firsthand the importance of strong political leadership. Our population rose to the occasion. The public service performed magnificently. But our response and the results would have been very different without political leaders who could set the direction, make the tough calls and rally the people together.

The Multi-Ministry Task Force (MTF) Ministers were in the hot seat, but the whole 4G team played a key role. It was a formative experience for the 4G ministers. Handling the crisis, they got the measure of each other and gained confidence in each other's judgement and abilities.

The 4G Ministers are increasingly responsible for the safety and well-being of the country. They have a strong agenda to fulfil, domestically and internationally. But they cannot do it on their own. They need the support of every Singaporean, including Members of this House, to see it through.

Last year, the 4G Ministers chose Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong to be their leader. I ask you to give Lawrence and the 4G Ministers your fullest support. [Applause]

I ask you to give them your fullest support for now, as members of my team, but in due course when they take over the reins as the next leadership for Singapore.

Help me make this leadership renewal a success for Singapore and for you. Show your support for a Government that works hard and works well for you. Elect leaders whom you can trust to take us forward. Give yourselves the best chance to keep our system working well for Singaporeans for many years to come.

We are heading into a troubled world. This is probably the tenth time I have told you this – if there is no other message you are taking away from this speech.

There is much work to be done and to be done quickly.

Our forefathers worked hard to build up the Singapore that we have today. They did not let themselves to be constrained by our small size or limited resources. They were not powerful, but they fought hard to make our voice heard on the international stage. They were not well off, but they tightened their belts to create a better future for us – their descendants.

Against long odds, they determined to forge a prosperous nation and a united people, and they succeeded.

We, too, must embrace their can-do spirit and outsized ambition to be an extraordinary country – an exceptional place in the world, maintain our international reputation and build on our trusted Singapore brand of quality, reliability and efficiency, make full use of our strengths and turn opportunities into successes, stand up for what we believe in and uphold consistent principles to advance Singapore's long-term interests.

This is the way for Singapore to be taken seriously and to count for more than our size.

We may be a small island state, but we are not a small people and neither are our hearts nor our aspirations. Let us think boldly, aim high and seek far. Let us work together, Government and people, to build a Singapore that we and our children will all be proud of. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

4.07 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the President for her Address and I express my support for the Motion.

Mdm President had shared that even as we leave the crisis of our generation behind us, we are entering into a different, dangerous and troubled world, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly mentioned earlier.

Indeed, Singapore is at a new crossroad – an ageing population, rising costs and interest rates as well as greater global competition for business and talent force us to think about our future and our survival.

It is imperative that Singaporeans trust and partner our 4G Government to combat these challenges, just like how we fought and overcame COVID-19 together.

But as Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned a few days ago, beyond building infrastructure and hardware to future-proof Singapore, the future and welfare of Singapore is at the crux of it, the collective responsibility of all of us and not just the Government alone.

Today, I intend to share three things that resonated most with me from Mdm President's Address.

First, our ageing population is now a reality. I think Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and many others have highlighted this.

As at June 2022, 18.4% of the citizen population are aged 65 and above. This number will grow to 25% by 2030. More and more Singaporeans aspire to live independently, which leaves more elderly couples living on their own.

I am glad that Mdm President particularly highlighted enhancing retirement adequacy for Singaporeans. This is something I am very concerned about, having previously been involved in the last round of Central Provident Fund (CPF) changes as a member of the CPF advisory panel and have advocated extensively during my Budget debate and Committee of Supply (COS) speeches on this issue this year.

I am heartened to hear that almost 70% of active CPF members are able to attain their cohort Basic Retirement Sum (BRS) at age 55 today.

But our concerns must be over the remaining 30% and how far they are from reaching their BRS. Further, this does not even include inactive CPF members or Singaporeans who sit outside the CPF system like non-working homemakers or self-employed persons (SEPs).

When I raised the issue of non-working homemakers at the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) COS last month, Minister of State Gan mentioned the Matched Retirement Savings Scheme (MRSS) introduced in 2021 to match top-ups of up to $600 annually to eligible seniors' CPF accounts.

It may be useful to find out what is the MRSS' utilisation rate and most importantly, whether we need to do more to educate and encourage families to take advantage of such Government support.

On SEPs, Senior Minister of State Koh said that MOM will continue to review if we need to go beyond encouraging SEPs to make voluntary contributions to their CPF accounts. Perhaps that exercise can include a study on the proportion of SEPs who can attain their respective BRS through their own voluntary CPF savings or private savings over the next few years.

I also note that a fundamental review of our retirement adequacy policies is now underway under the Forward Singapore exercise. I am looking forward to eventual definite timelines for that review as the changes to our demographics would entail rapid changes needed to our retirement adequacy policies at an early stage.

One area that continues to be important for Singaporeans is enhancing the flexibility of how and when CPF retirement monies can be paid out. New stresses are emerging and challenging the adequacy of the existing payout mechanisms. For example, I have mentioned this before, the 2% per annum increase of payouts under the escalating CPF LIFE plan may no longer gel with Singapore's long-term inflation projections, given the shifts in the global macroeconomy, supply chain and other factors.

Other areas I hope we can make changes will be on how we can more regularly and dynamically revise the methodology for applicable interest rates on the Ordinary, Special and MediSave Accounts in the upcoming quarterly reviews and adjusting the allocation ratios such that a greater percentage is allocated into the Special Account instead of the Ordinary and MediSave Accounts, to avoid increasing the financial burden on both employers and employees – the former of which I had raised in my Adjournment Motion on "Helping Singaporeans Navigate a High-interest Rate Environment" last year. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The latest changes in cancer coverage under the Integrated Shield Plan will also change the way Singaporeans plan for their healthcare and insurance needs at old age. An elderly resident, who used to work as a horticulturalist and recently found out he had Stage 4 cancer, contacted me for help just a few days ago. He is unable to work now, but fortunately he has received assistance through MediFund – which I think is an important source of help – but needs additional help to support his family and spouse. He has no insurance coverage, and I can imagine that, with recent cancer coverage changes, more of such cases will face financial challenges. This is an important issue that I hope we can analyse and find comprehensive solutions in future.

Besides sufficient funds, we must also ensure that our seniors enjoy a good quality of life and dignity during their retirement. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's call on the importance of “collective responsibility” is appropriate and timely.

To me, it is heartbreaking to read news about senior citizens who die alone at home without being noticed by anyone for weeks, months and even years. Therefore, although we build a more elderly-friendly building environment complete with special housing options and common space, we must supplement this hardware with people-centric policies.

The return of large-scale activities organised by community centres and organisations is very helpful. But we also cannot ignore the less active senior citizens and those who are not physically active enough to go out and enjoy recreation. Therefore, I was heartened to hear Minister Desmond Lee and other Members of Parliament (MPs) mention the importance of cross-generation living. But not all estates will have this opportunity because we are ageing quickly. Perhaps, it is time for us to enhance or embark on a National Befriender Service for Seniors Living Alone programme and maybe consider some form of voluntary registration system, perhaps using technology, for seniors living alone, so that we can check on them periodically and engage them regularly at their convenience.

I also welcome the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) announcement that it will expand the capacity of our nursing homes from 16,000 beds in 2020 to more than 31,000 beds in 2030, increase the nursing workforce and caregiver support from 49,000 now to 69,000 by 2030 and increase the nursing and caregiving support workforce. This has always been a sensitive topic because, as an Asian community, it is considered “unfilial” to “leave” one’s parents in nursing homes or old folks homes. However, as much as we want to ensure that we collectively support our seniors, there are still people who will need a place in nursing homes for the elderly. It is useful to find out the subscription levels for existing nursing homes and how MOH projects the demand until 2030 and beyond as well as plan ahead for possible increased demand.

(In English): Turning to my second topic, Mr Speaker, I share Mdm President’s view that the global competition for business will intensify. The competition will not only be over business, but also over talent. Singaporean talent is sought after in many places in the world. Recently, Mr Chew Shou Zi dominated the headlines as he testified before the US Congress as the CEO of TikTok. I have also heard that junior Singapore lawyers are today being drawn to relocate to work in London, New York and Hong Kong.

Our efforts to attract and retain talent will have to be multi-pronged. I was glad to hear when Prime Minister Lee announced in the National Day Rally 2021 that the Government will be enshrining the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines into law which is a major move to ensure fair treatment at the workplace, including tackling unfair hiring practices against Singaporeans. Such a legislation is pertinent in my view for a mature economy as middle-income Singaporeans are concerned over competition for jobs and opportunities at work in a future labour market that will be more contested.

I had, since my maiden speech in 2015 and several Adjournment Motions, pushed for anti-discrimination laws that carry penalties, given my concerns about a more complex labour market going forward, so I really, really look forward to the final report on the tripartite committee on workplace fairness and the eventual legislation that will ensue.

But one other key thrust to help us compete and retain talent will be building a more people-friendly and connected city.

As Mdm President highlighted in her address, we must ensure our transport infrastructure and policies are refreshed from time to time. We are adapting to new commuting patterns after entering and emerging from three pandemic years. Our land constraints will become more acute as we add another 100 kilometres to our rail network which already has more than 140 stations across six MRT lines. Our green ambitions will force us to pivot away from decades-old solutions towards new innovations.

Even more can be done, for example, in the addendum by the Ministry of Transport (MOT), cycling was stated to “aid first and last mile connectivity to the major public transport nodes and key amenities”. If this is the aim, we may need to complement our expansion of cycling paths with bike-sharing initiatives and with other enhancements. Those who own their own bicycles are unlikely to use their bicycle just to park it at the MRT station or bus interchanges near their house.

I am conscious that private bike-sharing models have failed before and we may need Government involvement or intervention for bike-sharing to work. Possibly, has any study been done on why operators like oBike, Ofo and Mobike ultimately called it quits?

Mr Speaker, and finally, I would like to talk about my third point on cost of living, rising costs and interest rates. Amid rising costs and interest rates in the past year, we are seeing more news that give us cause for concern over economic growth. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in the US and Credit Suisse in Switzerland have sparked fears of a banking meltdown.

Amid the uncertain outlook, I am particularly heartened by Mdm President’s call to deepen Singaporeans’ sense of shared identity and responsibility towards each other – the collective responsibility that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned on Monday too. We must remember to support one another and leave no one behind, especially as we are likely to face greater constraints in the future.

Costs and prices may go up a little further in light of growing constraints. While we continue to explore innovative and creative approaches to manage our land, the fact is that land is scarce in Singapore and comes at a premium. The revisions to our foreign worker frameworks will not eliminate labour constraints, given the need to strike a fine balance between keeping our local labour force gainfully employed and attracting the necessary foreign labour to supplement the local workforce.

Finally, carbon constraints are starting to bite as we make more commitments to save our planet and our carbon tax increase kicks in.

Being small and import-dependent, we are a price-taker, including when it comes to interest rates. It is apt that Mdm President has called for us to better manage these growing constraints by being more adaptable and resourceful and, in so doing, compete stronger as a business and connectivity hub. This must be our longer-term strategy, so that Singaporean workers get good jobs, become more productive and get rewarded for the higher value they bring.

In the short term, we need to help Singaporeans navigate this new environment of rising costs and higher interest rates. I will not repeat what I said during my Adjournment Motion in October last year, but I have some new observations to add.

I read in the news last week that credit cards have become the most popular payment method in Singapore by transaction value. This is worrying especially given the 3% to 4% increase in interest rates just between April 2022 and April 2023.

Going forward, I hope the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the relevant Ministries – and the Chamber, possibly – will discuss this, and we will have studied credit card default trends or data by age group and beyond the Total Debt Servicing Ratio (TDSR) limits, whether we need to additionally regulate such leverage assumed by Singaporeans. If not, then whether more upstream work can be done with our youths and our younger population.

Also, more couples will need to be dual income in order to meet their increasing liabilities. A key policy impetus will be ensuring that there are sufficient and affordable care options for young children. I note the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)’s addendum which states that by 2025, 80% of preschoolers can have a place in a Government-supported preschool with affordable fees. What metrics will the Government use to price preschool fees and keep it “affordable”? Besides infantcare facilities, it is important to ensure that there are other new care options that MSF is studying to meet different preferences and needs.

The final point, Mr Speaker, I would like to touch on is housing affordability. In this segment, I am talking about cost of living and rising cost, so I had to look at various reports and pieces. In particular, I came across a report that was co-authored by hon Member Louis Chua and his team on that issue. I was trying to weigh in some of the points that were found in that report. As an economist, I am actually more attuned towards more statistical and economic reports that bear strong statistical and data support.

I tried to balance it with what many WP MPs have suggested – that housing is unaffordable for Singaporeans. The Leader of the Opposition too, had echoed sentiments, calling for the Government to intensify efforts in making public housing more affordable and accessible. So, I was surprised when I came across this report as I was trying to prepare this speech on the issue about housing affordability and cost of living.

More recently, I was looking at the issue and found that this report in January, where WP MP, Mr Louis Chua, put up a considered, professional view in a report which was carried in the media, saying that housing in Singapore is affordable. In fact, if I may quote him, in his report, what was interesting, Mr Louis Chua and his co-authors reported and said that "despite cooling measures, a $1 million home in Singapore is estimated to be affordable for households on an overall average household income in Singapore".

This is what he and his team of property analysts said. Also, he anticipated that, I quote: "the global housing slump will deepen in 2023"; yet he expects the converse in Singapore, with a modest price growth of 3% to 5%. Despite broadly higher rates, his scenario analysis suggests affordability continues to be healthy for the average household, given wage growth momentum amid a tight labour market.

And then, on page 13 of his report, he and his co-authors went on to say this: contrary to the private property market, he finds a "more favourable and resilient situation in the public housing market, i.e., HDB". This is largely attributed to the rise in average income in relation to the price of a flat.

He consistently estimated a mortgage servicing ratio (MSR) that stayed comfortably below 30% bestowing upon households the freedom to still take up other loans. Therefore, he is inclined to believe that HDB markets should continue to remain resilient, supported by healthy household balance sheets.

And on the regional front, on page 26 of his report, he then assessed Singapore and our ASEAN region, and said this, I quote: "From a regional perspective", he notes that "affordability continues to be healthy in Singapore where residential price increases have lagged behind that of our household income growth over the last decade. Whereas the converse is true for neighbouring ASEAN countries. Higher relative affordability for the general population of Singapore adds to relative stability and resilience, amid a rising environment globally."

So, as a trained central bank economist before, I was somewhat attuned to the property report that Mr Louis Chua and his co-authors highlighted, which is somewhat in line and supported by data as well. I was wondering if that is actually indeed Mr Louis Chua's professional opinion in January 2023. Then, it seems odd. As I try to reconcile, as I tried to prepare my speech, it seems odd that he and the WP said something else in Parliament in the February housing Motion.

So, I just wanted to highlight that story, as the story goes as I prepare my speech. So, that is my third point, Mr Speaker.

Before I end, Mr Speaker, our ageing population, spiralling costs and interest rates, and intensifying global competition for business and talent are just three of the major challenges we will need to target, adapt to and conquer as we stand on the cusp of a new world.

I have shared, I have tried to look into cost of living, housing affordability and, indeed, as Mr Desmond Lee has shared during the housing debate, we have tried to ramp up supply, we have tried to make sure we can stabilise growth in the housing sector. I have shared some of my points earlier on. I think what is key is that if we can maintain the same people-government trust and partnership that saw us emerge from COVID-19 much better than other countries, I am optimistic about our future. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann.

4.27 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and National Development (Ms Sim Ann): Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate.

The first issue raised by President Halimah Yaacob in her Address was that of the global situation. How Singapore can stand firm in a turbulent world is a major challenge that the Government and Singaporeans must jointly face.

It is commonly said in diplomatic circles that “foreign policy begins at home”. In other words, it is much easier to conduct foreign policy successfully when a country’s citizens share a common understanding of national interests.

This is why it is also part of the Ministry of Foreign Affair's (MFA) role to attend community or school campus dialogues. The most commonly asked questions in recent years are: how does Singapore maintain good bilateral relations with the US and China at the same time? How should we continue to maintain this balance?

Observers and analysts of global developments, media commentators, and Singaporeans who care about current affairs are all likely to have views on this topic. Take Prime Minister Lee’s recent Official Visit to China for instance. A friend remarked happily to me that the visit was excellent, because he felt that Singapore has been looking rather pro-US of late. It was time for balance!

Maintaining a balance between the US and China appears to have become a yardstick by which Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans alike measure the success of our foreign policy. It is akin to a panel of judges assessing a gymnast’s performance on the balance beam. Based on this yardstick, if Singapore’s leaders made remarks that appear to favour one side, then balance must be promptly restored by saying or doing something that pleases the other side – to demonstrate ‘impartiality’ like holding a bowl of water in equilibrium.

A Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) poll in July 2022 showed that 86% of Singaporeans felt that their Government should always act in Singapore’s best interests and not take sides between the US and China. Only 4% felt that Singapore should lean towards China and 4% felt that Singapore should lean towards the US. Some might think of our foreign policy in terms of not taking sides, keeping our head down and maintaining neutrality in all matters.

Does Singapore’s foreign policy boil down to a balancing act? This is worth unpacking and addressing.

I wish to make three points: first, our foreign policy is driven by our principles, not a quest for balance; second, the space available to Singapore depends not on our ability to perform a balancing act, but whether any basis for cooperation remains between major powers and third, Singapore will do its utmost to broaden the basis of international cooperation.

As a small country lacking in natural resources and highly dependent on free trade, we need a peaceful and secure external environment, transparent and effective international law and a stable global order, and an efficient, well-regulated and globalised market economy system. Singapore depends on these factors for our survival, autonomy and prosperity. These are the core principles that shape our foreign policy.

How does the perception of balance come about?

In a highly harmonious world, where all bilateral relations are equally good, no one country would stand out for having particularly balanced or imbalanced relations with others. However, in a highly fractious world, it would be hard to maintain equally strong ties with countries belonging to different camps.

Serious differences have emerged between China and the US, yet Singapore continues to maintain strong bilateral relations with both sides. This creates the perception of a so-called “balancing act”. But Singapore-China and Singapore-US relations were not built on the basis of Singapore unilaterally maintaining a balancing act. Rather, these bilateral relations reflect decades of substantive, win-win collaboration.

Let us consider Singapore-China relations.

We have longstanding and friendly relations with China. Over the past decades, we have witnessed profound and rapid changes in China alongside its development. Through its pursuit of market-based economic development, China has made great strides in uplifting the lives of its 1.4 billion citizens. We believe that China’s peaceful rise and growing economy will be an important engine of growth for the Asia Pacific and the world.

Singapore has supported China’s continued reform and opening up and participated in China’s development journey over the years. Our three government-to-government projects have supported China’s economic development through various phases. The Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP) was established in the 1990s during China’s rapid industrialisation; the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City (SSTEC) was launched in 2008 in concert with China’s focus on sustainability; and the China-Singapore (Chongqing) Demonstration Initiative on Strategic Connectivity (CCI) started in 2015 to grow China’s linkages with the world, resulting in the establishment of the CCI-New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor.

Trade and investment with China have brought tangible benefits for its many economic partners, including Singapore. We are one of the largest investors in China, who is our top trading partner in goods. Our eight Provincial Business Councils across China have brought about mutually beneficial opportunities for our peoples and businesses.

During the Prime Minister’s Official Visit to China last month, Singapore and China upgraded our relationship to an “All‑Round High-Quality Future-Oriented Partnership”. This reflects both sides’ commitment to continually expand bilateral cooperation and pursue high-quality collaboration in forward-looking areas such as the digital and green economies.

When Singapore-China relations are discussed, many would also think of the role played by the ethnic Chinese community in Singapore. Indeed, the fact that Singapore has an ethnic Chinese majority population means that most Singaporeans would be able to trace their ancestry to somewhere in China, usually the southern coastal provinces. There are ties of culture and kinship. Moreover, with Singapore’s bilingual education policy, many Singaporeans of Chinese descent would be able to use the Chinese language to some degree, even though English is our working language. The sense of familiarity and ease makes it more convenient for ethnic Chinese Singaporeans to communicate and work with partners from China. Without a doubt, people-to-people ties spanning culture, kinship and language help enrich Singapore-China relations.

But to interpret Singapore-China relations from the cultural perspective may result in a skewed view or misunderstandings. Those who are not equipped with a deep understanding of Singapore might find it hard to hoist in this point. Singaporeans are citizens of an independent country, but may also identify culturally with being ethnically Chinese, Malay, Indian or others. National identity and cultural identity are two different matters.

The Government encourages Singaporeans to appreciate the cultural heritage of fellow Singaporeans, celebrate the products of intermingling between different cultures, such as the kebaya, which Singapore is partnering four other Southeast Asian countries in nominating for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) intangible cultural heritage list, and honour and develop their own cultural heritage. This includes Chinese culture. At the same time, we seek to shape a highly unified national identity. It would be inaccurate to project Singapore’s position in international affairs based on what one observes of Singapore’s Chinese community.

In an editorial published in Lianhe Zaobao early this year, veteran editor Mr Lim Jim Koon discussed how the newspaper has been assumed to take sides in geopolitical terms on various occasions. In an example he raised, Lianhe Zaobao’s website was identified as pro-China by a foreign news organisation. If a reputable overseas news organisation could espouse such a subjective view of Lianhe Zaobao, we can only imagine what those who do not know us well would think of Singapore.

Historian Prof Wang Gungwu’s recent speech on “What does it mean to be ethnically Chinese in Singapore?” has created some buzz. Tracing the development of the Chinese community in Singapore over several centuries, Prof Wang made clear that the definition of ethnic Chinese in Singapore is a complex and indeed convoluted issue.

As Prof Wang pointed out, Singapore is an independent sovereign nation state, a global city, situated at the heart and centre of Southeast Asia and under the umbrella of ASEAN. The following was put in particularly succinct terms by Prof Wang, who said : “…Singapore had started out with an extraordinary principle, not known in any nation I know of, one that recognised everyone born here as equal, and that the plural society would be the basis of a new nation. No other nation did that. As far as I know, every other nation began by saying that whoever was the majority would determine the fundamentals of nationhood… Singapore is the only one I know of in which it was the other way round; the majority accepted that they live in a plural society, in a neighbourhood in which they are a minority. They accepted that they had to treat everybody as equal and that the plural society was the foundation of Singapore’s nationhood. It was an extraordinary way to start the nation-building process.”

Prof Wang’s expert analysis on the extraordinary choice made by Singapore in pursuit of national identity would be of great value to anyone seeking to understand Singapore better. Meanwhile, Singaporeans of Chinese ethnicity are very clear – they are Singaporean citizens and Singapore “huaren” (people of Chinese ethnicity), not “huaqiao” (“overseas Chinese”).

Hence, Singapore’s foreign policy must stand for the interests of all citizens, including Chinese Singaporeans, Malay Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans, Eurasian Singaporeans and so forth. These are reflected in our pursuit of a safe and secure external environment, a stable global order, and a globalised market economy. China’s embarkation on reform and opening up has created a broad basis of collaboration between Singapore and China. Hence, we have been able to build excellent bilateral relations.

Singapore-US relations are similarly excellent, and established on the basis of the principles shaping our foreign policy.

The US played a vital role in underwriting the world order that emerged after the Second World War. It paved the way for stability and prosperity in Asia by championing an open, integrated, and rules-based global order. By providing a security umbrella for the region, the US has enabled regional countries to trade and grow peacefully. American companies invested extensively in Asia, including Singapore, bringing capital, technology, and ideas, and contributing to the vibrancy of the region.

The US continues to be a force for economic vitality and greater engagement will bring about benefits for the entire region. Today, the US is the largest investor in Singapore and ASEAN, and Singapore’s top trading partner in services. The US is also our third-largest trading partner in goods. US companies are well-regarded in Singapore for their innovation, business practices and commitment to growing talent.

Our leaders have maintained good relations with their US counterparts. The Prime Minister visited the US twice last year while several Cabinet Ministers have visited the US in the past year. We have also hosted visits by key members of the Biden Administration and Members of Congress.

Our security and defence ties with the US go back many decades. Singapore is a Major Security Cooperation Partner of the US, and we support the US military presence and its defence engagements in the region. Our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in 1990 and renewed recently in 2019, provides the US military with access to Singapore’s air and naval bases.

Singapore joined the US’ Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) when it was launched in May 2022. The IPEF will strengthen the US’ regional economic engagement, and is in line with our interests for promoting an open, inclusive, and rules-based world order. Singapore hopes that the IPEF would bring about more tangible economic benefits. US-Singapore cooperation is also expanding into new frontiers like cybersecurity, digital economy, sustainable development, and even space. These areas of cooperation reflect the breadth and depth of our bilateral relationship.

As with the Singapore-China relationship, it is not hard to see how the grounds for Singapore-US cooperation is inseparable from our principled pursuit of regional peace and security, a stable international order, and win-win economic collaboration through trade and investment. This approach is not limited to how we have built up our ties with China and with the US. We pursue our interests by strengthening and deepening our ties with all countries including the superpowers, middle powers, and our neighbours in the region. At this point in time, our relations with all countries are very good.

We seek to make friends and keep friends, but above all, we must maintain our standing as an honest broker. This concept stems from our obligations as a free port, but is also how Singapore seeks to create value for our partners in international affairs. This means doing what we say and saying what we do; not just telling others what they want to hear; and not saying different things to different parties.

At times and on certain issues, we have to be prepared to take a stand and even say “no” to a superpower on the basis of our own national interest. We do so carefully, after careful analysis of the principles at stake. We have not been afraid to take a position and make known our views, even where we disagree or what we do displeases others. Only when we persist in being honest, credible and trustworthy – not a vassal state, proxy, or stalking horse for one power or another – will our views be taken seriously.

Mr Speaker, many important issues that the world is grappling with require cooperation between countries big and small, including public health and climate change. Cooperation can co-exist with competition. Cooperation can also co-exist with differences in values and ideology.

The global market and trade in goods and services is one of the broadest mechanisms of cross-border cooperation. International law is equally important, providing a peaceful avenue for resolving differences and disputes. There has never been full agreement on all global issues. But differences do not and should not necessarily translate into conflict. With a rules-based international order, international cooperation is made possible, with conditions for all countries to trade, do business, and compete peacefully.

Ultimately, these mechanisms depend on trust and respect between the world’s major players. In theory, global supply chains reflect comparative advantages enjoyed by various economies and promote the rational allocation of resources. Consumer welfare throughout the world depends on the division of labour between numerous businesses spread over different economies, particularly at a time of rapid innovation in complex technology products.

In a world without mutual trust, national security considerations will fuel suspicions between economies, impacting cross-border division of labour. This is especially true of dual-use goods, software, and technology. Hence, international controversies surrounding 5G network equipment, the production of semiconductor chips, and even specific mobile apps have arisen. These controversies are extremely difficult to resolve without mutual trust. This could cause global supply chains, once tightly integrated, to unravel, to the detriment of all. It becomes harder for all parties to maintain confidence in multilateralism and globalisation, while nativist sentiments overshadow economic imperatives.

If major powers treat each other with suspicion, misunderstandings and prejudices will only deepen, and the international order will inevitably be shaken. The erosion of the foundations of international cooperation would have grave consequences for regional peace and security, a stable international order and economic collaboration – all critical for Singapore. There will be significant missed opportunities to prosper jointly, and to tackle global problems. No amount of balancing would help in such a scenario.

What should Singapore’s response be? It would be rather passive to focus on lying low and avoid taking sides. We want to see the global situation improve and will make efforts towards this. We will do our part by taking concrete steps to broaden the basis for international cooperation wherever possible.

In our region of Southeast Asia, Singapore is committed to building an ASEAN-centred regional architecture.

Beyond ASEAN, Singapore has championed and contributed to the rules-based multilateral system, which is key to effective governance of the global commons. This includes participating actively in the development of international rules and norms at the United Nations (UN). We followed up with our role in bringing about the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), adopted in 1982, by facilitating the conclusion of an international legally-binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) last month. Our success in facilitating the conclusion of these landmark agreements reflects the trust that the international community has in Singapore to play the role of an honest broker, especially at a time when geopolitical rivalries are intensifying.

We take climate change very seriously as it is an existential issue for a low-lying island like Singapore. Singapore co-facilitated negotiations on developing carbon markets over the past two years, thereby contributing to the world’s collective effort to limit global carbon emissions.

On the economic front, we continue to uphold a free, open and rules-based multilateral trading system as embodied by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Beyond the WTO, we have also promoted inclusive economic integration through forward-looking trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) as well as Digital Economy Agreements and Green Economy Agreements with countries like Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and the UK.

Singapore has also played an active role in norms-setting and global governance on other issues in which we have a stake. We are helping to build a secure and peaceful cyberspace through chairing the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on Security of and in the Use of Information and Communications Technologies 2021-2025; and contributing to the global fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism through Singapore’s Presidency of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Singapore participates and takes on leadership roles in these platforms to foster common ground on which countries big and small can work together; to encourage the restoration of strategic trust; and to fortify multilateralism as the way forward to address new challenges and opportunities. While there are limits to what we can do as a small country, we must act on our conviction on multilateralism and our needs for peace and security and economic development, and do our utmost to broaden the basis for international cooperation.

Mr Speaker, let me return to the observation that “foreign policy begins at home”. The effectiveness of a country’s foreign policy rests on the understanding and support it receives from its people.

I hope that what I have shared would help Singaporeans who care about international affairs gain more insight into what we hope to achieve with diplomacy. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

4.50 pm

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis (Sengkang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick clarification for the Member Mr Saktiandi Supaat on the comments that he made just now. I just wanted to ask through you, basically, to put into context. The report that he was referring to was produced for institutional investors in a commercial context for their investment decisions.

And I think if you look at the key conclusions that have been put forth in the report and what I have shared as recent as earlier this afternoon, in that the key constraint that I was speaking about is really the fundamental demand-supply imbalance issue. I spoke about how demand has been resilient, BTO subscription rates, private property take-up rates have been very high. And even the number of marriages has outpaced the number of BTO flats available on the demand side.

And similarly on the supply side, I also spoke about how in terms of the private property market, the number of unsold units is at an all-time low. And similarly, the number of BTO launches has been lower than what it was, say, 10 years ago. And so, if you look at the demand and supply picture, I think that was consistent in what I have talked about in the last two months.

If we look at the affordability that was —

Mr Speaker: Mr Chua, it is a clarification, not to repeat what you had said earlier. I think if you want to, highlight the seeming discrepancy between what was in the report and what you have said.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Yes, Sir, that is correct. So, essentially, in terms of the report, the private property prices continuing to rise may be seen as a healthy investment opportunity to some. But from our national interests, I wonder if Mr Saktiandi would agree that, especially as an economist, if you have house prices not conforming to, in a way, economic norms, whereby with rising interest rates, house prices typically should fall but yet, they continue to be very firm. Would that not be a concern from a national interest standpoint versus an investment decision standpoint?

Mr Speaker: Leader.

The Leader of the House (Ms Indranee Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sorry, Mr Saktiandi appears to have stepped out. So, I do not think he heard the clarification. Perhaps he can respond to Mr Louis Chua later when he comes back.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hany Soh.

4.53 pm

Ms Hany Soh (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I rise to thank Mdm President and speak in support of Her Excellency's Address.

Before commencing my speech in proper, I would first like to declare that I am a practising lawyer.

Mr Speaker, I concur with Her Excellency that one of the values that shape the Government's agenda is to look into ensuring that in every stage of life, Singaporeans can better cope with uncertainties and look forward with confidence.

The COVID-19 period has taught us that just as businesses must have the business continuity plans, families should create their emergency preparedness plans to deal with unforeseen circumstances, such as losing a financial pillar in the family due to sudden death or terminal illness. But one group which we should pay particular attention to in this aspect is our seniors.

As shared recently by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the book launch of "Singapore Ageing: Some Issues and Challenges Ahead", our Singapore population is not just ageing, but ageing rapidly. By 2030, almost one in four Singaporeans will be over 65.

Apart from investing in the appropriate infrastructures in public housing and healthcare, I have shared on several occasions with this House that in my opinion, helping Singaporeans enjoy their golden years with greater peace of mind begins with comprehensive estate planning.

This entails the making of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) nomination to appoint your desired donee, so that: one, he or she can manage your assets, welfare and affairs, should you become mentally incapacitated one day; two, making of CPF nominations, to make sure that your desired beneficiaries need not wait too long to receive the financial aid which you have left behind through your CPF savings; and thirdly, making of wills, to ensure that your final wishes pertaining to your legacy are respected.

Comprehensive estate planning brings about benefits, not just for your own personal interests, but more particularly, for your loved ones as well, in terms of convenience and saving in costs and time. Proper planning will eliminate the need to deal with tedious paperwork, while grieving over the sudden unfortunate loss of a loved one at the same time.

Over the years, the Government has worked with relevant agencies and community partners, stepping up its efforts to increase Singaporeans' awareness in this aspect. For almost a decade, Community Development Councils (CDCs) have been partnering with law society's Pro Bono SG to conduct law awareness weeks to educate residents on basic legal knowledge through legal talks conducted across the five districts at various community centres (CCs) and residents' committee centres (RCs). The talks tailored for those who are not legally trained, are easily digestible and ensure that attendees are equipped with basic legal knowledge, which will come in useful in times of need.

In recent years, we have also seen agencies, such as the CPF Board and the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), who have embraced digitalisation, streamlining the e-filing process of registering a CPF nomination and LPA respectively. And more recently, to appeal to the general public in ensuring that legal instruments, such as LPA, remains affordable for all, the OPG has yet again extended its $75 application fee waiver to 31 March 2026 for Singaporeans who register for LPA Form One. This is, in fact, the fifth extension since its first extension in 2016, as an effort to encourage more Singaporeans to plan ahead and apply for an LPA.

But despite these efforts, the take-up rates of Singaporeans making comprehensive estate planning remain less than the majority. I had the opportunity to speak to several seniors during one of the recent law awareness talks organised by our Woodgrove PAP Branch, where our young PAP volunteers who are legally trained, took the opportunity to explain the importance of doing an LPA and walk residents through the process of registering for it.

One shared with me that she can understand the importance of doing an LPA, but she hoped that she can sit on this issue for as long as possible, and that "touch wood", she will never need to rely on it. Another couple whom I have spoken to shared that they will not want to trouble their working children to sign the papers as they are all very busy. While I respect their opinions on the matter, it may be that they are simply kicking the can down the road.

Just as what Minister Masagos has shared in his speech yesterday, I concurred that Government policies should be deemed as enablers. As policymakers, there is a need for us to be proactive because we know we need to identify issues early before they snowball into larger issues for Singaporeans in need.

As such, I think that perhaps the real way to resolve the problem that the seniors and their families may face subsequently, is not to just encourage them to do an LPA now, but to look at how their immediate next-of-kin can assume the responsibility and power to manage their affairs more quickly, without the need to go through a stringent deputyship Court application, should the day come when one becomes mentally incapacitated before an LPA has been made.

Currently, if a person becomes mentally incapacitated without making a prior LPA nomination, his immediate family members will have to apply to the Family Justice Court (FJC) to be legally appointed as deputy of the incapacitated patient.

Notwithstanding, while the FJC has now offered a simplified deputyship application, the process is still viewed as cumbersome and costly. A simplified process still takes at least four to six weeks or so to complete and the time frame may be prolonged if the case gets more complex, where the Court will prompt the intended deputy to retrieve for more information.

Moreover, consent of immediate family members and relevant persons will need to be sought. In such instances, these requirements often cause more dispute among family members. Siblings or distant relatives of the bedridden patient may feel that the applicants, such as the spouse of the patient, should not be the appointed deputy. This cumbersome procedure may not eventually even lead to a desired outcome, as sometimes, the patient might have passed away halfway through the application.

Aligned with what Minister Masagos has shared yesterday, that there is a need to ensure that our social services are comprehensive, convenient and coordinated so that families can get the help they need quickly and easily, to avoid going through such unnecessary hassle, I humbly suggest that the Government consider reviewing the Mental Capacity Act and recommend adjustments such that in the event where no LPA has been made, a certain category of the immediate next-of-kin can assume such responsibility to be the default deputy, upon proof to the OPG that the patient is now mentally incapacitated.

This category can be aligned to what is set out in the Intestate Succession Act, where in the event that the patient is married, his or her spouse may be deemed to have the first of right to be the applicant to apply to become the deputy. In the event the patient is still a bachelor when he becomes incapacitated, then either or both of his parents may be deemed to have the first of right to be his or her joint deputies unless either renounces his or her rights. In Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As our population ages, to ensure that Singaporeans and their offspring have a peace of mind, the Government should not only educate Singaporeans about the benefits of estate planning but also delve deeper into exploring ways to assist Singaporeans in the event of unforeseen personal circumstances, for example, when a spouse suddenly suffers a stroke and is bedridden or when the sole breadwinner of the family passes away suddenly. We have to find ways to lighten their burdens and worries, especially when they have to deal with onerous legal procedures.

(In English): In closing, Mr Speaker, I wish to quote an abstract of a speech by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at one of the National Day Celebration Dinners which he attended in 2009.

"We have done well for the last 50 years since 1959. We overcame many difficulties in the early years from 1961 to 1965. After we achieved the steady growth in the mid-1970s, we met setbacks. We overcame them because, together as a people, we faced our difficulties squarely and worked together to resolve them. Had we evaded the problems, hoping that they would go away, we would have failed. Singapore is likely to do well in the next five to 10 years. We can reach a new level of development, but difficulties will crop up and we must always face them squarely, work together and resolve them."

Fast forward to today, nearly 14 years since the late Minister Mentor made his speech, we went through his departure, the COVID-19 pandemic and many economic and geopolitical uncertainties, but I am glad and heartened that we have overcome these challenges and will continue to overcome future challenges with the leadership of the People's Action Party (PAP) Government who do not evade problems ahead but face them squarely, working hand in hand with fellow Singaporeans to resolve them.

Mr Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestions that I have made earlier in my speech, I support Mdm President's Address.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

5.04 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion of Thanks to Mdm President. Before I touch on my two points, I would like to respond to Mr Faisal Manap's speech earlier. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In his speech, he said that one of the characteristics of good democracy is that we must be able to agree to disagree. I agree with that, and I respect that because among the PAP Members of Parliament (MPs), there are also differences in opinions with one another.

On the issue of the repeal of section 377A and strengthening the definition of family, each Workers’ Party (WP) member took a different position based on the principle of “agreeing to disagree”. The debate on section 377A was a very sensitive one. A leader’s responsibility is not just about opening up space for disagreement. We are also responsible for uniting people with different opinions, move forward and not become divided. It is not just about them expressing different opinions.

Therefore, although I agree with what he said about “agree to disagree”, that is simply half of the truth. We cannot shirk our responsibility as MPs. After debating, we make the best decision to enable everyone to move forward. Not to become divided but to stay united. Nonetheless, the most glaring point is not about an incomplete principle. In his speech, I did not hear him highlight an equally important principle in Parliament. It is the principle of integrity and honesty – honesty to the Parliament, to the people and to the nation.

(In English): I would like to come back to my speech and touch on my two points.

Firstly, amid economic challenges, the Government, businesses and workers must stay united to remain globally competitive and provide good jobs for our people.

Secondly, it requires a whole societal approach and it is our collective responsibility to create real and sustainable opportunities for vulnerable groups such as seniors, persons with disabilities, caregivers and special needs workers.

Allow me to elaborate on my first point, which I have shared in previous speeches.

Singapore faces challenges in maintaining global competitiveness due to geopolitical uncertainties, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine and the rivalry between the US and China, which can impact global trade and economic growth. Major powers prioritising their own advantage instead of promoting interdependence and multilateralism also pose a challenge to Singapore's position in the global economy.

The high labour cost in Singapore and high inflation globally have increased the cost of doing business. Additionally, the tight labour market has made it challenging for businesses to attract and retain talent, posing a significant challenge for many industries.

The business landscape in Singapore is facing additional challenges, including the impending increase in carbon tax and the implementation of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 initiative. These challenges, along with existing cost pressures, make it more expensive for businesses to operate in Singapore.

Furthermore, the US and other countries are offering aggressive tax breaks and subsidies to attract investments and revitalising their domestic manufacturing, which poses competition for Singapore.

To remain globally competitive, Singapore must reposition itself and find new opportunities amid economic headwinds. This requires being nimble and agile, responding quickly to new challenges and seeking new opportunities.

Staying united and working together is key, with the Government nudging businesses in the right direction but not fostering a sense of dependency. Businesses must be willing to pivot and transform, workers must upskill and retrain, and unions must work together to seek opportunities.

In the era of disruptive innovation with artificial intelligence (AI), Industry 4.0, and new business models, stakeholders must focus on working together to maximise opportunities for all.

Businesses must be proactive in finding opportunities. They should focus on improving productivity, attaining new capabilities and driving best value instead of depressing wages to remain competitive. Businesses and workers must work together to remain agile. Businesses must invest in developing talent and skills, unlocking new areas of growth.

Wage growth must be accompanied by productivity growth, otherwise, it will just increase the cost of doing business, leading to less competitive businesses. The expansion of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) into other industries and the topping up of the National Productivity Fund with $4 billion is encouraging, but for the National Productivity Fund, how do we ensure the funds are effectively used to drive productivity improvements that will help lower the real cost of doing businesses?

There will be times that despite productivity improvements, we must be being prepared to pivot, change business models or exit non-competitive businesses. To avoid structural unemployment due to skills mismatch, workers must also be comfortable and confident to retrain seamlessly into growing industries. The Jobs-Skills Integrator pilot in precision engineering, retail and wholesale trade is a positive step towards this goal, but how do we speed up this pace of rollout to other industries?

To navigate the economic headwinds, Singapore needs to stay united and work together between the Government, business, unions and workers. The tripartite partnership between the Ministry, the unions and employers is unique and must be leveraged.

The focus should be on protecting workers and preparing them with the skills required in the evolving economy rather than protecting jobs that may no longer be relevant. It is thus essential to strengthen the tripartite alliance to avoid the breakdown of trust and disastrous consequences seen in other countries.

Secondly, Mdm President has highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened social capital among Singaporeans and strengthened the sense of being Singaporean.

We have shown much care and compassion to each other, acting as concerned citizens helping one another in the face of incredible adversity. We should not let this deepened unity dissipate with the decreased threat of the pandemic and instead, we should harness to expand opportunities for all citizens at every significant stage of life.

Mr Speaker, education remains a key lever in nurturing and shaping our future, providing opportunities for all.

To ensure equity, we need to mitigate the negative impact of meritocracy by prioritising the distribution of need, where the less well-off gets added resource and support to help them.

We must also re-evaluate how we value skills and qualities beyond academic achievements, such that those more skilled with their hands or who are empathetic and employed in community service are also equally rewarded.

Providing multiple pathways to success will be key to fulfilling every citizen's potential and moving away from an education arms race. Let us value pursuits beyond paper qualifications and ease the pressure and stress on our young.

We have started on a journey of creating equal opportunities long ago and though there is much more that we can do, we have made significant progress in gender equality. We have also begun to pursuit at pace on equality and addressing discrimination at the workplace through our Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines. They are all works in progress.

However, we have not been as successful in providing equal opportunities for seniors, persons with disabilities, special needs workers, caregivers and back-to-work mothers. We need to do more to support these individuals and ensure that they have access to opportunities to fully participate in society and contribute to the economy. Our seniors, persons with disabilities and special needs workers still face an uphill task in finding meaningful employment and opportunities to contribute to the economy.

We have heard much anecdotal evidence – stories shared by our residents – that the opportunity a senior felt that they have was in the conservancy or cleaning industry, which requires long hours on their feet and physical work, is to their disadvantage. This could possibly be due to several limiting factors such as literacy and digital literacy among our current senior workers. However, our next generation of seniors in the next 10 years will be more literate and more digitally capable. We need to prepare them for future reemployment.

How do we then design jobs and leverage on remote working so that our future senior workers will have even more opportunities? Similarly, how do we redesign jobs and leverage on remote and flexible work arrangements so that we can provide opportunities for persons with disabilities, caregivers and back-to-work mothers?

While there are grants and schemes to assist with their employment such as Senior Employment Credit, Part-Time Re-Employment Grant and Uplifting Employment Credit, what is the percentage of companies that have taken up these grants?

Have we done enough, given that by 2030, 900,000 or one in four of our Singaporeans will be above the age of 65 and 3.4% of our resident population has some form of disability?

While we have grants and schemes to help nudge behaviours and attitudes, we must substantially move the needle and provide equal opportunities for all. It is our collective societal responsibility to ensure that designing jobs for seniors, persons with disabilities, and special needs workers is our national priority. Mr Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The COVID-19 experience has taught us the importance of staying united, believing in one another regardless of differences and working together as a community to overcome challenges.

Over the past two years, at M³@Pasir Ris-Punggol, our volunteers have conducted many programmes such as Get-Together at Pasir Ris-Punggol where more than 1,000 families participated in a children's games festival, and among others, held the KelasMatematika programme to help preschool children by developing their basic mathematical skills.

Each month, the M³@Pasir Ris-Punggol volunteers also distributed care packs to underprivileged families. They also conducted a Back-To-School programme where around 160 children from underprivileged families have been given bags, stationery and joined Mathematics classes and the Mendaki Tuition Scheme. M³@Pasir Ris-Punggol also held a Learning Journey series to encourage youths to explore careers in the engineering and 3D-printing industries, as well as the #HashTech hackathon, where students had the opportunity to enhance digital and cybersecurity skills from tech professionals.

These programmes were implemented with the support of volunteers, agencies like Majilis Ugama Islam Singapore (MUIS), Malay Activity Executive Committees Councils (MESRA) and Mendaki, as well as industry partners.

Our social compact is about society understanding how we communicate and support each other. It reflects our values where it is not only about self-interest but also about the interests of the community. I urge individuals who have made it to give back to the community so that we can further uplift our community especially those less fortunate.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, the past three years have taught us the importance of staying united, trusting one another regardless of differences, and working together as a society to overcome challenges, no matter how hard it can be.

We have seen how in other countries issues can be divisive and societies fall apart with deep divides that will take generations to mend. We have learnt that by staying united, trusting one another, we are able to overcome challenges and emerge strongly as a more closely-knit society having gone through adversity together.

Our social compact is our collective responsibility. Our shared understanding of how we relate to and support one another will be critical in shaping our future. While we shape our social compact, it is important to avoid creating a culture of dependence on the Government and, instead, we work collaboratively as we tackle the challenges ahead. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua.

5.19 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Speaker, in her address, President Halimah spoke about the need “to enhance support for persons with disabilities, so they can pursue their aspirations and participate fully as contributing members of society.”

Last August, we launched our fourth Enabling Masterplan, EMP2030. Since the launch of the first Masterplan in 2007, we have made good progress in areas, such as early intervention, education, our built environment, public transport, assistive technology and societal norms. But clearly, however, more needs to be done. After the launch of EMP2030, two task forces looking into “alternative employment models” and “independent community living” were set up. Work is underway.

Be that as it may, I am dedicating my speech today to persons with disabilities, to speak about some of the challenges they still face today, to keep disability-inclusion on the agenda of Singapore society and suggest how we can do better, collectively. For the central ideas I am going to mention in this speech, I owe a vote of thanks to a few individuals, namely, Karthik, Kelvin, Sze Wee and Judy.

We often speak of persons with disabilities as though it were one homogeneous population made up of individuals with similar needs and common challenges. That cannot be farther away from reality. Disability is extremely diverse. Let us take a moment to try to imagine what our world might be like if we were autistic, visually impaired or if we had lost the function of our limbs. The onset of disability can be congenital, traumatic – as in the case of traffic accidents – or progressive, as in muscular dystrophy, to describe just a few possible trajectories. Naturally, the impact on each individual differs. Consequently, service provision in the disability sector demands a keen eye for detail, as diversity is the order of the day.

How disability-inclusive a society is can be defined by how well we understand and appreciate the diverse nature of the disability sector and, by extension, how our policies and programmes are designed to cater for the multitude of needs and challenges across disability types and spectra. With these thoughts in mind, I outline today three suggestions to strengthen disability support, particularly in the post-18 space.

First is the adoption of a case management approach. In the course of their lives, a person with disabilities will interact with support services across different domains, including education, healthcare, employment and social support. A young child with disability typically receives a diagnosis in our hospitals, is referred for services in the early intervention centres and may go on to mainstream or special schools. In his or her adult life, he or she may receive services from employment support programmes, day activity centres or residential homes. Depending on specific healthcare needs, he or she may concurrently receive healthcare services.

To ensure that persons with disabilities can access the support they need in a seamless manner, transition coordination is paramount. This can be achieved with an effective case coordinator or manager. Whilst the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Education (MOE) have done much to tighten transitions from early intervention to the schooling years, and from the schooling years into the community, there is a need to strengthen case coordination services to support persons with disabilities (PwDs) throughout their post-18 years.

Today, our post-18 services, such as Day Activity Centres, are centre-based. This means that persons with disabilities who do not quite fit into any of the existing service models fall into a service gap. Also, the centre-based approach, as opposed to a person-centric approach, places the burden of sourcing for the right service squarely on the shoulders of the persons with disabilities and their caregivers. Hence, if a person with disabilities does not join any post-18 centre-based services after their schooling years, they also cease to receive much needed case management support. So, in this case, a case manager is needed for this group to continue to support the young adult with disability and his family members.

For example, the case manager could (a) help navigate the various agencies and systems these young adults are interacting with because of their multiple health, behavioural, employment and/or social care needs; (b) support them to access the necessary support services and grants based on their needs; and (c) connect them and their caregivers to others in the community and enable their meaningful participation and prevent social isolation.

Second, we need to recognise that the condition of a person with disabilities does not remain static throughout his or her lifetime. In addition to strengthening case management for persons with disabilities in the post-18 space, we should also adopt a more continual and holistic approach towards assessing and understanding their specific support needs. We cannot solely assess their needs at specific, pre-determined milestones, such as when they graduate from school. Instead, we must review their support needs throughout their lives, as these needs will change from the time they finish school through their adult and, finally, senior years.

For example, a person with disabilities’ health condition and level of functioning may change as they age, requiring a different intensity of medical support and personal care services; their work support needs may change, too, as they transit to different types of jobs across their career; or their social and emotional support needs may change as caregivers age and family circumstances evolve with time.

We should empower disability service providers, case managers and befrienders to adopt a more person-centric approach, one where they listen to the person with disabilities and their family members, understand their changing needs and support them in navigating the various services they may need to enable them to live independently and continue participating in the life of their home, workplace and community.

Third is the provision of integrated, social-health support. We should also consider how we can provide more integrated support for PwDs across the health and social sectors.

For example, some PwDs need a whole range of home-based services, such as therapy to maintain their physical and mental well-being, personal care services to assist with activities of daily living, such as showering, and befriending and social activities to reduce social isolation. Today, some of these services are provided by healthcare providers, whilst others are provided by social service agencies. Persons with disabilities and their families must navigate a complex web of multiple service providers across different domains. We should simplify this system to provide more coordinated, holistic home-based services for those who need them.

Similarly, we should also consider how disability services such as Day Activity Centres and Adult Disability Homes can better meet both the social and health needs of the persons with disabilities they serve simultaneously, such as by providing nursing or therapy services in these centres based on clients’ needs. This would improve the support for adults with physical or multiple disabilities who experience mobility issues and may find it challenging to travel to other facilities just for healthcare services.

Applying the same logic of strengthening the social-health integration, we could also consider how our financial assistance schemes can be more integrated for adults with disabilities, especially across the health and social sectors. For example, MediFund provides a safety net for patients who face difficulties with remaining medical bills after receiving Government subsidies and drawing on other means of payment, including those who need intermediate and long-term care in facilities, such as nursing homes.

Can we consider extending its coverage to Adult Disability Homes which also provide long-term care? Of course, we must study this in detail and ensure that any such move is financially sustainable. But I raise this as an example of how we should consider more integrated social-health support for persons with disabilities and their families, approaching policies from a more person-centric lens.

Mr Speaker, because of my work in the disability space, I have been privileged to have been part of some very meaningful and powerful conversations, with PwDs, caregivers, and passionate professionals who have dedicated their lives to serving in this sector. There is broad acknowledgement among them that we have come a long way since the first Enabling Masterplan in 2007.

But there is also consensus that there is much more we can, and must do, including in the areas I have highlighted today. We must push ahead with our ongoing efforts to implement EMP2030 and forge a more caring and inclusive Singapore where including and supporting PwDs is part of our everyday lives, where inclusive businesses and services are the norm in our communities, and where PwDs have access to the opportunities and support they need to pursue their aspirations and realise their fullest potential in their everyday lives, just as anyone else would. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat.

5.31 pm

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to thank hon Member Mr Louis Chua for his clarification earlier. I duly recognise the report is meant for institutional clients as he mentioned. But the professional assessment and conclusion in the report is very explicit. Public housing in Singapore today remains affordable, I think I have highlighted the quotes just now. Indeed, it is affordable because of the Government policies. I am glad that Mr Chua agrees with us on this matter.

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Chua Kheng Wee Louis: Thank you, Mr Speaker and I thank the Member for his clarification. I just want to reiterate that if he looks at the report, the key conclusion there really is that the key issue which I highlighted consistently across, is that it is really a matter of demand and supply, and what may be favourable from an investment perspective may not exactly be favourable from a national interest perspective.

Mr Speaker: Mr Saktiandi Supaat, do you want to respond?

Mr Saktiandi Supaat: Speaker, I just want to reiterate again, same points. The bottom line is that Mr Chua's report explicitly states public housing in Singapore is affordable and that in Mr Chua's professional assessment, we are glad to have his agreement on this matter.

5.33 pm

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, in the past eight years, I have tried to speak up for the marginalised, the unheard and the voiceless. But as the saying goes, "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen". And so, in the past eight years, I have also listened. I have listened to painful stories of injustice, discrimination, stigma and hurt.

I have shared these stories in this House because we should not be a nation focused only on hardware. As important is the software and the heartware that I spoke about in my maiden speech in this House. Those are the things that make, as President Halimah said in her speech, a Singapore "where we care for and help one another, and pitch in to make a difference to our community".

In the past eight years, I have also seen so much positive change. I have seen how the impossible can be made possible when the Government and civil society work hand in hand.

"Nothing is impossible, miracles take time". That was what was drilled into me during my NSF days and indeed, nothing is impossible if we do not give up and if we persist. Senior Minister of State Amy Khor recently commended me for my persistence and so I shall persist.

In this second session of the 14th Parliament, I will continue to speak up from my heart about issues that matter. I will continue to speak up for a more equal and just society where heartware matters. I will also continue to speak up for giving our people the most valuable thing of all – time.

Every Budget, this House debates how our Government should spend its money to support Singaporeans. Every Budget, I have stressed that we cannot just give money; we also need to give time.

In my Budget speeches in the past three years, I have spoken up for teachers, social workers and most recently, nurses. They build the heartware of this nation by helping others. But they need time to help themselves too. I spoke up about how we can provide more support to them so that they can help others better. I will continue speaking up for them.

But not only do our teachers, social workers and nurses need more time. Many others in Singapore are overworked too. They, too, need more time. Surveys after surveys show that we are one of the most overworked cities in the world, one of the most fatigued countries, one of the most stressful cities, and one of the worst when it comes to work-life balance. I do believe it is time for us to seriously rethink our policies when it comes to work-life balance; time for a reset.

I have two suggestions to make. First, I repeat my calls to legislate the right to work from home. Second, I repeat my calls to increase the minimum amount of annual leave entitlement.

I know I sound like a broken record again but these are important things that will help countless people. President Halimah spoke about wanting a society that values and supports families. Let us give people the time to spend with their loved ones for a start.

Let me start with my repeated calls to legislate the right to work from home. I recognise that the Government is looking into work-life harmony and balance. I know we have the Tripartite Standards on Work-Life Harmony and we will soon have the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements. These are undoubtedly good steps forward. But they are far from enough.

Before COVID-19, many of us in this House fought hard for legislating the right to flexible work arrangements. We were told that we could not legislate this. That there would be unintended consequences. It took a pandemic to show that work from home is possible.

When COVID-19 hit, we legislated and made work from home compulsory for most. We aggressively shared how work from home benefits everyone – employers, employees and the whole of Singapore. It benefited our transport system, healthcare system and even addressed gender equality.

The right to work from home benefited so many people, including one mother who messaged me last week saying: "Flexibility to work from home has been so crucial in terms of being able to send my daughter to school, given that I commute from Canberra to Jurong Island and don't own a car like many Singaporeans. Also, work from home allows me to work out during lunch hour without sacrificing time with my child and elderly parents. Without this, I would definitely be neglecting my health in favour of family time and chores.

I genuinely believe work from home enables a happier society and will facilitate Singapore's move towards being the sort of family-oriented, health-conscious society we want to be. It is especially crucial given the ageing population we expect, and the increasing burden on the working generation. It is not just about having time to support children and elderly parents for appointments or events but having time to form foundational emotional bonds to build strong families across generations".

That really sums up the importance of the right to work from home and I could not have said it better. We made great progress during the pandemic when it came to working from home. We could have ridden this momentum. But somehow, we did not. We repealed the work from home legislation and plan to only introduce guidelines on flexible work arrangements (FWAs).

We are taking steps backwards. Why? Guidelines send a weak signal. Furthermore, it is strange that the penalty under the guidelines for not providing FWAs would be to curtail a company's Work Pass privileges. If you do not give your employees FWAs, you cannot hire foreigners. How does that make sense?

I am not asking that we make work from home compulsory. My first suggestion is that we legislate the right to work from home and give people the choice. Employers can still require employees to be in the office for specific business-related reasons. This will truly help in the work-life harmony we are all fighting for. We know through many surveys that people want this right. We should listen to the calls and provide this to help reduce the stress and fatigue in our workforce.

Next, we should also give our people more time to rest. We should increase the minimum amount of annual leave. The current minimum of only seven days of annual leave is extremely low. I have spoken up about this many times in this House. How many of us sitting here would want only seven days of annual leave?

Many other countries in this region provide a higher minimum number of annual leave including Malaysia, Bangladesh, Japan, Myanmar, East Timor, Sri Lanka, Laos, Mongolia, South Korea, Qatar, Yemen, Iran, Kuwait and Indonesia and many more. Many of these countries not only have more days of annual leave, they also have a higher number of paid public holidays.

Last week, one netizen shared with me: "I'm honestly shocked that seven days is the minimum annual leave we have. I have 15 days from an MNC and that's the least I've ever had. While we don't have to be as generous as European countries, really seven is embarrassing for a developed country that seeks to allow for its citizens to find some semblance of balance outside of work, for a more sustainable workforce if we need to be pragmatic."

I do understand that we need to balance this carefully against what businesses can sustain. But we have an overworked workforce and we need to sustain our workforce too. Our people will always work hard to top global rankings in all industries. But let us make sure we do not top the ranking of the being most overworked city in the world. They need more annual leave.

Finally, Sir, I hope that we can continue building the heartware of this nation by being more inclusive. As President Halimah said, "We want every person to be treated equally with dignity and respect." And "we want to reaffirm the core values that we hold dear as Singaporeans – fairness and inclusivity."

As we work hard to ensure a less stressful environment for workers, we also need to make it less stressful for women, for breastfeeding mothers and single unwed parents. I repeat my calls to make sure our policies are inclusive for them.

In my speech on the Motion of thanks to the President in 2020, I called for more inclusive workplaces for women. I am glad we are making good progress on this by having workplace discrimination laws. This will send a strong signal.

I have two further suggestions on how we should further tackle discrimination and be more inclusive. My first suggestion is for breastfeeding mothers and that we ensure the proposed workplace discrimination law will also cover the discrimination breastfeeding mothers face at work.

In my Adjournment Motion for breastfeeding mothers, I described the shame and discrimination they face at work. The stories are heartbreaking. These mothers are only trying to feed their children, but they are shamed and discriminated against by their co-workers.

The difficulties breastfeeding mothers face continues. A nurse who had recently returned to work after her maternity leave shared with me last week that her managers asked her three times on separate occasions to pump in the toilet. When she mentioned that it is not hygienic or sanitary, she was shocked to have them reply saying that other mothers have been pumping in the toilet "all these while". She was appalled by the lack of empathy, understanding and even the sense of basic hygiene.

We should provide more help and support. We should ensure that the proposed workplace discrimination law will cover the discrimination breastfeeding mothers face at work.

My second suggestion is for single unwed parents and that we do a whole-of-Government review to ensure our policies are inclusive for single unwed parents. President Halimah spoke about how "no one should feel left behind". As we work hard to ensure that we strengthen protections against workplace discrimination, the Government should take the lead and ensure that our own policies do not result in any discrimination and that single unwed parents do not feel left behind.

For single unwed parents, we know our policies do discriminate and we really should change. After many decades of discrimination in our housing policies against single unwed parents, I am glad they now have fair access to public housing.

In 2019, I shared the story of Ema, a single unwed mother. Ema came to see me to appeal for a rental flat. She brought with her a letter from her baby's doctor stating: "As she – the baby – is currently staying in a shelter, she is frequently in contact with other residents who are unwell and hence predisposed to recurrent infection. As such, it will be greatly appreciated if her application for the HDB rental flat can be expedited."

Ema told me that she was not asking for sympathy and was simply looking for a roof over her head and her baby's head. I appealed to the Housing and Development Board (HDB) to allow her to rent a flat and I am glad the appeal was successful. HDB replied that: "We are pleased to inform you that we have obtained special approval for you to rent a 1-room flat with your daughter on compassionate grounds."

Since I shared her story, Ema has been living in a rental flat with her daughter who has grown to be a happy, bubbly and, most importantly, healthy child. I raised that we are stigmatising single unweds and their children when we tell them that they can only get a roof over their heads through special approvals on compassionate grounds.

I am glad that HDB has since updated its website to make clear that single unwed parents can approach HDB for assistance with their rental housing applications.

Just last month, a HDB officer told me how HDB is actually not the Housing and Development Board but actually the “好心” Board or, translated into English, the "Good-Hearted Board". Indeed, they are. I have seen HDB officers with big hearts, like Bee Lan and Jeffrey from the HDB Yishun Branch, and Zing, who heads HDB's Rental Housing Department.

I have seen how we can make changes to our policies in the spirit of inclusiveness. But again, there is more that needs to be done to tackle the stigma and discrimination that still persists for many single unwed parents.

I was recently asked in this House whether I want more single unwed parents. Imagine being a single unwed parent or a child of a single unwed parent, watching the debate at home and hearing those words. Imagine a child wondering whether Mummy is wrong for being a single unwed parent.

Single unwed parents are just trying their best for their children in difficult circumstances. I hope again that we will review our policies to ensure that they are inclusive and fair for single unwed parents.

We are not asking to incentivise being a single unwed parent. We are asking that we provide them a level and equal playing field so that they and their children can have equal opportunities in Singapore. Meritocracy should apply to them too.

In conclusion, Sir, in my speech for the Motion of Thanks to the President in 2020, I said that, "I will continue to fight for a more caring, compassionate and inclusive society, a society with a strong heartware."

This fight continues and continues for so many other causes – for our migrant workers, refugees, climate change, animal welfare and – no, I did not forget – secondhand smoke, cats in HDB flats and childcare leave. I will continue to speak up because our lives begin to end the day we become silent about issues that matter.

Sir, I will continue to actively speak up on issues that we do not usually actively debate in this House. I support the Motion of Thanks to the President.

Mr Speaker: Mr Shawn Huang.

5.46 pm

Mr Shawn Huang Wei Zhong (Jurong): Speaker, in a couple of years, or 843 days, Singapore will celebrate her 60th, our Diamond Jubilee. It would be a significant milestone. It is easy to say from where we stand that we have achieved, but we should not forget the difficult journey and the tough decisions taken to be where we are today.

Many from our Pioneer and Merdeka generations, the generation of our parents and our grandparents did not have the same opportunities we have today.

At that time, infrastructure was basic, resources were limited and many of that generation made deliberate sacrifices to give up their education early to work, not because they were uninterested. They sacrificed their progression so that a brother or a sister had the money to go to school and enough money for food, to survive. They did so, so that their brothers and sisters could have a better life despite their own detriment.

Two volunteers recollected an incident when they responded to a community distress call recently.

An elderly lady in her 80s had a suspected cardiac event and needed CPR. They did their best to keep her ventilated and the AED was ready. The ambulance soon arrived and she was taken to hospital.

As the two volunteers spoke to the granddaughter, they could not help but notice that the elderly lady's home was full of family photographs. On the wall were the photographs of many of her grandchildren who were university graduates in their graduation garbs – a proud legacy for the family. She started working in a rubber plantation. Her children did well and her grandchildren did even better. In Singapore, in two generations, the entire family was uplifted.

This elderly lady is the epitome and paragon of that generation that enabled us, with much certainty, for us to celebrate our Diamond Jubilee.

The world today faces a myriad of challenges unprecedented in scale and complexity. We just survived the global pandemic. We now face increasing geopolitical tensions, the challenge of climate change and rising global economic uncertainties ahead.

Domestically, our ageing population is one of our gravest concerns. To put it into context, our boomer generation had an annual birth of about 60,000. Today, the number is about 33,000. In 2010, one in 10 were above 65 years old. By 2030, it will be one in four.

As our population ages, we will face several challenges, such as increased demand for healthcare services, rising healthcare costs, a shrinking workforce, increased demand for social services, retirement funding, ageism and social isolation.

And because of this ageing population, we must be mindful of our future economic survival and competitiveness. We will need to accelerate our pace of innovation and technology, drive growth and create new industries.

Our institutions must continue to evolve and remain relevant and trusted. We must maintain our skills and capabilities, connectivity and modern infrastructure. We must remain open to trade and investment and maintain our strength and ambition through a strong entrepreneurship culture.

Singapore has faced several existential challenges since Independence with much fewer resources. Since then, we have progressed from strength to strength in a continuous journey of nation-building.

As we look ahead, we must build a clear vision for our future and imagine what our country and our society would look like. How should we Singaporeans work together to overcome the challenges of today and work towards our future? Most certainly, in our minds, this vision must be inspiring, ambitious and achievable.

The Forward Singapore exercise is how we collectively explore our values and priorities and strengthen our social compact for the next bound of our nation's journey. How do we empower, steward, equip, care, build and unite for our future?

This is our continuous work of nation-building. At its core, it is about building a strong national identity and promoting social cohesion among citizens. It requires the active participation of individuals and communities at all levels of society, from Government leaders, industries, voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs), grassroots organisations and every citizen. All of us Singaporeans can contribute to nation-building.

This includes being an active and engaged citizen, participating in community events and initiatives, volunteering and providing resources to help others and supporting policies and programmes that promote the common good.

How can we help one another take the next step forward through mentoring, volunteering, helping a colleague improve, training junior staff, caring for a neighbour, helping an industry partner become more competitive or partnering a local competitor to win larger overseas projects? How can we collectively push our nation forward?

We must work together and empower one another. This means setting aside our differences and working towards a shared vision for a better future for all citizens. It also means investing in education, innovation and infrastructure to create a strong and competitive economy that can provide opportunities for all.

It starts with us – individuals and then families, communities and then inspiring others to do more. Every Singaporean plays a vital role in nation-building.

To our seniors, we want our seniors to be able to live longer and healthier lives, one that is filled with meaningful social interaction, where our seniors can continue to be relevant and, to the best of their abilities, continue to contribute to society and the community.

Many of them are experienced and have much to give back. Above all, we want them to be valued members throughout life. It is a precious and worthy intangible achievement, probably moving from lifelong learning to lifelong teaching.

To the youths, we want to give our youths opportunities to expand and live to their fullest potential, unbridled.

Our youths must have the determination, ambition, passion and, more importantly, be centred on a strong set of values, identity and culture, to have that curiosity and eagerness for adventure, not just to travel, but to explore new worlds and domains, to build expertise and develop networks and, at every step, be an ambassador of Singapore that values identity and culture – to be proud of being Singaporean.

To those doing their level best, those with elderly parents, young children, a family member with chronic illnesses or disabilities and those facing pressures and hostile workplaces, to those who had and needed second chances in life, there are days when you feel alone, facing insurmountable challenges.

But fear not, for you are not alone.

There is strength in our Singapore collective and our community. In unison, like a tug of war, we will drag, we will push, we will pull, with a full heart and full effort and, collectively, we will help one another achieve a full and meaningful life.

To Singaporeans and Team Singapore, we strive for Singapore.

Yes, a rising tide can lift all boats, but remember that we are all on the same ship, whatever the tide. We must survive. If the waves are relentless, we must be able to submerge and explore below the choppy waves. Where there is no water and we have run aground, we must hover and fly.

For our future generations, we shall build the pathways today that will propel us forward with greater strength.

Let us all work together to build our nation and home for future generations. Majulah Singapura. I stand in support of the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

5.55 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, President Halimah opened the 14th Parliament by charting out the direction, challenges and priorities for a Singapore for everyone. She emphasised the importance of inclusiveness, the need for a refreshed social compact and, regardless of our different backgrounds, the support for one another in our next phase of nationhood.

To be inclusive, the Government must consider the needs of different groups of Singaporeans in their policies and implementation of social programmes.

For many decades, our policies have been pro-family and increasingly so over the past few years. These policies are not slowing down even though our total fertility rate continues to plunge year after year, hitting an all-time low of 1.05 in 2022.

Policies related to housing, caregiving and taxation are causing a divide that favours married Singaporeans more than singles. This policy bias has created growing dissatisfaction among singles.

Given the change in lifestyle priorities, singlehood has scaled up to around 30% of Singapore’s population. Broadly speaking, for every Singaporean couple, there is a Singaporean single. This percentage will continue to be more prevalent. The proportion of singles in the age groups below 50 years old has increased and the rise is higher among those below 35.

An inclusive society like Singapore should not allow any group, let alone such a significant group, to feel left out in contrast to their married siblings, friends or colleagues simply because of their marital status. Like married individuals, singles work and contribute at workplaces, in communities and take care of their families. They must not be left to feel disengaged, disappointed or even disenchanted. If we do not look into taking better care of this group of Singaporeans, they may well decide to work overseas or even migrate altogether once after their parents pass away.

I hope that as a society, we can better appreciate Singaporeans who choose to remain single. Singles contribute to society and they should be provided equal support from the Government and the community. They, too, will need help to cope with the challenges that are more particularly felt by being single.

I would like to call for more inclusiveness in our social policies and programmes. There are three pertinent aspects that we should highlight, namely, caregiving for parents, ageing with support and advance care planning.

At a certain old age, regular visits to the doctors, frequent hospitalisation or taking care of health conditions that require 24/7 care, such as advanced dementia, is inevitable.

With our rapidly greying population, longer life expectancies and smaller families, caregiving duties for elderly parents typically land on singles. Most singles will stay with their parents if their siblings are married with kids. This is seen as the right thing to do. There are even some who decide to remain single so that they can be caregivers and take care of their ailing parents.

These caregiving responsibilities require substantial time off work. Often, the health conditions of both parents may deteriorate at the same time, doubling the caregiving load.

Not all employees in Singapore get extra leave to care for their parents. Companies in Singapore are required to provide maternity, paternity, childcare and unpaid infant care leave, but not family, parent or eldercare leave. Some companies may provide a few days of caregiving leave but this will not suffice if the elderly parent suffers from chronic illnesses. Often times, the caregiver will have to use their annual leave or even apply for unpaid leave to care for their parents.

The lower-income groups will tend to face more challenges because most are unable to afford additional resources such as domestic help. Should the caregiver be an unmarried sole breadwinner, he or she will have to continue working while attending to the ailing parents. Having time off for medical appointments and caregiving leave for ailing parents is much needed for singles who are also primary caregivers. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to say a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Not all workers in Singapore get additional leave to look after their parents. Companies in Singapore are required to provide maternity leave, paternity leave, childcare leave and unpaid infant care leave but not family leave, parental care leave or eldercare leave. Some companies may give a few days of caregiving leave but this is not enough if the elderly parents of the workers suffer from chronic diseases. Usually, the caregivers have no choice but to use their annual leave or apply for no-pay leave to take care of their elderly parents.

The lower-income group will face more challenges as most of them cannot afford additional resources such as domestic help. If the caregiver is the sole breadwinner who is still single, he or she must continue to work while taking care of his or her frail parents. Having leave for medical appointments and leave to take care of elderly parents who are unwell will be a boon for unmarried caregivers who are also the primary caregivers.

(In English): I would like to call upon the Government to consider some medical appointments leave and caregiving leave for parents, to be a mandatory benefit for all employees. This benefit will likewise apply to married individuals.

Most singles end up living alone upon retirement and after their parents pass on. Divorced and widowed individuals may also live on their own. There will be more and more seniors staying alone. But living in isolation is not a good option and social interaction is essential for one’s cognitive and physical health. These days, sadly, it is no longer uncommon for news reports of seniors found dead alone at home.

HDB has embarked on assisted living facilities in December 2020, such as the pilot Community Care Apartments in Bukit Batok. These apartments are very small. It is only 32 square metres and will not solve the concerns of the singles as many seniors will still eventually end up staying alone after their spouses pass on. The problems of seniors living in isolation will not be addressed.

I like to call for HDB to consider leasing out some of the existing HDB flats in mature estates where the seniors are familiar with and are served by nearby neighbourhood amenities, to set up co-living options for singles, divorced and widowed Singaporeans. We could consider developing spaces for three to four singles living together comfortably. These could be leased apartments catered for senior citizens who live alone. To make it work, single seniors could have the option to sell their own properties and invest in such a retirement co-living space.

We must provide the support for these single seniors to age well and allow them to enjoy their time together with their flat mates. They could be playing mahjong games, growing plants, cooking or whatever. To add, the co-living flat mates can also help to look out for one another, especially during medical emergencies and request for assistance in a timely manner.

The lease could include basic service package comprising cleaning, cooking, marketing and emergency response services. Services could be outsourced to private senior care operators. That way, a group of singles can have the option to stay together and take care of one another in their golden years.

Other than securing a roof over their head, singles may also be concerned about securing their finances. In particular, the elderly are more likely to be vulnerable and exploited by scammers and other criminals. They may be preyed upon their confusion due to new technology. Recent scams via phones and online sites had depleted the bank accounts of many senior citizens, even those who are highly educated.

I strongly urge the Government to set up trust arrangements for the elderly, especially for singles who do not have partners nor children to help them. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. In fact, we can tap on current infrastructure, such as the CPF and accredited insurance companies, which are members of the Policy Owners' Protection Scheme under the Singapore Deposit Insurance Corporation. With economies of scale, the trust arrangement fees can be kept quite low. Their funds can be managed by the trusts which will pay for their expenses such as medical bills and release their pocket money monthly.

I urge CPF to consider offering such financial services to retirees, especially to single seniors, so that their retirement funds can be well-managed and protected. Mr Speaker, I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] During the final phase in life, many singles may be concerned that they do not have people whom they trust to assist them in preparing for their final days. For instance, they may need help with their Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) for decisions to be made should they lose their mental capacity.

They would also need guidance and advice to lodge their medical care preferences through an Advance Care Planning (ACP) session as well as Advance Medical Directive at recognised healthcare institutions. End of life discussions pertaining to tube-feeding and Voluntarily Stop Eating and Drinking (VSED) may be made in advance with qualified medical practitioners and counsellors.

Many may require assistance to review their CPF nominations and draw up or review their wills. Perhaps they may have assets that they wish to bequeath to charitable organisations but are not familiar with the arrangements. I urge the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) to look into setting up such services to assist them, so that they can leave the world with a peace of mind. If these singles do not have children, they can contribute their assets to benefit the community after they have passed on.

(In English): Social programmes are essential to create community ties and to keep our singles deeply rooted to Singapore. Singapore has to be a place that is attractive, accessible and affordable for our seniors, so that they can live their final years comfortably. Involvement in community work will help singles feel more connected; friends, family and neighbours give them a purpose to stay on and contribute to their homeland.

I hope the Ministry of Community, Culture and Youth (MCCY) can work with the PA and VWOs to attract more singles to participate in community work. In particular, cause-based programmes. There are many programmes that are designed to engage families with young children, but singles may feel they do not fit in and are not keen to be a part of such programmes. We need to make singles feel welcomed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, fairness and inclusiveness have been brought up by singles in feedback sessions frequently. We must review our social policies to ensure that singles are not left out. While we encourage people to get married and have more children, pro-family and single-supportive policies need not be mutually exclusive.

Whether you are single or married, we are all part of a Singapore family. We do what we can to take care of our siblings and elderly parents. We would not want our well-resourced singles who do not have close relatives anymore, retiring in countries like Australia, New Zealand or Canada.

Let us make everyone feel more included and rooted, with an equal stake in Singapore’s future. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.