Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [14 May 2018].

"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.'." – [Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling].

1.30 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, Chinese, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The President said in her speech that Singapore has entered the next phase of development. In the past, we can learn from other countries and catch up with them. We are now facing many complex challenges. There are no clear solutions. Other countries are also exploring.

I believe that, when faced with these challenges, the Government and the people must work together to find solutions.

Take the transformation of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) for example. It is said that "it is difficult to start a business, but to stay in business is even more difficult." We can add one more sentence: "Transformation is the most difficult." How SMEs transform will be a major challenge.

The new Enterprise Singapore, after helping SMEs to transform, must pay close attention to their development. SMEs must also proactively seek to change. The mindset of the whole country must change as well. The Government, large enterprises and individuals should take our SMEs into consideration when making purchases.

In the area of education, many countries are still exploring how to teach according to the students’ aptitude, while upholding education standards and fairness. In Singapore, we have tried many different methods. Our education system has been evolving constantly from our generation, our children’s generation to our grandchildren’s generation. Parents should not just focus on academic performances. They should also encourage their children to participate in co-curricular activities (CCAs) which interest them. Perhaps that particular CCA may well be the key to their future success. I hope parents and the schools can work together to find a more suitable education method for each child.

Another issue is old infrastructure. When are they going to be revamped? When are the designs going to be upgraded? For example, can we include the Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats built after 1986 into the Home Improvement Programme (HIP)?

The population in Yishun is increasing and there are more and more young families. Can we rebuild the older gymnasium and the swimming pool into a sports complex with swimming facilities for children to have fun in?

Tampines has Our Tampines Hub; Bedok has the Bedok Integrated Complex; Woodlands has Kampong Admiralty. After talking about it for so many years, I wonder when Yishun residents can have the pleasure of having a Nee Soon Hub or Nee Soon Integrated Complex or Kampong Nee Soon. I hope the relevant authorities can heed Minister Ng Chee Meng’s call yesterday, "We hear you, we are with you, together we will make it real." We look forward to the day when we "make it real".

As Members of Parliament, we often need to deal with cleaning or neighbourhood dispute issues. More often than not, these issues cannot be solved by the relevant authorities alone. Whoever started the trouble should end it. It takes the parties involved to make compromises and shoulder part of the responsibilities. In this area, we need to work harder. There are no standard answers for the above questions. Members of Parliament, public servants or the Government must continue to listen to the views of Singaporeans and work out workable solutions together.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to put my vote of thanks to the President for delivering a speech that not only inspires but points us to the direction that we must collectively work towards in the coming years. Our next generation of Ministers are all lined up and ready to run the next lap. And we are fortunate to have a system where there is an orderly handover of the torch, so that the flame continues to burn.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the 4G team on their appointments and we would like to thank all those Ministers who have retired.

Mr Speaker, I am confident that together we can build Singapore as a good example of a democratic and multiracial society. As I look back the past weeks, the milestone events from the Select Committee hearings to the appointment of new office-bearers would doubtless show our resolve to continue with the way we have been running our country, in the best interest of our people – that is the Singapore way, whatever the naysayers may be hooting. Unlike them, we are proud to be Singaporeans. Unlike them, we do not set sail in the same boat with the likes of Sinbad the Sailor. We do not believe in “whatever will be will be”. We believe in charting the right course after taking all the relevant readings on the compass.

Let me turn to a hot topic when parents get together – education. Regardless of which school your children go to, as long as they are happy, they learn, they make good friends, they are in good schools. All schools have the same core syllabus and the teachers and principals are rotated around. Not every school can be like Raffles Institution (RI) or Raffles Girls’ School (RGS). I agreed with hon Member Miss Cheryl Chan that what is more important is character building, good moral values and whether the children can be contributing positively to the family, society and country.

I am indeed very pleased that our Education Minister had assured in the Addendum that his Ministry would continue to strengthen its focus on Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) and enhance Values-in-Action programmes. We have been very bold in the past few years in tweaking our education system to put less stress on our students and introduce experiential learning.

Many of the new ideas introduced are commendable. Students do not just go to school to gain knowledge. They are also exposed to community service, there is a lot more outdoor learning, and even at the ITEs, polytechnics and universities, they are put on internships. These would greatly help to build up a talent pool of thinking and adaptable people as they stream into the job market. All these efforts in producing a new generation of young people. I think our country may not have seen the full impact of this new learning because many of the students are still studying, and the numbers that have gotten into the job market is still small. But I have seen many who come to help me in my Meet-the-People sessions and I must say they are impressive.

As we take steps to move away from the very staid and rigid old system of education, we as parents must also give encouragement to our children and assure them that the school that they are in is a good school.

Next, I want to ask that we as a community would have to move forward with confidence. We need to discard the “kiasu” mentality. So, we do not have to go around “chope-ing” seats, rushing into trains, or pretending not to notice that you are taking up the seats meant for the elderly and pregnant women in the train. We need to learn to be more gracious. Yes, graciousness is something that we all can adopt. It is within our means to achieve.

Let me share with you my encounters. We have a children playground in a private estate in Nee Soon South and it is very popular among children, especially in the evenings. Recently, a man brought his dog to the playground and used the children's playground equipment to train his dog. Many parents were very unhappy; some emailed me. They said, "This is not correct! A children's playground should be for kids! It is very unhygienic." On the other hand, the man with the dog said, "Why not?" Which NPark Act says that he cannot use the playground equipment to train his dog?

Another example is that of a man who smokes in his home. The smoke drifted to the unit upstairs. The man living in the unit upstairs was not happy. So, they had some friction. The man who smokes said, "I have all the right to smoke in my own home". The man living upstairs said, "I have all the right to have clean air and to protect my health and my family members' health."

So, if everyone argues like the two examples above, where do we go from here? Can we be more considerate and show compassion for others? Are we too quick to point fingers at others? Have we ever paused to think if we are doing enough for our community, our environment and our nation? Can we make the bold change in behaviour, attitudes and so on for the next lap so that we can together have a stake in building up the gracious Singapore?

Help the less privileged and those with special needs so that they too can participate. So, when introducing new policies please ask how this will help to bring down the barriers and let people mix together, irrespective of economic class, race or religion.

We must review what we have done and look at where we must improve, for example, our SMEs. Are we not able to do more for SMEs? Can we help them to build their track records and bring them overseas? We have a few strong Singaporean companies such as the banks – DBS, UOB, OCBC – and we have airlines like Singapore Airlines (SIA), Scoot, SilkAir, and others such as Keppel Corp, CapitaLand and so forth. But we need to grow more of such "Singapore Inc." to boost our economic growth. We need to stay relevant to the world.

Leadership is never so challenged as it is in today’s world. The need for us to adjust to meet the changed social environment has been a long time coming. We will build on the foundations laid down by our pioneers who have set the ground. We need to continue to work hard which is our virtue, perhaps harder than our founding generation as the world is changing at very fast pace. In doing so, we must exercise good judgement and not discard what is working just for the sake of being bold. We must get some basics right such as getting our society to be more gracious and more considerate.

To accept that we live in a closely-knit community, this initiative and effort must begin with us. We see very conflicting demands from different people, each with different ideas and each claiming they have their rights to this and that. If we do not start to address this "your right and my right" issue, the narrative will separate people. It will metastasise like cancer cells. It will wreck our society. We must act now if we do not want to be known as "a one divided country with divided hearts".

1.46 pm

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, I join other hon Members in expressing my support for the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address.

To heed the President's call for us to forge a cohesive, caring and inclusive society, particularly for our seniors, I would like to take this opportunity to raise three ideas about how we can smoothen some of the bumps and ripples in our healthcare landscape and to remove some of the friction where it is not needed, so as to promote more equal access to medical services. As my following comments do concern some adjustments of a fiscal nature, I would like to declare my interest currently as a medical practitioner in a public healthcare institution.

First, let me talk about MediSave. I would like to propose that we think once again and hard about further liberalising the use of MediSave in a bolder and more decisive manner. Over the years, I and many others within this House have called for the liberalisation of MediSave use, in particular for outpatient treatments. The Ministry of Health (MOH) has certainly done very much in this regard, by introducing and expanding many schemes such as the Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP) and, more recently, the Flexi-MediSave Programme. They have also allowed greater use of MediSave for medical scans, and so on. These measures are effective but can be complex and, at times, may be too restrictive. The concern, of course, and it is something we all appreciate, is that too loose a policy on MediSave withdrawals could lead to an earlier depletion of our accounts, leaving nothing for us to rely on in later years when medical needs and expenses could be greater.

However, I am not sure that this worry is always necessarily well founded. If you look at the statistics over the past few years, the mean MediSave account balances among Singaporeans have been increasing steadily, and a significant number do pass on with remaining balances of fairly appreciable amount in their accounts.

For some Singaporeans with multiple chronic diseases or whose illnesses cannot be adequately controlled by medicines on the Standard Medication list, the out-of-pocket cash outlay for medical treatment, even at polyclinics and with Pioneer Generation (PG) benefits, can still remain quite high due to the current utilisation limits on MediSave. I would like to propose that Singaporeans who are above the retirement age be allowed to pay for a greater amount of their subsidised outpatient treatment costs at Government clinics using their MediSave. Perhaps, as a start, up to 80% of the expenses, and this can be adjusted as needs arise. This should be subject to a doctor's certification.

Such a move would not change matters for the majority of elderly patients, for whom the current chronic disease withdrawal limit of $400 and the Flexi MediSave limit of $200 would already more than adequately covered 80% of their annual outpatient treatment costs. But it could make a meaningful difference to the elderly with multiple or less common conditions requiring more specialised and expensive medications, or who require more medical investigations to better manage their conditions.

Presently, for a patient who has exceeded his MediSave claims limits and who finds it challenging to pay the remainder in cash, he or she has a few options. One, he can appeal to the Ministry to withdraw more from his MediSave. Two, he can apply to the Medication Assistance Fund and other welfare schemes. Or three, he or she could just simply choose to forego treatment or to forgo some of the treatment in excess of what he is willing to pay for in cash. Allowing for greater MediSave withdrawal in these cases can help a patient avoid trying the welfare route, which ultimately adds to public expenditures, and also encourage compliance with treatment.

If the patient follows on with treatment, then the future consequences of his condition, if left improperly managed or sub-optimally managed, would be less and the eventual costs to both the patient and society would ultimately be lower.

I am of the opinion that further loosening of the MediSave purse strings would not lead to over-servicing or over-consumption. I would like to remark that we are talking about patients here who are adhering to treatment protocols that a public service doctor has deemed to be necessary and who has to certify that it is necessary without a cheaper alternative.

There also remains an element of co-payment. Our treatment management schemes have been strengthened over the past few years. For example, agencies such as the Agency for Care Effectiveness (ACE) are now putting in place guidelines about what constitutes effective treatment and what is not. The introduction of the PG package, for instance, a few years ago, with very generous benefits, has also not led to worrying levels of over-consumption or over-servicing within the public healthcare system thus far.

Second, I think it is just and right that the Government has been absorbing the GST charged to subsidised medical services in public healthcare institutions for many years now, at considerable cost to the Ministry. We are also trying, of course, to shift our model of care beyond the hospital and back to the community by strengthening our primary healthcare networks.

While the majority of hospital care is now provided for by public hospitals, the majority of Singaporeans still choose to visit their family doctors or general practitioners (GPs), rather than polyclinics, for their primary care needs. The CHAS and PG schemes have helped to deliver Government subsidies to our family doctors and have strengthened general practice through the reduction of market distortions due to larger subsidies received by polyclinic patients. I believe we can do even more in this field, or in this regard, and I would like to consider or for us to think about potentially exempting primary healthcare services from the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

This would be a major deviation from our GST framework, which favours a flat system with later reliefs or Government transfers. Philosophically, I realise this is a slippery slope, but in practical terms it would be very much in keeping with the intent of current policy that already absorbs GST from subsidised healthcare services. Removing this consumption tax from all primary healthcare services could nudge more patients back to family doctors or GPs for care, and encourage compliance with treatment and follow-up, by reducing costs. I wish to emphasise that this suggestion refers only to primary care services and not for hospital or other types of medical care. I also appreciate that, at present, most solo practices, for instance, are not GST-registered. But with the emergence of more group practices and with the increasing cost of healthcare, the number of healthcare providers that need to pay GST may increase in the future.

What constitutes a provider of primary healthcare services can be defined and licensed, and this is also an issue that can perhaps be addressed when we debate the Healthcare Services Act later this year. I appreciate that there will be issues with the implementation of such a scheme, but I certainly believe that it merits consideration.

Lastly, a little bit about insurance coverage. The introduction of MediShield Life, which provides universal health insurance or coverage for Singaporeans, marked a proud day for Singapore’s healthcare system, exemplifying the caring and inclusive society that President Mdm Halimah Yacob spoke of.

Although a hallmark of MediShield Life is that no one is excluded, including those with pre-existing conditions, like virtually all medical insurance systems, there remain some gaps. For instance, I would like to draw your attention to two areas. First, with regard to pregnancy-related complications; and, second, about conditions related to mental health. These are still not covered under MediShield Life when hospitalisation is required. I believe that we should consider expanding coverage to these conditions as well. We have been strongly encouraging parenthood and it would serve as greater assurance to would-be parents that the mother’s medical care can be covered in the uncommon instances of complications related to the pregnancy.

We have also been slowly but significantly expanding our support for mental health, even as the disease burden inches up within our community. I hope that when MediShield Life is reviewed, consideration can be given to expand coverage to some, if not all, mental health-related hospitalisations.

We have come a long way; we have passed 50 years successfully as an Independent nation, and we are now moving on to 200 years after the founding of Singapore. We now have a new generation of Singaporeans and Singaporean leaders that will steer us towards SG100. It is my hope that our healthcare system remains future-ready, and also friction-free where it counts. I support the Motion.

1.56 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President.

I was moved when the President reminded us that we are an exceptional country. Sometimes, some of us take our existence, rights and privileges for granted because we compare ourselves with other developed nations of the world. But as we all know, we do not have what they have – no hinterland, no natural resources, not even enough natural sources of water. Due to these insufficiencies, despite our stability, prosperity and progress, anxiety and insecurities about our future surface from time to time.

On quite a number of occasions, people I met asked me whether Singapore would be able to continue to survive and if a bright future would remain for our children. One person I met recently asked if Singapore would continue to do well in 20 years’ time. I think citizens all over the world ask themselves similar questions about their nations’ economic and political future, but not questions about their countries’ existence and survival. I do not think any of our ASEAN neighbours have any doubt that their countries will still be around for their future generations, regardless of political turmoil or economic crises.

My answer to the question about our existence is another question. What is our raison d'etre? There are many answers to this question, including our roles as a global transportation, commerce and financial hub. It all boils down to our usefulness and relevance to the world. Therefore, as long as we have value, our survival is guaranteed; and when we add value, we thrive. Every generation has to find its own raison d’etre.

Because we are so small and there are so few of us, literally, we have to work exceptionally well as a team. In all the best teams, leaders and team members are constantly communicating and updating one another to facilitate the necessary adjustments and corrections. We must keep channels of feedback open and continuously address the issues affecting our people. People have to be able to trust our leadership and Government which must remain honest, have integrity and be free from corruption.

Our leaders must exercise fiscal prudence and grow our Reserves, which is absolutely vital for our long-term survival and stability. We need to keep our currency stable and strong to counter imported inflation, so that we will have more levers with which to manage local inflation and cost of living.

Very importantly, the Government must ensure a fair and equitable system for all, which will assure Singaporeans and motivate everyone to put in his best effort. They will be able to see that there are multiple paths to success and unlimited opportunities. As long as they work hard, they can be assured of upward social mobility. Even better, the Government has put in place a framework to make guidance and assistance available to all, such as SkillsFuture and Adapt and Grow programmes. Perhaps the Government can look into providing such guidance and assistance services permanently to Singaporeans.

How do we resolve the inherent conflict between meritocracy, which rewards ability, skill and talent, and the resultant income inequality? It is through compassion and inclusiveness. A compassionate community which is inclusive of people from different strata will help to ensure our country’s stability and success.

Life is like a marathon. When one of ours trip and fall, we should stop to help him get up again so that we can continue the race together. It is important that our system has values, such as mutual support and cohesiveness. This is the essence of nationhood.

In the face of challenges posed by a disruptive innovative economy, we need to ensure that Singaporeans can manage such rapid advancements confidently and leverage upon them for our benefits and life improvement. We shall not be limited by our physical and ability constraints. The disadvantaged can also benefit from technological innovation and get elevated socially. Increasingly, in an integrated globalised economy, opportunities are no longer limited by borders.

The cost of living remains one of the key concerns among those I meet. Perhaps it would be good to reach out to every household in the low- and lower-middle income with guidance and assistance in addition to the GST vouchers. We have Pioneer Generation offices (PGOs) that did the good job to support those in the PGs. A similar approach could be considered to ensure that such households are assured of attention and assistance by the Government. The Government also needs to keep in tune with the younger generations and ensure that the polices are up to date that could be tailored to meet their aspirations as they are vital to our nation building.

We need to continue to strive for real income increase and guard against the rise in cost of living as the impact on the middle- and low-income groups may not be easily eliminated by redistribution through grants and subsidies. The lower income groups are not only affected financially but emotionally and psychologically as well, as they perceive escalating prices pushing items beyond their reach. We have to put in more effort to monitor the challenges faced by our lower-income and middle-income groups closely and policies are updated to ensure that their aspirations are within reach. Perhaps a new scheme or a Household Transformation Map – since we have the Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs), I think we can consider the Household Transformation Maps (HTMs) – in totality of all relevant programmes can be looked at by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) to reach out to all these families to assist and guide them to achieve their aspirations. This “upward mobility elevator” instead of “poverty elevator” would be a step forward in building a cohesive and progressive nation.

There are many good policies and schemes that benefit Singaporeans, for example, our Build-To-Order (BTO) flat prices are pegged against the average income of an income group, there are various housing grants, special employment credit, job credit and various Ministry of Manpower (MOM) schemes to help our workers. These should be continued. There could be further think-out-of-the-box approaches for existing policies, for example, to review the existing childcare grant to include parents who have left the workforce temporarily to look after their young children and to grandparents, nannies, or babysitters who help look after the grandchildren or children to support parents to increase the total fertility rate (TFR).

Our existing public housing policies have been successful and should be preserved. HDB shall remain the key developer of housing for 80% of our population. I urge prudence in changing the ratio as it serves Singaporeans well in racial and community harmony while meeting the aspirations and dreams of Singaporeans. HDB should or could challenge its present parameters and further expand the provision of flat types and facilities to meet the higher expectations of Singaporeans while retaining affordability and reach. For example, a new type of flats could perhaps be privately designed with condominium standard or the like but are built and managed by HDB and Town Councils without fences to encourage integration with the other HDB flats around.

Sir, I note that condominium Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) do not allow non-residents to share the facilities with the condominium residents, while HDB residents feel that it is also not fair for condominium residents to use their multi-purpose halls at HDB estates for private functions such as wakes. A fence has divided both worlds apart. It warrants a rethink of the potential impact on the efforts to build a cohesive and inclusive society and preventing widening social impact of income inequity. Sir, in Mandarin,

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Foreigners always attribute Singapore's success to the three characteristics of Singaporeans – "kiasi" (怕死), "kiasu" (怕输), "kiabo"（怕无）. These three characteristics have their pros and cons. They have generated the spirit of perseverance and the drive for progress of our people. However, they also created some problems at the same time. If they are not dealt with appropriately, they can also generate utilitarianism and make people profit-driven and indifferent towards each other. This will hinder our efforts to build an inclusive and united society.

I feel we need to redefine what success is. I agree that the Government should broaden the definition of success. Success should not be just about academic achievement and material comfort. It is about lifelong learning. We continue learning as long as we live. We should emphasise skills training, create opportunities for each Singaporean to fulfil his potential and achieve success, thereby building a prosperous society enjoyed by all.

Here, I would like to suggest that we further strengthen and broaden the Edusave Progress Award to encourage Singaporeans to improve themselves proactively by giving incentives to lifelong learners. Where there is a will, there is way. Even a small step counts. We should turn the three "K"s to three "B"s – “bo kiasi"（不怕死）, "bo kiasu" (不怕输), "bo kia jingzheng" (不怕竞争). In other words, not afraid of dying, not afraid of losing and not afraid of competition.

You may remember that during the five-kilometre run in the 2016 Olympics, an American and a New Zealand runner tripped but they helped each other to get up. During the 2017 UK Marathon, a runner, Swansea Harrier Matthew Rees, stopped to help another runner, David Wyeth, to complete the last segment of the run. Both athletes demonstrated great sportsmanship.

This is how we should build an inclusive, caring and prosperous society.

(In English): Sir, there are many challenges ahead of us with our rapidly ageing population, rising protectionism and the threat of terrorism, just to name a few. However, we are descendants of people who had created a miracle island and I am confident that we will be able to overcome these challenges and build a stronger Singapore for our future generations.

2.09 pm

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment and Water Resources and Health (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Sir, the President spoke eloquently of five thrusts for the Government moving into the future, one of which was to forge a caring and inclusive society, leaving no Singaporean behind.

Two approaches to achieve this are: first, tackling inequality by providing the right support to those who need it, such as in skills training and employment; and second, rolling out policies for the growing elderly population, such as helping older workers stay employed. I speak in support of this with special focus on older workers and, especially, baby boomers, and women at the workplace.

Let me first declare that I belong to the baby-boomer generation and am, therefore, happily classified as an elderly, plus I am a woman.

One barometer of an inclusive society is having an inclusive workplace. This means helping different groups of Singaporeans who are able and willing to work, to stay employed and find fulfilment, even as circumstances change. An inclusive workplace is not an automatic nor easy outcome. But there are concrete ways the Government and our partners can work towards in order to create and sustain it, such as being inclusive in helping mature workers and being inclusive in creating flexible work arrangements, which is especially helpful for women.

Indeed, these are precisely the outcomes that the Ministry of Health (MOH) is working towards, together with our healthcare institutions, for a diverse healthcare workforce, as we expect to increase our healthcare manpower by a further 9,000 between 2017 and 2019 to staff new and expanding facilities in our public healthcare and aged care settings.

We need to help our mature workers, including the baby boomers who are now entering the retirement phase of their lives, by keeping them active and connected to society. This way, they can age positively. While some seniors will want to retire to spend time with their grandchildren and hobbies, some will find purpose in continuing their current roles, and others may wish to take smaller, bite-size roles. Some mature workers are also in transition between careers and welcome opportunities in the care sector. We will need to cater to their different wants to keep them integrated in society while playing a meaningful role.

Mr Francis Tan of UOB recently pointed out that this year, 2018, is the first year in our history when the share of the population that is 65 years old and above will match that of those younger than 15 years old. Globally, the trend is also accelerating elsewhere. The World Economic Forum points out that by 2020, the global population of those over 60 years of age will reach one billion. By 2050, it is expected to reach two billion. This trend, combined with a general decline in birth rates, is leading to a situation where the world’s old will outnumber the young. This is not just a statistical quirk, but a demographic result of great significance.

The consequence of ageing is well documented. Oxford Economics and Haver Analytics posit that there will be sharp deceleration and, indeed, negative labour supply growth, and Singapore could be among the worst hit in terms of its impact on economic growth. However, in Singapore, as Minister Chan Chun Sing said on Monday, we should not let challenges define us. Instead, we should see ageing as an opportunity to do things differently, or as Mr Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, puts it, “Demographics is not destiny”.

The good news is that our healthy life expectancy is also increasing, with people staying healthier for longer, and there is also an opportunity to better leverage the abilities of those over 60, by adjusting workplace policies and redefining what “retirement” means.

Seizing opportunities arising from productive longevity is, therefore, crucial to Singapore’s success as a nation and it is a key priority. Extending working life and promoting senior entrepreneurship are increasingly perceived as economic drivers. Fostering both can enable older people to leverage their institutional knowledge, wisdom and insights to continue contributing positively to the community and economy.

For existing healthcare workers who wish to continue in their current roles, we facilitate their re-employment through strategies such as job re-design, training and re-employment facilitation workshops. Today, nine in 10 staff at retirement age are re-employed. The public healthcare sector raised the re-employment age for staff before legislation kicked in, from 65 to 67 since July 2016. In the case of nurses, who form the bulk of the healthcare workforce and where we most need manpower, we have also seen an increase in the number of nurses working past the retirement age. In 2017, over 1,400 retired nurses aged above 62 were working, compared to 1,200 in 2015, and 20% percent of them are working part-time. This flexibility supports older nurses so that they can continue to contribute at a pace that they are comfortable with.

Our public healthcare institutions have also implemented workplace initiatives such as elder-friendly features like placing a magnifying glass on medication carts, and larger fonts for signages. We are also automating some labour-intensive care activities such as lifting and transferring of patients using mobile hoists and bed transporters. This will reduce the strain on older workers and allow them to continue in their roles.

For those who wish to take on part-time or smaller, bite-sized roles, we have also been working with our partners to increase the number of micro-jobs. For example, several of our public hospitals have created Basic Care Assistant (BCA) positions, where locals with no prior healthcare experience are trained to provide care in areas such as feeding and patient transfer in the wards on a part-time basis.

For mature workers looking to switch careers, we provide multiple pathways and training to facilitate picking up of new skills to join us in our care transformation journey. In 2017, we supported about 150 mid-career locals through healthcare conversion programmes, such as the Professional Conversion Programmes (PCPs) and the Senior Management Associate Scheme (SMAS), to help individuals acquire skills and take on good jobs in healthcare in a variety of roles such as Nursing, Allied Health and Administration. And this is triple the number compared to three years ago.

We enhanced the PCP for nursing by providing employers with more funding to support the training of mid-career nurses. Earlier this year, MOH together with the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Workforce Singapore (WSG) also introduced a new degree-level PCP-Registered Nurses (PCP-RN) to attract more mid-career Singaporeans into the nursing profession.

This PCP will complement the current PCP-RN diploma programme at Nanyang Polytechnic and provide an additional pathway for mid-career conversion into nursing. The course commences in July this year, with an estimated inaugural cohort of about 40 mid-career trainees.

We are also working with WSG and e2i on programmes to facilitate employment and transition of mature workers, especially professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) who may be displaced due to restructuring in other industries, into suitable roles in the healthcare sector.

Older workers as a segment of the workforce do not represent a monolithic group. They are of differing ages, educational backgrounds and circumstances. While some work simply because they want to remain gainfully employed, others, like Minister Ng Chee Meng said yesterday, need to work as they have expenses, mortgages and dependents relying on them. Hence, I support Minister Ng's idea of forming a new Tripartite Committee to take a closer and perhaps more granular look at ways to support mature workers to continue working if they choose to.

Secondly, we must step up flexible work arrangements to cater to Singaporeans with different needs, especially women. Singaporeans in different life segments and at different life stages have varying needs in their careers. Those starting a family or looking after their elderly parents or grandchildren may be looking to balance their work with family commitments.

Many women ask for this support in flexible work arrangements (FWAs) and actually the men too. Adopting FWAs will help us better cater to the needs of our healthcare workforce at different life stages, and retain them in the workforce, especially our women and older workers, for a win-win. For instance, we have piloted FWAs for nurses, who are the largest staff group in the public healthcare sector. We have engaged nurses, and we know that this is important for many of them. Today, more than 100 wards across the public healthcare institutions have adopted FWAs for nurses, in the form of more flexible shift work hours. This helps them to avoid the binary option of either being employed or unemployed.

To further scale up FWA adoption for nurses, the public healthcare institutions will progressively move to electronic rostering, or e-rostering, starting from the second half of 2018. This shift will help to support nurse managers in managing more complex shift rostering of staff and empower them to support FWAs in a bigger way.

Globally, gender pay gap persists, including in Singapore, although we rank relatively well even among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, ahead of countries like Australia and the UK. A reason often attributed to this pay gap is men's greater share of senior jobs as more women drop out of the workforce due to family care-giving duties.

An article in The Economist noted that men’s and women's salaries start diverging from the child-bearing years. This "motherhood penalty" is often followed by a "good daughter penalty" when elderly parents require care and daughters often prove more conscientious than sons. So, here, I am tempted to note that the men just do not get it! Quoting figures from the UK's Office of National Statistics, the median pay gap is only 2% among full-time workers in their 30s yet jumps to 14% in their 40s and 16% in their 50s.

As our population ages, a so called "caring economy" is emerging. The need to provide care to the elderly can have a significant impact on the workforce. Working caregivers must often take time off or leave the workforce altogether.

As The Economist article highlights, the "caring economy" disproportionately affects women because they make up the majority of caregivers, which also negatively impacts gender parity. FWAs, such as flexi work hours, work from home arrangements, or part-time work would better allow caregivers to remain in the workforce. Besides providing funding support and the Tripartite Standard on FWAs, moving forward, we could, adopting a tripartite approach and help companies who may not have the know-how to implement FWAs to do so.

Over the years, we have been increasing support for caregivers, such as expanding day care and home care capacity, providing caregiver training grant and training, respite care and elder sitter service for dementia patients. Nonetheless, as our population ages and caregiving needs increase, we must look at more ways to better support caregivers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we have made some progress, but we must press on in creating and sustaining an inclusive workplace, so that work opportunities are maximised for everyone who are able and willing to work; and that no Singaporean, young or old, woman or man, is left behind. Policymakers can continue to roll out initiatives to foster and support such an environment but creating a truly inclusive workplace would require individuals and companies – shareholder, management and staff – changing within themselves in terms of mindsets and prejudices and changing their corporate culture. Sir, with this I support the Motion.

2.24 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of the key priorities the President set in her maiden Address was for Singaporeans to live in a fair and just society based on meritocracy, and at the same time, to strive to leave no one behind. This aspiration of building an inclusive society is a familiar reframe in this Chamber. At each change of leadership or milestone in our political calendar, it is prudent for this Government to take stock of the well-being of Singaporeans from all strata of society to ensure no one gets left behind.

But beyond such periodic refrain, I certainly welcome the challenge put forth by the President for this Government to go for both changes this time and not to contend with marginal tweaks in the next phase of our nationhood. While we can choose to live in awe and respect of what our pioneer generation had achieved, we certainly should not be tempted to dwell in the shadows of the past just to avoid rocking the boat. We also should not be tempted to just apply a patchwork of measures to fix any system that is out of sync with the changing times, in the hope that some of the problems will go away. The lack of resolve to look into certain problems from a fresh angle can have serious consequences because lives are impacted by policies and we cannot turn back time.

Sir, the call by the President for the new leadership to tackle inequality vigorously is a timely reminder for a rapidly changing world.

Mr Speaker, despite the tension rhetoric and measure given to address the issue of building an inclusive society, a new study released by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) on social capital in Singapore late last year seems to indicate that class divide has descended on our society. It was reported in the news that one of the researchers of the study said Singapore has shifted from a society based on race to one that is based on class as well. We just heard from the Minister yesterday that social stratification is fast becoming entrenched here.

Although this Government has acknowledged its concern over the lack of diversity in our schools and housing estates, it is somewhat not as alarmed by the finding as explained by Minister Grace Fu early this year. Nevertheless, we can certainly agree that if this class divide is left unchecked, our aspiration of building a nation undivided by race, language or religion would be tinted by the ugly reality of class-based society.

The lack of our diversity in our school is one issue we need to address to tackle the problem of social inequality. This is important because this Government views education as a key pillar of social mobility and I do support that wholeheartedly.

Long before the release of the IPS study on this issue, the principle of Raffles Institution in 2015, proclaimed that the school has become a middle-class school, catering largely to affluent families and was no longer truly representative of Singapore. He said, and I quote, "A long period of conditioning means that we often fail to see elitism even when it is staring at us in the face."

Although what he said then was not something new, such frank admission by an insider from one of the oldest schools in Singapore is certainly noteworthy. But what struck me most in that speech was the challenge he put forth. He went on to say, "What really matters more now is what we do with this reality and knowledge." So, how can we address this inequality and the lack of diversity in our schools to prevent a class divide from taking root in our society?

From the Addendum to the President's Address, the Ministry of Education (MOE) intends to tackle the inequality in our education system by setting up more MOE Kindergartens to improve quality, affordability and accessibility in the preschool sector. The Ministry also wants to build more school-based student care centres to cater to the holistic needs of students especially those from disadvantaged families.

MOE also intends to tackle the lack of diversity in our schools by reserving more places for students with no affiliation priority for admission into affiliated secondary schools. It also wishes to actively promote interaction amongst students of all backgrounds through applied learning, co-curricular activities (CCAs) and Outward Bound School camps.

Sir, for a long while already, parents who can afford it will not depend solely on the national school system to prep their children for education, the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) or the Gifted Education Programme (GEP). They will send their children to expensive tuition and enrichment classes and there is no shortage of firm believers in such classes to deliver the high T-score and distinction for their children. This will perpetuate the message that if you have the money, your child will stand a better chance of getting good grades. The lack of diversity in our schools will only grow.

As for the proposed initiative to promote interaction amongst students of all backgrounds, I must say those interactions are rather fleeting in nature and are confined to small groups of students each time. Such interactions, I am afraid, are rather piecemeal in nature and they will not even put a dent on the class divide issue.

Does MOE know how many students in GEP have undergone test preparation even though MOE has stated in its website that parents should not enrol their children for such activities? MOE says such GEP preparation activities could inflate pupils' scores and not reflect their actual potential. Such acknowledgment by MOE offers simple proof or ample proof that parents can give their children a headstart if they can afford it. What will the profile of GEP and Special Assistance Plan (SAP) students tell us about race and income then? Does MOE know whether students from elite schools are spending more time on tuition and enrichment then their counterparts from the neighbourhood schools? Does MOE know whether the tuition culture here had a hand in helping our students achieve the impressive test results in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 chart that was presented in this Chamber yesterday?

I am sure MOE would agree and knowing this number is important. Any measure formulated to address social inequality or lack of diversity in our schools must take into consideration the entire education ecosystem. Without this information, any formulated measure would be, as in the words of the President, "tweaking things at the margin".

Two years ago, in the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in 2016, I said that all schools are created not equal because the funding per school is different to begin with. Based on per capita funding per student, popular schools with a large student enrolment will always have more funds by default, whilst shrinking neighbourhood schools will always struggle to find money to run extra enrichment programmes. It is also a known fact that popular schools will have less problems raising additional funds from their well-connected alumni, while neighbourhood schools will struggle in this area. Does the Minister not agree that it makes a world of difference when smaller neighbourhood schools are resourced with the same amount of funding as the popular schools? Is the Minister willing to do something bold in the area of equitable funding for all schools?

In the same COS debate, I also proposed a fundamental change to the Secondary 1 posting exercise to address the lack of diversity in our popular schools. I shall not repeat the details here, but in a nutshell, I propose that students finishing in the top tier of their primary schools based on PSLE results be given direct admission to a secondary school of their choice. This move will ensure a good mix and spread of students from all spectrum of primary schools going into the popular secondary schools. This will definitely introduce diversity into the so-called elite schools. This will also prevent elitism from entrenching itself in any of the popular schools.

For parents who want their children to attend a popular secondary school, every primary school is now a good school to start the journey.

Some may question that this is not meritocratic. I beg to differ, because these students, even if their T-scores are lower than the cut-off points for the popular secondary schools are high achievers in their own rights. They have certainly earned their place with direct admission into a school of their choice by finishing top in their respective primary schools. The proposal is still based on meritocracy but at the local level.

Meritocracy is never a fair game. If you have the resources, the money, the proper nutrition, the proper training, the proper technique, you will stand a better chance of coming top in whatever you do. Can we honestly say every student is starting from the same base because every school is a good school, so may the best student win?

Sir, our future lies in the hands of our children. What we want them to learn and experience in school now will determine what the future holds for the next generation. We can either teach them about the importance of equality and diversity or let them live it and experience it first-hand in the fair and just society that leaves no behind as set out by the President.

The late Encik Yusof Ishak in his first President's Address to a newly elected Parliament in 1968 outlined three objectives to achieve for Singapore. The first two objectives were to build an effective defence capability and to achieve greater economic growth. These two objectives were to be brought up time and again, in one form or another, by subsequent Presidents, and for good reasons. We live in a world that is constantly changing and evolving. These objectives will need to move with the times.

The third point highlighted by Encik Yusof was about the need to enhance our national consciousness of the problems that will beseech a young nation in time to come. Specifically, he said Singaporeans must learn to place national interest above personal or sectional interests.

Now that we are conscious of the issue of social inequality in society that is gravitating to a class divide, what more can we do with this reality and knowledge? The Minister has stated yesterday that we all have an unfinished business in tackling inequality. And I welcome his commitment that this Government will continue to improve its policy and not to stop at the proposed measures.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 2.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 2.35 pm until 2.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 2.55 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.

The President’s speech marks the formal opening of the Parliament session. The speech itself describes the Government’s agenda for the rest of the term. The Addenda to the speech then lay out the specific programmes of each Ministry. This is a tradition we inherited from the UK, where the Queen delivers a speech drafted by the elected Government – although it is called the Queen's Speech – and the speech highlights the Government’s legislative programme.

However, our President’s speech this year is slightly different. It sets out not only the programme for the current term, but also longer-term priorities beyond this term of Government. The speech took this approach because Parliament is re-opening at a special moment in our history.

The world situation is very uncertain. The global order, which is based on openness, globalisation and free trade, has come under great pressure. Relations between the big powers – especially the United States (US) and China, and also the US and Russia – are under stress. It is not clear whether the institutions and international rules that have underpinned world peace and security for the last few decades will change. And if they change, there will be significant long-term implications for Singapore.

Singapore too is at a turning point. We are opening a new chapter after SG50. It will be a new phase of our social and economic development. We have the responsibility, and the privilege, of reimagining and rebuilding Singapore over the next 50 years and more. We are also going through a significant generational change. A new generation born long after Independence is coming to the fore, with different views and aspirations. We are also in the midst of a political transition, with the fourth generation (4G) Ministers preparing to take over within the next few years.

Therefore, it is timely for the Government to set out a broader vision, a longer-term agenda in the President's speech.

I asked the 4G Ministers to draft the President’s speech, because they would have to carry out this agenda, continuing beyond my time as Prime Minister. I gave my inputs and I endorsed what they produced, because as a Prime Minister, I am still ultimately responsible for the Government's agenda. But my main role is to be supportive, to help the 4G Ministers present and implement the agenda, and to see through as much of it as possible while I am a Prime Minister.

Today, I will speak about five aspects of the President's Speech. First, coping with the external changes; next, growing our economy; third, ensuring social mobility; fourth, maintaining social cohesion; and finally, ensuring good politics and leadership.

Let me start with the external environment. Globalisation, which has delivered growth and stability for many countries, including Singapore, has come under pressure. Countries, particularly in the West, are questioning the benefits of openness and free trade, and of the free movement of people. The US has been, thus far, the champion and sponsor of the post-war international system. They promoted free trade. They opened their own doors to immigrants. They were generous to others, sharing technology and know-how. They spent blood and treasure to maintain global peace. They believed that all these was in their own "enlightened self-interest".

But now, many Americans no longer believe this, including the Trump Administration. They feel that other countries are benefiting more from the global system, and benefiting at the expense of the US. They want to make sure that the US will always benefit directly – item by item, country by country, and not just generally, from upholding a system which is good for everybody and therefore indirectly good for the US.

So, the US has made trade a top issue, especially trade with China. The trade tensions between US and China hurt business, but more broadly, their unilateral and tit-for-tat actions undermine the multilateral trading system. In other words, it is not just the two participants who are affected or the amount of, whether it is steel or aluminium or soya beans or cars which is not exported and which cannot be traded, but the whole multilateral system, the system of rules which ensures that countries big and small, have played on a level-playing field have their place in the sun and can contribute to and benefit from this international network of cooperation. And it is a system which we have depended upon in Singapore. Therefore, the trade tensions threaten global prosperity, especially for smaller countries like Singapore.

The trade disputes can also affect the overall relations between the powers. The US and China are jockeying for position and advantage. The US is still stronger, especially militarily, but China is growing in power, influence and confidence. Increasingly, the US has to accommodate China. And if there is mutual distrust and rivalry between the two, it is but a small step from a trade disagreement to a wider and more serious quarrel.

The US and China are far from going to war with each other, but it is not clear which way their relations will tilt. If they tilt towards more conflict, it will be bad not only for the two powers, but for the rest of the world as well. That is obvious. But if relations tilt to the other extreme, and the two powers agree to divide up the world between them, and set rules that only benefit them, that would be just as detrimental, especially for small countries which will have no say.

As a small and open country, Singapore will always be vulnerable to what happens around us. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew used to say, "When elephants fight, the grass suffers, but when they make love, the grass suffers also". Therefore, we must be aware of what is happening around us, and prepare ourselves for changes and surprises.

Close to home, Malaysia saw a historic change last week, in its General Election. Pakatan Harapan, led by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed, now forms the government. For the first time ever, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-led Barisan Nasional (BN) lost power. This is a momentous development. As Malaysia's closest neighbour, we need to pay close attention to our relationship with them. The two countries have deep historical, economic and people-to-people ties. We hope Malaysia is stable and prosperous. We have enjoyed good relations with Malaysia under the former Prime Minister Najib Razak and cooperated on major projects that benefit both sides.

We have also worked with Dr Mahathir and several of his team before. We completed joint projects with Malaysia when Dr Mahathir was last the Prime Minister, including building the Second Link at Tuas. And I also know Mr Anwar Ibrahim well because he was my counterpart when I was Deputy Prime Minister. The expectations of the new Malaysian government are very high, and I think Dr Mahathir will be very busy in the days to come. But I plan to visit Malaysia on Saturday to meet Dr Mahathir and to tell him that I look forward to working with him again for mutual benefit.

Indonesia is having elections too – local elections this year and national elections the next. I have good working relations with President Jokowi, as I did with President Yudhoyono before. I hope we can maintain friendly and productive ties with Indonesia too. Regardless of political cycles or election outcomes, we will work hard on relations with our two neighbours. Their success makes for a more peaceful and prosperous region, and that is good for us.

In the President's speech, she spoke about how Singapore must remain a nation of opportunities. This, to me, is the heart of our nation-building journey. Our forefathers came to this land, because they sought better lives for themselves and their families. When Independence was thrust upon us and the odds were stacked against us, our pioneer generation dug in and slogged to build a nation. Their children and grandchildren took up the torch after them, and improved Singapore year by year. This sense of opportunity, of possibility and hope is the spark that has inspired generations of Singaporeans to dream big, and to work hard to realise those dreams. We must always sustain this confidence that we can build a better life for ourselves and future generations of Singaporeans, that we can make tomorrow better than today.

Nationally, this means growing our economy, creating new possibilities and expanding our horizons. Individually, it means improving the life of every Singaporean, in a fair, open and a cohesive society.

One of the top priorities of the Government is therefore to keep the economy growing. We are in a strong position today, because our economy has grown steadily for the past 50 years and more. We have enjoyed high growth for much of this half century – even from time to time exceeding 10% per annum. Since Independence in 1965, our GDP has grown more than 40 times in real terms. Today, our per capita income is higher than Japan's. We can see it in all our lives. Now that we have become more developed, our growth forecast is moderated to 2% to 4%. This has made some people anxious. They worry that their children will not have better lives than they themselves do today. But let me put the numbers in perspective.

First, 2% to 4% is in fact quite good for a mature economy. South Korea and Taiwan are growing around this rate too. Japan is growing even slower. Second, 2%-4% is just an estimate, based on our current stage of economic development. It is not the limit to our efforts or to our ambitions. Individual companies and individual industries can certainly do better, especially if they come up with a more innovative product or if they expand into new markets, till virgin ground. We are pushing ahead with our economic upgrade. We can see the opportunities. The only question is whether we can seize them. Take, for example, the digital economy. A lot is happening around us. In Indonesia, in Jakarta, the tech scene is vibrant, buzzing with energy and talent. And Indonesia has produced four unicorns. Unicorns are not animals. They are companies which have become worth more than $1 billion; and Indonesia has four of them – Gojek, Traveloka, Bukalapak and Tokopedia.

Vietnam, Thailand and Malaysia have lively tech sectors too. So, if we can build up our own tech sector while connecting with theirs, we will prosper together. We are making good progress also, developing frontier technologies in artificial intelligence (AI), fintech and in advanced manufacturing. We have attracted leading AI researchers and companies to Singapore. The Nanyang Technological University (NTU) has built a reputation as a leading centre in AI. The Alibaba Group recently opened a research institute on AI together with NTU, which is its first outside research institute outside China.

When I visited Beijing recently, I went to see Didi Chuxing. It is the equivalent of Grab or Uber. And I met some NTU graduates there. And the Didi Chief Technology Officer (CTO), Bob Zhang, told me the graduates were doing very well. So, our people are well prepared. In fintech, MAS has developed Singapore to become a fintech hub, just within the last two to three years – the right rules and the right encouragement, the right openness, the right light touch and the flower blossoms. They have green fingers. More than 400 fintech firms are now based here and so are over 30 innovation labs and research centres set up by multinational corporations (MNCs).

In advanced manufacturing, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) is collaborating with multi-nationals, with local companies and universities to develop new technologies in aerospace and precision engineering. For example, we have a Joint Laboratory with Rolls Royce and Singapore Aero Engine Services that was opened last year. These projects will create good manufacturing jobs, and SMEs will benefit and so will workers, because through these research collaborations, they will get access to the new technologies. So, there are many possibilities for us to grow our economy and to reinvent and redevelop Singapore.

But growth alone is not enough. Individual Singaporeans must see progress in their lives, must feel that the future is bright and must know that each one of us has our stake in it. This means sharing growth widely and equitably to improve the lives of all Singaporeans. It also means fully maximising the talents and efforts of our people, and getting the most capable and reliable people into the most consequential jobs where they can make the most difference and the greatest contribution. In other words, making sure there is social mobility so that our meritocracy continues to work.

How do we know if our meritocracy is working? Well, first of all, every child must have a good start in life, regardless of which family you were born into.

Secondly, every talent has to be recognised and developed to the fullest.

Thirdly, every opportunity has to be open to anyone with the right attitude and ability. And finally, a capable person must face minimal social impediments, minimal social impediments to be accepted, to contribute and to be in a position to lead in society.

And in the long term, this last part – keeping the social impediments down – is the most difficult to sustain.

We want Singapore society to maintain an informal and egalitarian tone, where people interact freely and comfortably as equals, and there are no rigid class distinctions or barriers that keep good people down. This is important but it is beyond the Government’s ability to bring about alone. Society itself has to be open and permeable. Each one of us must carry those attitudes, values, and norms, that willingness to welcome talent and welcome ability to keep the system the way it is.

Any society which has been stable for a long time tends to stratify and it becomes less socially mobile. For example, the UK and India have long entrenched hierarchies and very fixed notions of class and or, in India, caste, which they have found very difficult to overcome.

Singapore is still a young country of 50 years and notions of class and hierarchy have not yet calcified. Our social cues, our markers, our norms – they are still evolving, and we do not want them to evolve in a wrong direction and contribute to class divisions and rigidities.

Social cues are important because they can become ways to pigeonhole or to exclude others, knowingly or unknowingly. In Britain, your accent and the way you speak, can define your status in society. Do you have a posh private school accent? Do you speak like a professional who has been to Oxbridge? Do you speak as a working-class person, with a local accent, regional accent? Do you speak with a Cockney twang? Then, you know you come from a certain part of London, and you are a certain class of person, not very high up the totem pole.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him". It is a pun. It pigeonholes him into his social class, you listen to him, you know, do you respect him, do you look down on him, do you give him orders or do you say "Yes, Sir?" And he went on to say "absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks, he makes some other Englishman despise him”.

And it is true, if you do not have an upper-class accent, you are marked down straightaway. And that is why Singapore schools put emphasis on teaching students to speak good English. Otherwise, those children whose parents already speak good English at home will be fine, but others will grow up at a permanent disadvantage. And without everyone being proficient, speaking standard English, Singlish will become a class marker. In other words, if you cannot speak proper English, well, you are down there. If you can speak proper English, the doors open for you. And I think this would close the doors on many from less privileged families. And that is why the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) continues to have campaigns to teach people to speak proper English.

There are other social markers that can signal and entrench class differences. Members may recall the recent fuss over an unauthorised secondary school Social Studies guidebook. It contained a table that had sweeping generalisations about people in Singapore from high and low socioeconomic status (SES).

For instance, those from supposedly low SES speak Singlish, play soccer or basketball and eat at hawker centres, while those from high SES speak formal English, play golf or tennis, and only eat at fine restaurants. The story went viral. Many Singaporeans were appalled, and rightly so. Luckily, it was not a guidebook approved by MOE.

Lifestyle choices can indeed become separators in society, distinguishing marks. What you eat, how you dress, where you go for holidays, what games you play, what clubs you belong to. In every society, people have ways to show who is in and who is out. You take one look at a person, or you listen to him just for a moment and you can already place him. There are distinctions in Singapore society too.

But the general tone in Singapore is one of restraint. If you wear a chunky gold watch and dress flashily, instead of being impressed, people may think you are a loan shark! And that is as it should be. We must discourage people from flaunting their social advantages. We should frown upon those who go for ostentatious displays of wealth and status, or worse, look down on others less well-off or privileged. We should emphasise our commonalities, not accentuate our differences. And so, you see, if you look around the Chamber, everybody informally dressed, discussing serious matters of state. In any other Parliamentary chamber, in this part of the world or anywhere in the world, we will be togged up in our Sunday best, just to show that we are somebody in society. But that is not the Singapore way.

There is a further obstacle to social mobility – elite groups who become closed circles, preventing outsiders from getting in. Every society has its elite. They occupy the key leadership positions in society – in government, in academia, in business, in professions, in politics. Members of the elite share similar backgrounds, interests, and social spaces. They may be alumni of the same schools, they may have done business with one another, or they may have worked in the same professions. They know one another and have interacted with one another in different roles over long periods through their lives.

Such networks are natural structures in society. They are useful for people to know one another, to get things done informally, to share an implicit understanding of the interests of their society, and to feel a collective sense of responsibility for the society. Such networks are an important part of our social capital. But social networks must always remain open and permeable. They must not close up, they must not form glass ceilings. It must not be difficult or impossible for others with talent or ability, but lacking the right backgrounds and connections, to be welcomed into the elite group, to rise to the top, to take their rightful place and make their full contribution.

If this happened, not only would social mobility be frustrated, but soon, the elite group would start to only look after its own interests and fail in their duty to lead and care for the rest of society. And that would be disastrous for Singapore. Let me share something which Ong Ye Kung told me recently.

Raffles Institution (RI) is one of our most popular schools. I did not go to RI, but I can tell you it is a good school. It has a strong tradition of accepting students from diverse backgrounds, so long as they make the cut. But over the years, RI has become less diverse. The new RI principal has been putting in effort, speaking to parents of potential students in primary schools across Singapore, to encourage them to apply to RI. To his surprise, some of the parents told him they did not want to send their child there. Why? Not because they thought their child could not keep up with the academic demands, but because they feared he would not be able to fit in with other more well-off students.

Actually, I think this fear is unfounded. Because, in reality, RI students do come from varied backgrounds. And just over half the students live in public housing, 53%. And all the students get along confidently and comfortably. And bursaries and scholarships are readily available. So, no parent needs to worry that he cannot afford to send his child to RI or that his child will feel out of place.

But if such a perception exists and discourages promising students from applying to the school, it is not good for RI, it is not good for Singapore. RI knows what it has to do in order to uphold its egalitarian tradition. MOE will work with them, and other popular schools too, so that these schools never become self-perpetuating, closed circles.

Government policies and programmes must, and do, support social mobility and meritocracy. We make sure that the fundamentals are done well – quality education, home ownership and affordable healthcare, which improve the life of every Singaporean. We give everyone a good education, and now we are investing heavily in preschool, to give all Singaporean kids and in fact, almost babies as well, a good start in life. We have a strong social safety net, with targeted assistance schemes, so that those with difficulties are not left behind and forgotten. And we intervene with extra help – whether in education, housing, healthcare or jobs training – for those who need it, to enable them to take full advantage of the opportunities. Above all, our education system must stay open.

We have set aside places in primary schools for children without affiliation to these schools, and we will do more if necessary. We are expanding opportunities for students from different schools to interact, through sports, community activities and the Outward Bound School.

Last year, I visited Outward Bound School for their 50th anniversary celebrations. I had attended the course 50 years ago. I chatted with Nicholas Conceicao, who is the Executive Director of OBS. And I told him that when I went to OBS 50 years ago as a 15-year-old, they only took in two students per secondary school. So, in a group of 130-odd, there were people from 50 to 60 different schools, different language streams and very different social backgrounds. And we all had to get together because they had us mixed up properly. We went through the course together, we became good friends, and came away understanding the diversity of our society better, and how we could all work together. Because for 17 days, at that impressionable age, it is an intense experience. You are put through physical stress, you are emotionally put to your limits, you have to work with others, there is very little that you can do alone. And if you do not make friends, you are miserable. And you have to make friends across boundaries.

So, I recounted this and Nicholas told me that today, well, because of the larger numbers, they cannot take in students from 60 or 70 schools at a time, but they take in students from two to three schools at a time. And nowadays, the students all speak English, but still, he finds clear differences in the cultures and interests of the students from the different schools and even in the way they use language. So, it is all speaking English, but different interests, different vocabulary, really different world perspectives, almost.

At OBS, the students still learn to work in teams. So, when they pitch a tent or build a raft, or safely belay someone on an obstacle course, they must work closely with teammates; you cannot do it alone. And so, the students learn to bridge their differences and to trust one another.

After 50 years, OBS remains a valuable opportunity for students to mix and interact across different schools and social groups. And we will do more of this, so we are building an extension of OBS on Coney Island. When that opens, even more students will benefit from this experience.

We are doing many things to improve social mobility, but I have to be honest with you – there are no easy solutions. Many societies have faced this problem. Many ideas have been proposed and tried out. Political philosophers, statesmen, all powerful human minds have been brought to bear to try to deal with this conundrum of how to keep the society spry, open, stable and there have been no magic bullets. There have been varying degrees of success. And the most successful models perhaps are the Scandinavian countries, but even they have seen widening social inequality in recent times.

We have to understand that this is what they call a wicked problem. It is a problem with no easy solution, which we will discuss rightly, repeatedly in this House through the years.

Our strategy in Singapore has been more successful than most. With universal education, with home ownership, with the Government’s determination to widen opportunities and make the most of every citizen, we have made meritocracy work in Singapore. And now that our society is more settled, we must work harder to keep the pathways open and to level people up.

The Government is not ideological. We are pragmatic. We will try anything that works. We will learn from our own experience and the experience of others. But we must also be realistic. Spot what looks promising, but please also recognise what will not work. Some people have suggested, I read in the newspapers, a Universal Basic Income, which is a neat idea; so far, unproven anywhere in the world. The Finns tried it and aborted the experiment early. It did not work for them.

Others want to abolish the PSLE. That is in fact very hard to do. Educators have very different views, and even parents have very different views; whether it is PSLE, it will be better off without the PSLE. But we are taking the first steps to change the status quo, by doing away with T-scores. And if anyone can come up with a better alternative, certainly, we will consider it.

In the end, the Government must focus on practical, effective policies. As a society, we must uphold clear social norms that minimise social barriers and encourage mobility, so as to keep our meritocratic system working well for all Singaporeans.

Meritocracy is about individuals having opportunities and being successful. But we must also be successful together, as one people, one society and one nation. Not just successful alone, but successful together. And that is what social cohesion is about. We must feel a sense of social responsibility and concern for our fellow citizens, without which our society cannot hold together.

What holds us together is not our pink NRICs, but the shared experiences that we build together over time. We grow up together in national schools, and we are comfortable around each other, regardless of our family backgrounds. We go through National Service, building brotherhood and camaraderie when we march and fight together. We eat at hawker centres, regardless whether we are rich and poor. So, the guidebook is wrong.

We live in HDB estates. We learn the habits and preferences of different races and religions and we help neighbours out when they are in need. We travel together on public transport. And unlike in some other countries, there is no social stigma to living in public housing or taking the bus or the train. We celebrate our successes together, such as SG50 recently, and every National Day. And when crises hit, we go through them side by side.

We have made much progress in our nation-building. We are now much more cohesive than 50 years ago, when we did not live in integrated HDB estates, townships nor did we do National Service together. Or even 20 years ago, before the 9/11 and before SARS.

But nation-building will always be a work in progress, because the forces that pull Singaporeans in different directions never go away. Race, language and religion are enduring fault lines. From the start, we knew that they could divide and destroy us. Today, though our social cohesion has grown stronger, but these tidal pulls have grown stronger too.

Take, for example, the influence of China and India on our own ethnic groups on Chinese Singaporeans and Indian Singaporeans. These are two vast nations, even civilisations that are growing in strength and confidence. It will be a very long time before we become immune to their ethnic, cultural or economic pulls.

Furthermore, the relationship is complicated, because on the one hand, we want to maintain our separate identity as a multiracial, sovereign country but, on the other hand, we want to say we speak Mandarin, we have overseas Indians, we have ethnic links, we have cultural ties, we have an inside track. So, between the two, there is a tension and we have to keep that balance and maintain our position, and our cohesion.

Likewise, with the Malays. Over time, a Singaporean Malay identity has emerged clearly but still, it overlaps with the Malays in Malaysia, both in terms of race as well as religion. And the call for a global "ummah" – a community of the Muslims around the world – has powerful appeal. Furthermore, we are exposed in this Internet age to extremist and exclusivist teachings. These can lead individuals astray. And if there is a terrorist attack, it will cause great fear and distrust between Muslims and other Singaporeans.

Beyond race, language and religion, we must work at building bridges between different groups in society. Traditionally, when we talk about social cohesion, we think of race, language and religion. But if you look at it in other dimensions, there are other gradients, other possible fault lines, other ways where we have to strengthen our social cohesion and become closer together. One of them is between unions and management. Another one is between old citizens and new.

The Labour Movement is one institution vital to our social cohesion. Because of the tripartite partnership, labour management relations are a source of strength for us, unlike in many other countries where unions and managements are bitterly opposed.

Whereas in Singapore, labour harmony is secured with the help of a strong National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), as we sing at every May Day Rally, slightly out of tune.

But in the new economy, fewer workers are doing jobs traditionally covered by the trade unions. Many more are freelancers and professionals. So, if these new groups are left out, and that union coverage shrinks as a result of the changing work force composition, and you have more people who are not represented, not taken care of, do not feel protected and look for other solutions, it would weaken tripartism and our social compact. So, it is better for the Labour Movement to embrace them, to adopt their concerns and to become more inclusive.

And that is what Mr Chan Chun Sing did in NTUC, widening the Labour Movement membership beyond trade unions, to include the NTUC U-Associates, the PMETs and freelancers. And now, Mr Ng Chee Meng in NTUC will carry on this work.

Another bridge we need to build is to our new citizens. Immigrants are part and parcel of our history and our identity. And if you look ahead, we need a steady flow of immigrants – not too many, not too few, just right – to top up our population. First generation immigrants into any country will always take time to settle down, to understand the nuances of the culture and character, and to progressively integrate into the society. And that is what happens in the past with previous waves of first-generation Singaporeans over the last 200 years and that is a necessary process which has to happen, as we continue to have an inflow of people to join us and become Singapore Citizens.

The new arrivals have chosen to make Singapore their home and they will contribute to our country, our society. They have to make every effort to mix and to interact with everyone else. For our part, we should welcome them, we should support them in their journey to become Singaporeans, as others have helped our forefathers and helped ourselves.

Therefore, there is much work to do to maintain our social cohesion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the challenges for the next generation of leaders. To continue to grow Singapore – reinventing our economy, creating new possibilities for the future. To ensure that Singapore is always a land of opportunity, a meritocratic, fair and just society. To hold Singaporeans together in one cohesive society.

Can the next generation of leaders build on our shared experiences of 50 years and maintain the sense of collective mission? Can they work to improve the lives of all Singaporeans and not the interests of narrow groups, so that they pass on an even stronger and more united Singapore? I think they can.

The 4G team is now in place. They are overseeing their own portfolios and projects, they are explaining their ideas to Singaporeans, they are implementing policies and making them work. Many of them joined in the last three GEs, from 2006 onward, so about over the last 12 years. I have also promoted promising backbenchers to become office holders, including in the recent reshuffle.

It is a strong team of able men and women, with a balanced combination of skills and strengths. They are gaining experience, they are willing to serve and, most importantly, their hearts are in the right place.

We need new leaders for each generation, from each generation. Because each generation has its own challenges to tackle and tough choices to make. The electorate will be different. The economic landscape will be different. The international order may well also be different.

Some hard truths will always remain for Singapore. But even old problems may need new solutions. We must be pragmatic and not ideological in our approach. Keep an open mind, and make decisions with both the head and the heart. Remember our history, but do not be trapped by it. That is why leadership renewal is crucial: new ideas, new bonds and new connections are needed with every new generation.

Last week, at the Opening of Parliament, I had a chance to chat with Mr Low Thia Khiang. Somebody snapped a picture of us and the Workers’ Party (WP) posted a smiling photo of two of us on their Facebook page. It was a nice picture. What were we talking about? I think Mr Low would not mind me sharing. I asked him – the WP is having a leadership transition too. What will change, now that the WP has a new leader? And he replied, “Nothing much. We the WP have our role. These things should not change suddenly. Don’t you agree?”

I agreed with Mr Low. As an opposition party, the WP plays a role in our political system, whoever is their party leader. Opposition parties keep Singapore politics contestable. In other words, the ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), does not have a monopoly of power and does not have the right to rule Singapore indefinitely. So long as the PAP Government performs, it keeps the voters’ support, it stays in power and the opposition cannot gain ground.

But if the PAP Government becomes incompetent or corrupt, then, of course, the opposition will grow. So, our system gives the PAP Government, given any government, every incentive to perform, and to keep the opposition performing its role, where it is, namely, in the opposition.

The PAP is determined to perform. We treat every election as a serious contest. We take every debate in the House seriously. And that is why we amended the Constitution to ensure that there will be always at least 12 opposition Members of Parliament and Non-Constituency Members of Parliament in the House, whatever the outcome of the General Election.

Political parties do not have a fixed lifespan – a time to live and a time to die, as Ecclesiastes puts it. How long a political party continues in government – or in opposition for that matter, because parties come and go in the opposition too – depends on whether it can renew itself, continue to serve the people, continue to bring progress to the nation. If the PAP can keep on successfully doing that, we can stay in government. But if we ever fail, we deserve to lose. So, my message to all PAP Members of Parliament is "work hard, serve the people, hold the ground, and win the elections".

This does not mean the Government will shy away from difficult problems. A government must govern. And if Ministers are not prepared to govern, then give it up. Because that is your duty; that is what you are here for. And governing means that from time to time you have to do difficult things when they become necessary. Leadership means you have to explain, persuade, and convince people that you know what you are doing, and that you are doing it for a good reason, and it is a right thing to do. That is the way to maintain people's trust, and trust is crucial.

Take taxes. In the recent Malaysian election, one hot issue was their GST. The previous government had introduced the new tax three years ago, and it had caused great unhappiness in Malaysia. After Pakatan Harapan won the election, Dr Mahathir announced that his new government would abolish the GST.

Why did this happen? It was not the economic merits or demerits of the GST. From the economic point of view, the GST is better than the Sales Tax that it replaced. But politically, Malaysians linked the GST with other complaints they had with the previous government, and they rejected the explanations and the persuasions, and they say, "No. I do not accept this. Out with it."

Does that mean no government should ever raise taxes? Alas, that is not the real world.

From time to time the country will need to spend more – on healthcare, defence, education, or something else – and if revenues are not enough, it will have no choice but to raise taxes. Then, the government must convince the population that it is raising taxes for a good reason, for the right reason. And whether the voters accept that will depend not just on the arguments, but also crucially on whether they trust the government. Because with arguments, for every right argument, we can produce five doubtful ones which look quite plausible. And during elections, there is no shortage of producers of such arguments and people can get confused.

Finally, they have to decide whom do they trust; what is their track record; do you want to put your future, your fate, or your children's future in the hands of this team and believe that they have your best interest at heart. And if they do, you vote for them, and you will take all things which need to be done as one bundle. Finally, voters have to trust the government to do the right thing on their behalf, even when it is painful.

I think this is the right lesson to learn. Without trust, the government cannot govern. It would not dare to do painful but necessary things. And politics becomes the art of pandering – a bidding war between the parties – who can give more, who can offer more? You say you reduce the tax; I say I abolish the tax. And then, you say, "I will give you a hongbao" on top of that. And how to pay – well, we can think about that after the elections. And the country goes downhill.

The 4G Ministers understand this. They have been working together, learning to complement one another's strengths and weaknesses, making decisions as a team and taking collective responsibility for these decisions.

To me, this working together is as important, if not more important, than the question of who should be the next Prime Minister. Because for the next Prime Minister, I know there is more than one qualified candidate. We are fortunate that this is so, because it provides strength and depth to the team. Now, it is about the team coming to a consensus on the best option.

But to work together as a team, that is not a choice because there is no other option. Whoever becomes the next Prime Minister, the team has to work closely together for him to succeed. If they cannot or do not do so, then the next Prime Minister will fail, whoever he is.

Even in the best of times, and certainly in times of severe crises, Mr Lee Kuan Yew did not run the country by himself. Neither did Mr Goh Chok Tong, nor myself. One year, Mr Lee received the Freedom of the City of London, in 1982. It was a grand occasion – he dressed up; he made a speech. He said: "I feel like a conductor at a concert bowing to applause, but unable to turn around and invite the accomplished musicians in his orchestra to rise and receive the ovation for the music they have played. For running a government is not unlike running an orchestra, and no Prime Minister ever achieves much without an able team of players."

I think I can speak for Mr Goh Chok Tong when I say that we both feel the same way.

All three of us were not sole leaders, but primus inter pares – that means, first among equals. But the emphasis is we are equals, but we are just the first among equals; first among equals with our colleagues. We take their views, we take them seriously, we benefit from their advice and their abilities and their skills. We have fierce arguments as to what to do but we are on a team together, with strong enough bonds that we can deal with issues together and there is leadership, but it is unforced. It has to be unforced leadership. The team accepts, respects and knows that it has an important role to play. They are not there just to carry out orders.

We were all fortunate – Singapore was fortunate – that the Prime Ministers had such stalwart colleagues. Mr Lee had a core team of very strong Ministers supporting him – Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen, and Othman Wok. Emeritus Senior Minister (ESM) Goh had a talented team too – Ong Teng Cheong, Tony Tan, Wong Kan Seng, S Jayakumar, S Dhanabalan, Abdullah Tarmugi, and George Yeo, just to name a few. If anything, ESM Goh's team was even more comprehensive than Mr Lee's. And when I took over as Prime Minister, I inherited ESM Goh's strong team and Mr Goh himself stayed on, and we added talent to the team. Now, he has stepped down, I rely on my own core team, which now also includes several of the 4G Ministers. So, the next Prime Minister must have, and will have, his own stalwart colleagues too – his generation, and I hope, also younger ones.

I know everyone is anxious to know who the next Prime Minister will be. Well, the leader must command the respect and loyalty of his whole team. He must enjoy the support and confidence of the broad mass of Singaporeans. And these things take time; they cannot be forced. I do not believe we are ready to settle on a choice yet, nor is it helpful to treat this either as a horse race, or a campaign to lobby support for one or the other candidate. This is a team game. We want a strong, cohesive team so that Team Singapore is the winner.

I have just reshuffled the Cabinet, have moved some Ministers to new portfolios, I have expanded the responsibilities of others. The 4G Ministers now helm two-thirds of the Ministries. They have a major say in policies and the direction to take Singapore. Let us give them the time and space to do their own work, to work together in their new roles and to get better known by the public.

I am confident that in the fullness of time, we will see a clear outcome and a leader will emerge from the process. Certainly, I expect this to happen before the next General Election.

For these 14 years as Prime Minister, I have been working with the 4G team, guiding them, assessing them, preparing them to take over the reins. When Mr Heng Swee Keat rounded up the Budget debate this year, I was happy to hear him describe the Budget as one that not only meets the needs of today's generation, but also accounts for the needs of future generations.

It showed that the 4G Ministers understood that their deepest responsibility is to be a steward of Singapore. What does it mean – "steward"? The Government is certainly not the owner of Singapore, but neither it is just the manager of Singapore. It is the steward. It is responsible for taking good care of the country, for holding it in trust, building it up and handing it on in due time to future generations.

The Government must keep faith with past generations who gifted this country to us. It has to be responsible to the present generation who continue to build on what we have inherited. But above all, it must consider future generations, whose lives and whose futures depend on us; the present generation depends on us thinking of their interests, acting on their behalf, making wise and far-sighted decisions to cause Singapore to endure and to flourish for many more years.

I am confident that when the time comes for me to hand over to a new Prime Minister, Singapore will be put into the hands of good stewards.

We have built something truly special here in Singapore. Countries near and far look to Singapore as a model of governance and development. People want to live here, do business here. Even the US and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are planning to hold their meeting here!

In many other countries, political leaders plan only up to the next election or the next crisis. But in Singapore, we are able to think beyond the immediate, beyond ourselves. We care about our community, our country and our future.

Our religious leaders visit temples, churches and mosques together. They give their blessings on one another's milestone celebrations. Our neighbours and friends invite us over for makan during Chinese New Year, Deepavali or Hari Raya. Our youths travel and experience the world. They come back eager to apply what they have seen and learnt around the world back home. Our grandparents and parents bring us up and nurture us. They are living examples of how by working hard, we can build better lives for ourselves and our children.

So, we are all living the Singapore Story, keeping it alive. We must sustain and pass on this shared vision of prospering together, progressing together. That way, we will make this little red dot shine bright in the world as well as in our hearts for many, many years to come. [Applause]

4.00 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek a clarification from the Prime Minister. Given that the 4G leadership, especially the three frontrunners for the next Prime Minister, largely come from the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) or the Civil Service, is it not a sign that there is now a political elite class in Singapore?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an example of the way not to think about the problem. When you look at the person, you ask: "Is he making a contribution, what are his strengths and weaknesses, what are his contributions, does he or does he not measure up?" You do not ask "Where did he come from? Who are his parents?" Is it bad to come from the Civil Service or the SAF? No. Is it necessary to come from there? No. Is it good to have people from a wide range? Yes. And we do have a wide range.

He talked about three frontrunners. I do not know how many people are running. I just said it is not a horse race. It is a team. I have people from the private sector, I have doctors, I have lawyers, I have brought in new people from the backbenchers, some of whom are also from the private sector with business experience.

So, we are looking for people, wherever we can find them, to bring in to form a Singapore Team. And the stronger this team is, the harder I make Mr Low's job. And I cannot help it because of my objective. I just want the best team for Singapore. [Applause]

4.02 pm

Mr Azmoon Ahmad (Nominated Member): Good afternoon. I think I will have a tough job today. First and foremost, this is the speech after the Prime Minister; secondly, with all the Ministers in front of me, even much tougher now. Anyway, I have to do the job. Mr Speaker, Sir, please allow me to deliver the first part of my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Hon Speaker and my fellow hon Parliamentary colleagues.

As we prepare to face an uncertain future, we should always remind ourselves that we need to move forward as one people and one nation and ensure that no one is forgotten or left behind. In our search for success to achieve prosperity and stability, let us not forget those who may struggle in this race of life.

I am quite concerned with our highly competitive life – whereby "success" is measured solely from one’s economic status or the position that one achieves in one’s career – to the extent that sometimes, we forget how to be a society with a heart.

Mr Speaker, my worry is that we will forget to be gracious and courteous, to be friendly, generous, humble, and empathise with one another, to the point that we are only focused on achieving what we deem to be "success" in our eyes.

In my view, success should also be measured based on, and by including, the things that we can do to help those in need so that we succeed together, and help the whole society progress together, regardless of race and religion, so that no one is left behind or forgotten.

The global situation remains volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous, or what is known as a VUCA world, so it is important that we continue to learn and re-learn, so that we can be resilient. Disruptions and economic changes, whether globally or locally, are clearly becoming more frequent, and this requires adaptability. I am confident that those who are able to adapt can survive, ending in success and progress.

The need to adapt is not limited to any particular community, and no one is exempted. Instead, every member of society needs to adapt and change with the circumstances. This includes our Malay community.

In general, based on official figures, evidence and anecdotes, we can see more and more Malays who have achieved the pinnacle of success. We are presented with many success stories about the community. There are more Malays in leadership positions, as well as holding key appointments in various organisations and companies – in both the public and private sectors. However, as I mentioned earlier, we need to measure success holistically, by looking at how far the whole society has progressed together, with no one forgotten or left behind.

Mr Speaker, this means that while we celebrate those at the pinnacle of success, we should not forget those who may have to struggle in their daily lives.

Since the Malay community is a small community, this means that the "gotong royong" spirit of helping one another can be easily implemented and expanded. Therefore, I would like to call on those who are successful in life to step forward and give back to society. Let us all help not only those in need, but also the whole society.

Helping someone does not necessarily mean giving financial help solely. In fact, help can be rendered in many forms, for instance, spending some time to help out or contribute ideas to organisations that need it. There are many Malay bodies that are constantly looking out for capable members of the community to serve in their board of administrators and work together in community service projects that are co-organised.

The expertise of someone with a successful career can be used to benefit society through sharing sessions and exchanging of intellectual ideas. For example, our youths can benefit from people with rich experience who become mentors to those who need it.

Mr Speaker, I would like to appeal to those who have succeeded, let us together ignite the spirit of helping one another – take the first step, and introduce yourself to society and the organisations; contribute as much as possible and help the community in any way you can.

Furthermore, in order to answer the President’s call that we become an exceptional nation and society, we must be bold enough to challenge ourselves in terms of the current way of running things. It is impossible for us to become an exceptional society if we do not change our ways. Change must come first if we wish to achieve progress and success.

Although our community has progressed and achieved success in many areas, we are still hampered by social issues. Obviously, this is a problem that we are not proud of. I admit that many efforts have been launched and implemented. However, the outcomes are less than satisfactory to me.

Let us all step forward as one bold community and review all the current platforms like the Community Leaders Forum (CLF), so that it stays relevant and functions as our community’s launchpad that can fulfil our aspirations and meet the challenges in the coming years and decades.

Let us unite as a society with a heart and be able to work together so that our community can progress and prosper, in line with the nation’s objectives.

Mr Speaker, as the Malay proverb goes, "We carry the load together, whether it’s heavy or light", so let us build one nation together and make our community exceptional.

(In English) Mr Speaker, please allow me to continue my speech in English.

In the President’s Address, President Halimah reminded us of the need to continue progressing and to build an exceptional nation. In the Address, her Excellency encouraged us to consider taking bold steps to challenge the status quo, if it can lead us to reach the pinnacle of "extraordinary". Encouraging the 4G leaders to explore and to do what is necessary to make Singapore an exceptional place, I am heartened. Not only should we achieve economically, but also achieving as a gracious society, and society with a heart. However, the volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world that we live in now means that challenges abound for all of us. Each challenge means differently to each of us. Some of us may thrive, while some may falter. My fear is that in our zealousness to face and overcome these challenges head on, we may forget the ones who are struggling and falling behind and eventually forget how to be a society with a heart.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the truth is, I believe success should also include and be measured by what you do to help others to succeed too, and help the whole society progress together, with no one left behind. When the future is uncertain, the most vulnerable tend to be at a higher risk of needing financial and social help. But, surely, those who are better off will feel a certain amount of anxiety as well. When that happens, does it mean they will tighten their purse strings and keep their wealth for a rainy day instead of helping others who are in dire need of help? I hope not. I hope that we, as a society, will do our part in helping others overcome the challenges associated with a VUCA world, be it through volunteer work, donations or some other ways. Only when we keep a look out for each other and ensure we advance towards the future together, can we then claim to be a society with a heart.

There are many facets in building a society with a heart. Apart from encouraging Singaporeans to be kinder, more empathetic and generous, the Government too has a responsibility to ensure all segments of Singaporeans are well taken care of and division does not happen.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we speak of division or divide, we often focus on the socioeconomic divide but we rarely discuss the potential of an inter-generational divide. We owe our thriving city to our parents, grandparents and the generations before them who helped mould Singapore into the country it is now. However, enough time has passed that some of us may have forgotten their contributions and take them for granted, leading to inter-generational conflict. As we have all been made aware, a rise in taxes in the near future to support an ageing population may be expected. But while Singaporeans have so far accepted tax increments to help fund subsidies for vulnerable groups, including the elderly, unhappiness may arise among other groups if this were to continue in the long run. Our younger citizens may demand a reduction in older citizens’ benefits or expect similar benefits for themselves in the future, leading to inter-generational conflict.

A rising number of seniors may also want to remain in their last jobs or aspire to better jobs while the next generation is eager to take over positions at the top. This could heighten job market anxieties among the young, particularly if special provisions are made for older employees to retain their jobs for a longer period.

While these scenarios are likely and can possibly cause conflict between generations, I believe our Government, and especially the 4G leaders, shall have the wisdom to ensure the needs of all Singaporeans are satisfactorily met and not at the expense of others. But we must remind ourselves that again, success can be truly measured by how we advance and progress together as a whole, and this sometimes entails making small sacrifices to ensure those in need are not neglected.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the future is fraught with uncertainty, and this has caused some degree of anxiety among all Singaporeans. However, I am certain that if we band together and lend support to one another, we can emerge stronger through the adversities and challenges. Let us work together and achieve the exceptional nation we want to become. Mr Speaker, Sir, with that, I support the Motion.

4.16 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers for Education and Manpower (Ms Low Yen Ling): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the President for her Address to this House.

Singapore has always been a place of promise and possibilities, attracting many ashore. And today, we continue to create new opportunities for Singaporeans from all walks of life. President Halimah’s Address has set out our vision towards developing a vibrant economy that invests in the skills and talents of our people. We aspire to be a caring and inclusive nation at the workplace too. We envisage a Singapore where young graduates, older workers and women have ample opportunities to discover their potential and have a fulfilling work life.

Last Sunday was Mother’s Day and my family celebrated it with a simple meal with my 67-year-old mother. She has always been our pillar of strength, and despite her age, she insists on working because it keeps her going. She had worked throughout her life, dancing a delicate balance between family commitments and her job when we were younger and later caring for my ageing grandmother.

Like her and like many mothers, we want the best for our family, and at the same time, we strive to give our all at home and at work. Thankfully, Singaporean women today are better positioned to juggle between the worlds of home and work as we are starting from a higher vantage point than before.

Over the years, Singaporean women have made strides in education and at work. Last year, more women than men graduated with a first degree from our local universities. We had about 8,200 female graduates, compared to 7,700 males.

Close to 40% of those who graduated from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) courses in our homegrown universities comprise of women. More than a third of our STEM polytechnic graduates are also female. More women are now in the workforce. Our female employment rate has grown from 64% in 2007 to 72% in 2017. In terms of women in full-time employment, we are now ranked sixth when compared with the OECD nations.

With meritocracy and better education, our women are inching up the gender pay gap. In 2017, women in our resident workforce, in general, earned 9% less than men. This places us in the company of the top 10 OECD countries, and ahead of countries like Australia, Germany, the UK and the US. Median incomes of women in occupations like accountants, securities and finance brokers were higher than men.

However, we still have some way to go. I agree with Miss Cheryl Chan, Ms Thanaletchimi and Ms Tin Pei Ling that there is more to be done to encourage women to remain in the workforce.

While our full-time employment rate for women is ranked highly compared to the other OECD countries, our part-time employment rate is not. We want to close this gap as much as possible because employers as well as female employees stand to gain from Flexible Work Arrangements (FWAs). Companies that offer FWAs do better in attracting and retaining the best talents. In addition, a survey in 2016 found that majority of such companies reported higher employee staff morale and improved productivity. Women who have the options of FWAs do not need to choose between full-time work and zero-time work, and they are able to stay in touch with the marketplace with their skills and with their experience.

Instead of having our women opt out of work, we want to empower our women with choices to opt in, and stay in the workforce. With the right support, women can have the chance to fulfil both our family and also our career aspirations.

However, we also know that it is not easy for all companies to offer FWAs due to specific work conditions or rigid working hours. Several Members of Parliament including Miss Cheryl Chan, Dr Intan and Ms Thanaletchimi spoke passionately in the House on this topic with ideas to legislate FWAs or other family-support leave entitlements. These suggestions are not new, and we know that laws alone do not change social behaviours and mindsets. Our approach is a practical one, combining legislation and promotional efforts. In addition, advances in technology and communication can also help to facilitate FWAs.

MOM is strongly committed to growing the number of companies with FWAs. Firstly, we are enhancing the WorkPro Work-Life Grant with $30 million to encourage and help more employers provide FWAs. The grant also provides additional support for job-sharing arrangements, in recognition that it is harder for employers to provide this type of FWA.

Secondly, we will encourage more employers to adopt the Tripartite Standard on FWAs which sets the benchmark for organisations and employees to achieve more flexible work options. To date, more than 500 employers, with about 300,000 employees, have adopted this Standard. These employers have publicly pledged to offer FWAs and each of them will appoint a senior management member to champion FWAs in their organisation. They are committed to exploring alternative arrangements with their employees should there be difficulties in forming FWAs in their company.

At MOM, we want to encourage employers who have not pledged their support to do so. With effect from 5 May 2018, companies can now sign up onto the Tripartite Standards through the Jobs Bank. Previously, they can only do so through the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) website. With one more additional platform, it is really now a lot easier for our companies to adopt the Standards.

Thirdly, MOM will continue to promote FWAs as part and parcel of the modern work life. In today’s age of technology and Internet of Things (IoT), managers, supervisors and co-workers can no longer equate face-to-face time and physical presence at work with an employee’s capability. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we really need a mindset change that respects, a mindset change that provides and a mindset change that supports choices and supports flexibility at work. This cultural shift will also mean that someone who puts up a request for part-time work or puts up a request for flexible work will not be deemed as a lesser employee.

Together with our tripartite partners, we will press on to deepen and also widen our efforts to support Singaporean women at work by making FWAs more pervasive and also across the board. Women will have more power to make choices for ourselves and our families, and also the freedom to belong to the workplace as long as we wish to.

Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to say something about age-inclusive workforce and society. I want to thank Mr Ng Chee Meng and Mr Heng Chee How for their heartfelt and insightful thoughts on how we can help older Singaporeans stay employable and also adaptable and continue to be valuable contributors to our workplace and to our society.

This resonates with what the fourth-generation leaders envision for an inclusive and caring Singapore workforce. Throughout the years, we have made progress in supporting our older workers’ choice to work. In the last decade, the employment rate of residents aged 55 years old to 64 years old has grown from 56% in 2007 to 67% in 2017. This places Singapore in the ninth place when compared to the OECD countries, and higher than countries such as Australia, Korea, the US and the UK.

Since re-employment laws were introduced in 2012, over 98% of private sector local employees who wished to continue working at 62 years old, were offered re-employment. The vast majority of those who accepted re-employment in the same job did not experience any cut in basic wages.

Sixty seven-years-old Ms Margaret Tan is one of our older workers who has been with Mandarin Oriental Hotel for the past 14 years. As a Senior Guest Service Manager, she leads a team of over 80 staff. She is a keen learner; she earned two specialist diplomas in the last two years. When she was 65 years old, she embarked on a specialist diploma and within two years, she earned two specialist diplomas. The first one is in Leadership and People, the other one in Service Excellence.

As Mr Heng Chee How pointed out, it takes two hands to clap. We need willing and far-sighted employers, as well as able and also active older employees to join hands and make our workplace age inclusive.

Like Mandarin Oriental Hotel, employers that embrace progressive workplace practices which prioritise a person’s abilities over his or her age, they really stand to gain from the deep experience, they stand to gain from the reliability and they stand to gain from the loyalty that our mature workers will bring with them. Older Singaporeans who are ready to adapt and keep on learning, like Ms Margaret Tan, make it attractive for employers to see their potential and view them as valuable assets.

I agree with Mr Ng Chee Meng, Mr Heng Chee How and also Dr Chia Shi-Lu that ageism has absolutely no place in our society or even workplace. MOM will focus on resources to support companies to unlock the potential of our older workers. We will do so in three ways.

Firstly, we will continue to provide funding support to employers to redesign their workplace and make the jobs of older workers easier, safer and smarter. Secondly, we will enable and encourage employers to publicly commit to making their workplaces more age-friendly. Thirdly, we will push for more age-inclusive behaviour and move towards eradicating ageism.

Mr Speaker, Sir, for a nation with no natural resources, every citizen, young or old, is an important asset. In President Halimah’s words, and I quote, this “small, multi-cultural city state…must survive and thrive on the wits and will of its people.”

I believe our young Singaporeans have the potential to keep this red dot going strong. We have invested in their education, knowledge and skills, and will continue to give them the edge to hold their own when they start their careers.

Today, the employment rate of our fresh graduates is healthy – about 90% of those from the autonomous universities and polytechnics, and 85% for ITE graduates. According to the 2016 Graduate Employment Survey, a good majority of new graduates in full-time permanent employment are also employed in jobs related to their fields of study and that is 81% from autonomous universities and 72% for polytechnic graduates. In addition, the gross median salary of Post-Secondary Education Institution (PSEI) graduates surveyed approximately six months after their final exams is also on an upward trend.

We will continue to strengthen our efforts to help our new graduates maximise their potential to achieve positive employment outcome. In a fast-paced and changing world, they need to be well-armed with information and also knowledge to navigate upcoming trends and future-proof themselves for what is ahead. The rise of the gig economy and also disruptions to traditional occupations throw up a diversity of work options that graduates did not use to have. With these in mind, we have deepened our work on these fronts.

Firstly, information. We have extended the annual snapshot of employment outcomes for fresh graduates on what is known as the Graduate Employment Survey, to cover all private education institutions with full-time employment programmes. This allows our graduates to make better informed decisions on their choice to work or to further their studies.

Secondly, career guidance. MOM keeps a pulse on the career trends and aspirations of students from our universities, polytechnics and ITE. We work closely with MOE to guide the students in their career and education choices. A structured education and career guidance (ECG) curriculum and access to ECG-trained counsellors, teachers and lecturers help our students discover their strengths and their career interests.

In addition, tools such as the MySkillsFuture portal as well as internships, learning journeys, mentorships and career talks – all these form an immersive experience to help our young graduates gain a better understanding of the industries they are trained for.

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

Thirdly, job search. We will boost the job search skills of graduating students and enhance their lifelong learning career planning with a new Career Starter Programme. Offered by the Workforce Singapore (WSG) in collaboration with our autonomous universities, polytechnics and ITEs, this new initiative will also offer job search-related training workshops, industry engagement opportunities, virtual and physical career fairs, job referrals and also post-placement support. More details will be shared at a later date.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our young graduates benefit from a good education system in Singapore. Please allow me to respond to some of Mr Png Eng Huat's points that he raised earlier. I want to assure him that all schools are subject to the same level of funding for capital expenditure, such as infrastructure, IT and operating costs such as manpower and repairs. All schools can also receive additional funding for special programmes such as electives, overseas trips for experiential learning.

However, there is differential funding for building of facilities. For standard facilities such as indoor hall or basketball courts, Government schools will be funded 100% while the Government-aided and independent schools have to raise funds to co-fund some of these facilities. So, this is actually contrary to what Mr Png has mentioned earlier.

I must also add that MOE does not fund non-standard facilities such as tennis courts. We approve the building of non-standard facilities on a case-by-case basis, provided there is significant education value to our students. And these schools will have to raise funds to fully pay for these facilities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me to say few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore has been and must continue to be a nation full of opportunities for Singaporeans from all walks of life. MOM’s ambition is for all Singaporeans who are able and willing to work, regardless of gender, age or background, to be able to continue doing so. Helping all our workers, whether men or women, young or old, achieve their work and life aspirations requires change from everyone involved.

First of all, our workers must adopt a mindset change to embrace new technologies, be open to change and upskill themselves to remain competitive. If workers are willing to stay relevant by upskilling and reskilling themselves, their productivity and efficiency will be able to keep up with times. I believe, by doing so, workplace ageism and sexism will be eradicated slowly.

Secondly, our employers must change to take the larger view that progressive human resources (HR) practices will benefit the company by attracting and retaining talents and cultivating more committed employees. In this area, MOM will focus our resources on supporting companies to provide FWAs to help our women fulfil both their career and family aspirations.

Thirdly, the whole society must also change their prejudice and support the culture of inclusivity, and embrace diversity in our workforce. For our young people, we need to support them to leverage their strengths, and choose career and education pathways that will give them the greatest competitive advantage.

Achievement and success can come in many forms. This is consistent with MOE’s philosophy of "Many pathways, New Opportunities". We believe that as long as Singaporeans leverage on their strengths and pursue excellence in fields that they are passionate in, they will find success.

I have just joined MOM and I look forward to working with the employers, employees and the community to develop a more inclusive workforce. I also hope that Singaporeans from all walks of life can explore together how we can promote a more progressive, enlightened and inclusive workplace culture.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, amid an uncertain external environment, we can hold fast to our foundation of meritocracy and also inclusion, as well as joint aspirations for success. Together, we can forge opportunities for all in the workforce, including women, the young as well as the old.

With a receptive mindset, our workers can embrace learning and new trends, and adapt to stay relevant throughout changing times. Employers who invest in progressive work practices with foresight and with courage will attract the best talents and they are able to move their organisations forward. So, really, we need all of society, everyone, to support a culture of inclusion at the workplace with kindness, with understanding and with openness.

We are our nation's best resources. We may be small but when we come together, we are bigger than the sums of all our dreams and all our hopes. So, we can afford to be bold, because with inclusiveness, we become stronger. We have started on the road to progress. So, let us not set limits on ourselves, but together, let us blaze the future for a Singapore Unlimited. I support the Motion.

4.36 pm

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. In her speech on how the Government can build a strong partnership with people to co-create the Singapore of the future, President Halimah Yacob emphasised the need of the fourth-generation leaders to work with Singaporeans to build a vibrant Singapore that is full of opportunities, and to create a cohesive and inclusive society that caters to the needs of different societal segments.

Mdm President also spoke about the importance of making Singapore a great place to have children, and to enable people with differences to lead full and active lives.

It is with this in mind that I would like to focus my speech on catering to the divergent and differentiated learning needs of a particular segment of children and how the Government could enhance education options for these children, specifically those who are of primary-school going age. I would also like to declare my interest as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a private education organisation.

Singapore has a well-regarded education system that is both recognised and admired worldwide. Bodies, such as OECD consistently rate our education system as one of the best in the world and, as we were reminded by the Education Minister in his speech, our students have achieved remarkable Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results.

The primary school system that we have built is well-suited to cater to mainstream learners who are able to function and learn in what is predominantly an examination-based academic environment. In such a system, students who were able to perform well in summative-assessments, such as tests and examinations would do well, thus culminating in what most parents will agree is the mother-of-all-summative-assessments, the PSLE.

I do not intend to comment on the PSLE in this speech. I believe that this has been commented on before and will indeed continue to be debated for some time in this Chamber at the future. Indeed, I have to commend MOE for trying to lessen the examination-based academic aspect of the PSLE by providing for schemes like the Direct School Admission (DSA) to allow students to enrol in secondary schools using other criteria apart from their PSLE score. The replacement of the T-score with wider achievement levels in 2021 is also a positive step in the right direction.

My point is that while the majority of neurotypical students in mainstream MOE primary schools tend to function well in this system, there are also those neurodivergent students with differentiated learning needs who would perhaps perform better in an environment and system that is different from the typical mainstream MOE primary schools.

I am not referring to students with clear special learning needs that are already enrolled in Special Education (SPED) schools, such as those operated by Association for Persons with Special Needs (APSN), the Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore (MINDS), the Asian Women’s Welfare Association (AWWA) and other volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) and non-governmental organisation (NGOs). SPED school students often have moderate to serious physical and/or intellectual challenges that will make it difficult for them to make it in the mainstream education system, and it is good that MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) have worked with these organisations to provide options and opportunities for these students to form the foundation for independent and meaningful lives and careers.

In 2004, MOE partnered with the Autism Resource Centre to set up Pathlight School. The aim was to create the first autism-focused school in Singapore that offered Singapore's mainstream academic curriculum together with life readiness skills and to cater primarily to students with autism and related disorders. These students are cognitively able to access mainstream academic curriculum but require additional support, such as smaller class sizes, special accommodations and teaching staff trained in autism.

Pathlight has since grown from strength to strength, thanks in no small part to the vision and tireless work of a lady that I have tremendous respect for – my hon Parliamentary colleague, Ms Denise Phua. And I am confident that Ms Phua and her team will continue to "light the path" for many children and young adults on the autism spectrum in the future.

The neurodivergent children I am hoping that MOE can provide enhanced educational options for are those primary school students who have neuroatypical conditions that are not so severe or challenging that would require them to enrol in SPEDs or Pathlight but are presently finding it challenging to cope with these conditions in mainstream primary schools. Indeed, these students are not just able to merely grasp the mainstream primary school academic curriculum, many of them are even able to excel in it.

Consider the case of 10-year-old Primary 4 student Xavier Wong, who was featured in The Straits Times on 10 May this year. Xavier, who is able to solve mathematics problems that are two years ahead of his level and has an IQ that places him in the top 2% of the population, was diagnosed with mild attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and his behaviour has, at times, proven to be disruptive to his classmates and teachers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are many children like Xavier with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Aspergers, Autism and other neuroatypical conditions who find aspects of mainstream primary school challenging.

MOE has, in recent years, worked very closely with educational and developmental psychologists to offer early detection and interventions for children with special learning needs and has also offered support programmes in mainstream schools for students with dyslexia, mild autism, and ADHD.

I sincerely hope that MOE will continue to do good work in this area, but I feel that these programmes are still insufficient to cater to increasingly complex learning needs of our children. Furthermore, unless the Allied Educators-to-students ratio is lowered, it is also very hard for these Allied Educators to cater to the needs of working with such a large group of students in mainstream schools. The class sizes, environments and curricula of the mainstream schools are also not ideal for neurodivergent students who have differentiated learning needs.

I would thus like ask MOE to consider facilitating the setting up of autonomous specialised primary schools to cater to these neurodivergent students so that these students are able to study in a specially designed and planned environment that caters to their unique learning needs.

Aside from the environment and learning spaces, such schools could be given the freedom to design their own curriculum, determine their own class sizes, hire their own staff with the specialised skill sets and even set their own fees. This would be in line with the Pathlight model, but perhaps on a smaller scale and with more autonomy given to the schools.

I believe that there would be VWOs and NGOs like AWWA or the Dyslexia Association of Singapore who would have the expertise and know-how to set up these autonomous specialised schools. Other organisations who might be inclined to provide such services could be religious organisations or established private education providers, and interested parties could even be partnered with philanthropic organisations or charities, or even corporate entities who are willing to co-fund this initiative.

MOE could facilitate the setting up of these schools and could also further assist by working with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to allow for these schools to be set up in the compound of vacant former MOE schools. Perhaps, a cluster of smaller, autonomous specialised schools could even be housed in a single building to create a unique learning community for neurodivergent children.

These schools would be set up with the same national education perimeters and guidelines as the mainstream schools, with the same flag-raising ceremonies, the singing of the national anthem, the reciting of the pledge and the incorporation of the National Education (NE) modules into the curriculum.

I noted that my Parliamentary colleague Miss Cheryl Chan had earlier suggested for students with special needs to be given a "through-train" pathway to secondary school. I think that this is a suggestion worth exploring, but if MOE still feels that the PSLE is relevant to neurodivergent students, then students from these proposed autonomous specialised schools could still be required to take this examination.

The key difference is that these schools would have the freedom and autonomy to prepare their students for the PSLE in the way that they deem would be best to cater to these students’ diverse learning needs. I am sure that there are potential concerns that fees of these autonomous schools, if they are privately funded for example, would price themselves out of the reach of students who need them the most.

One of the ways that MOE could mitigate this concern is by mandating a tiered-schools fee structure where families who have financial means will pay the full school fees of such schools, while families who are less well-off could pay a subsidised rate, or they could qualify for bursaries from the school itself. It could also be mandatory for these schools to include a certain percentage of these students at subsidised fees.

This, Mr Deputy Speaker, in effect, helps to ensure a more equal distribution of resources from the community as those who have the means to afford such education would be, in effect helping those who do not. And such guidelines would also ensure that these autonomous specialised schools could actually have a more diverse and varied student demographic than some primary schools from certain residential regions in Singapore today. So, one can set up such schools and ensure that they remain accessible. Now, this I believe is an idea worth piloting.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the early-2000s, MOE set out bold plans to transform the post-primary education sector. In less than 10 years, institutions such as the Singapore Sports School, School of The Arts, School of Science and Technology, NUS High, Integrated Programme (IP) institutions, International Baccalaureate (IB) schools and privately funded international schools were all set up. These schools and their programmes have allowed students to explore many more tracks and pathways that cater to their learning needs, capabilities and aspirations.

In recent times, MOE has also made an impact in the pre-primary early childhood education sector by setting up MOE kindergartens and mega pre-schools to ensure a base-line quality for early childhood education, while still allowing private early childhood education options to exist. This has ensured variety and choice for parents who might want different types of education for their young children based on their preferences and whatever their children's needs might be.

Having transformed the post-primary sector and with increasing involvement in the pre-primary sector, it now makes sense for the Government to go one more step further and look at diverse options and pathways in the primary school system. I believe that diversity actually creates a stronger and more resilient system overall, which will in turn enhance the entire education ecosystem.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not advocating a “bold” radical revamp of the education sector. Indeed, I feel that the word “bold” has been somewhat overused in this Chamber in the past few days. What I am hoping for is for the Government to continue the good work that it has already done in our education landscape. What I am hoping for is an escalation of this progressive evolution, with a focus on facilitating the creation of more primary education pathways for neurodivergent children. What I am hoping for is for parents to have more choices and options in terms of how they would like to educate their children.

And if we get the education of our children right, then we get the future of our country right.

4.48 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. We are no longer in the Third Industrial Revolution where computers were mere tools to aid us in automation and productivity. In what many believe is the Fourth Industrial Revolution, artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can now self-learn and self-improve to the extent that one day, many more job groups including those in the middle levels such as radiographers and bookkeepers, jobs like that can disappear.

Jobs such as drone operators, app developers and sustainability engineers are jobs that did not exist 10 years ago. Previously, handmade dumplings or 手工水饺 are now made in factories without human beings, or what the Chinese call 无人工厂 in China; and even beggars in China have already gone cashless, with many having their own QR codes or other online access for givers to transfer monies directly.

Closer to home, a friend of mine who incorporated a business and was looking for a new corporate logo. Instead of using the traditional means to seek out a local designer, he approached an online global design service provider. For about S$400, an automated online system organised a global competition of logo designers who submitted a total of 50 designs, out of which five were shortlisted and then after further briefing and discussion with the designers, one was selected by my friend. This is the sort of boundary-less global marketplace, global labour market that is impacting Singaporeans; a world that presents either threats or opportunities, depending on how future-ready Singapore is.

Sir, what I have just described – the factory with no humans; the online global design house; jobs that will disappear and new jobs that never existed before – that is the external setting that Singapore has to find our place in.

In a world such as this, whilst all of us will learn to be consumers of technology, many more need to be developers as well in order to stay relevant. A dual economy of a different kind is emerging – people and businesses who thrive in this new world versus those who will barely survive; one that can cause inequality and tensions in a small nation-state like ours.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder that President Halimah had called upon the 4G leaders to go for bold changes and not be contented to tweak things at the margins. And indeed, business cannot be as usual.

Sir, I will focus on education because I firmly believe that a good education is the most powerful means to access a better life for every Singaporean.

First, on education for adults, on SkillsFuture. The boldest move in Singapore in education in recent years has been the inclusion of adult learners into the mission of MOE; a very bold move, a significant one that must be applauded. Indeed, as German psychologist Eric Fromm puts it, why should society feel responsible only for the education of children, and not for the education of all adults of every age?

For the typical workforce, it is still early days to know if the SkillsFuture movement will fully realise its mission to transform Singaporeans to take charge of their own learning; be less obsessed with chasing the paper and to be more obsessed with mastering the skills and staying ahead of the game in their vocations, a mantra often repeated by Minister Ong Ye Kung. The take-up rate of the SkillsFuture credit of $500 per adult citizen has, in the last year, doubled from about 6% to 12%; a positive sign, but there is much more to do.

For the non-traditional workforce such as those with special needs, the SkillsFuture movement has not yet made them its priority and accorded the attention it deserves. This will be a non-traditional workforce that can be tapped upon.

Sir, the SkillsFuture movement is an important one to secure Singapore’s future. So, I urge the Ministry to conduct a review with all its key stakeholders to:

One, identify the root causes of why SkillsFuture has not attained more traction than it deserves.

Two, develop and resource further strategies, both bold and incremental, on how more adult Singaporeans can be transformed to take on the opportunities and threats posed by a global marketplace and the labour market.

Three, develop robust SkillsFuture plans to equip adult Singaporeans most at risk of being left behind, such as those with special needs. Think about turning competent special schools into lifelong learning institutions or Continuing Education and Training (CET) providers to train their alumni or others with similar learning profiles.

Let me turn next to the education of our younger ones.

It was only as recent as two months ago in this House that I had called for boldness in tackling the excessive obsession and time spent preparing for high-stakes exam in particular, the PSLE. I will say a few words about it since it is a hot topic.

Sir, I am not surprised by the Minister's position or the Ministry's position that PSLE is here to stay because it is welcomed, as quoted by Minister, it is welcomed by a segment of Singaporeans. But Sir, it is unfair to ask Singaporeans to give up something when they are not given the knowledge or the hope for a better alternative. After all, doing well in high-stakes exams has long been seen in Singaporeans as the passport to top schools and hopefully, top jobs later; never mind the disproportionate amount of time, money and stress to prepare for it.

Lifelong learning is a mindset and habit often formed during one’s younger school days and a difficult one to cultivate when one is older. Our schools will need the time and resources to do the upstream work that is critical in developing a curiosity and a love for learning. And without this habit, it is futile in adulthood, to try to develop every Singaporean to his fullest potential – the mission of SkillsFuture.

Learning from other systems, more than once in this House, I had shared about other schools' models like the Yun-Ku School that was recently launched by Alibaba founder Mr Jack Ma, a former teacher himself. I have shared about his 10-year school system and also shared about other school systems in other parts of the world and inclusive models that have done none the worse elsewhere in the world.

Locally, I had the chance to witness a home-schooling system that had scaled up to a school. I saw how a repository of learning resources are accessible to both students and staff; how each child is taught to be self-driven in this school to set his own learning goals; how each teacher is truly a facilitator; how their academic rigour in this school led to standards that met both local and overseas tertiary admission criteria; and although in this school, I saw that technology could have been applied more widely, yet it displayed many attractive features of what good education comprises.

Sir, I have met many passionate educators including school leaders who agree and who are willing to pilot a better alternative to our current school system, especially for the younger ones. I am confident that we can learn from the strengths of our local systems and that of others to present a better alternative to the current model where the high-stakes PSLE has become the holy grail.

It is up to the Minister and his advisers to decide if piloting a better alternative is a bold or a reckless move.

Questions to ask of our current school system. Singapore has often prided itself on doing well in the global stage. We were reminded yesterday again by Minister that we are top in the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranking in 2015, second to none.

Do not get me wrong. There is merit to learning from the experts from the OECD and the like; and to know where we stand versus other countries. But the PISA is but a test of the skills and knowledge of 15-year-olds who have a whole life ahead of them, at least another 60 years according to life span statistics. Surely, there should be other data points to measure if we are doing right in trying to develop every Singaporean to his fullest potential and nurture lifelong learners for the future – part of the Addendum that is released by the Ministry.

PSLE or no PSLE? Smaller or big class sizes? To stream or not to stream? These questions may soon be less important than asking ourselves the following questions:

One, does our current education system for our young produce the self-driven, self-motivated, agile lifelong adult learners who are able to survive and thrive in the new age of rapid technological disruptions?

Two, what are the process and outcome milestones we are driving at, in view of the external and domestic setting the 4G Government is now in?

Three, if we were starting from a clean slate, what would our education landscape or education system look like? How can we reimagine it?

Four, what is the new curriculum, beyond coding and computational thinking skills, does our lifelong education system need to deliver in this rapidly changing world?

Five, what are the features of our current system that we must retain at all cost?

Six, what are the features that are causing pains but have become sacred cows that we have learnt to revere and even defend?

Seven, how do we maximise the potential of every Singaporean, regardless of their learning ability and profile, and ensure an inclusive education system for all?

Sir, I believe these are the questions that not only the 4G Government should ask and seek answers to. The rest of us Singaporeans who care for our country, who are concerned for our future should ponder over them too.

Minister Ong Ye Kung spoke about the unfinished business of tackling inequality in this House yesterday – on the income gap that he is concerned about; about growing the middle-income core; social mobility and the need for interaction between groups from different socioeconomic classes.

Education is a crucial tool to help finish the unfinished business of addressing inequality. Education equips Singaporeans to maximise their potential to work, to earn more and to enjoy a better quality of life; to be socially mobile and to provide the opportunity to learn and play together with fellow Singaporeans who are different from us. It can empower us to become not only successful for ourselves, but also use the fruits of education to bless others beyond ourselves.

Education is thus too important to leave it to only the educators. It affects all of our lives, and we should jointly envision, co-shape and support a lifelong education system that is uniquely Singapore and second to none.

Sir, if a ladder is not leaning against the right wall, as someone once said, then every step we take just gets us to the wrong place faster. The Government therefore can and should make changes to the system for the better and the longer good and ensure the education ladder in our country leans against the right wall. As for the rest of Singapore, Sir, we too must take our place and support, build and climb that ladder that will lead us to the right wall. Only then can the dream of fulfilling the potential of every Singaporean become a reality, and not a slogan.

5.00 pm

Mr Chong Kee Hiong (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President. I share the aspirations and concerns the President had expressed in her speech and I would like to take this opportunity to speak on some of them, namely the three "M"s: minimising the negative impact of inequality; mustering the courage to implement bold changes; and mastering technological advances.

I am heartened that our Government is committed to minimising the negative impact of inequality. Singapore is a capitalist economy and a meritocracy. In this environment, those who are talented, able and hardworking will be rewarded. But in nature, talents and abilities are not equally distributed. So, what about those who are not as talented or skilled? Hard work alone will only take you so far. We should also not forget that health or personal conditions and circumstances may limit some people's performance at work.

Whilst we should continue to encourage reward systems based on output and performance as this is accepted to be fair and justifiable, let us not overlook the problems of the imperfect market. Distorted remunerations of varying magnitudes exist, either paying too much or too little for contributions and work done.

To mitigate the impact of consequent inequality, we must provide more assistance to those in need, especially for basic necessities, public housing, healthcare and education. Funds for the needy have to be sourced mainly from our tax revenues, with additional aid from voluntary donations. Hence, we need the endorsement and support from Singaporeans for a tax system which facilitates more transfers from those who are prosperous to those who are less fortunate. This way, even the poor in our community can afford a reasonable standard of living.

We also face stratification and slowing social mobility. Our population is now more stratified across age groups and income and wealth. Historically, Singapore has been fairly successful in promoting social mobility. The story of our very own President is a good example and we all personally know similar cases like hers, where within one or two generations, families' circumstances are improved substantially. But as our society advances, social mobility slows and the gaps between different income groups gradually widen as accumulated advantages and wealth gets passed on from one generation to the next.

As a community, we should start a candid discussion about the strategies to overcome this problem before it becomes too entrenched and difficult to resolve. We may need to modify our policies or social institutions. We should never accept the lack of social mobility as inevitable.

Education plays an important role in enabling social mobility. We need to ensure that access to education is not just on a superficial level. We have the KidSTART programme to ensure that children aged six and below from vulnerable families have a "good start" in life through access to health, learning and developmental support. To further ensure that children who have been identified and benefited from the KidSTART programme continue to progress well, there should be similar support for those who need it to do well in primary and secondary school as well.

Though MOE is committed to make every school a good school, each would still have different access to resources and therefore, indirectly limit the academic and non-academic options available to their students. How do we discover a talented tennis player from a school that does not have a tennis court or offer the sport as a CCA? Are we able to nurture that child who could potentially be a chess grandmaster if he or she is in a school that does not have a Chess Club? There are those who can afford to send their children for private lessons outside of the school. But for those who cannot, how do we level the playing field in both academic and non-academic areas?

Aside from education, policies and Government schemes will have different impacts on every individual and family as each face a unique set of challenges. In other words, there would always be groups that fall through the cracks, and we need to look out for them.

Hence, I am glad that the Government acknowledges such differences and accept appeals, taking into account mitigating circumstances and changes in family situations. It is important that all our Ministries and agencies be prepared to make exceptions, but I must stress – within limits – to assist those caught at the edges. Exercising compassion in the implementation of our policies is helpful in reducing the impact of income inequality in our society.

Though the issue of income inequality is not unique to Singapore, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that we can copy from others. The Government needs to continue to pay close attention to the ground, as the price to pay as a result is not restricted to economic consequences but more importantly, could create a tear in our social fabric.

Another notable point the President made was about mustering the courage to implement bold changes and not limiting ourselves to taking incremental steps.

We are not advocating recklessness but calculated moves into unchartered territories. If we do not take calculated risks, we risk becoming irrelevant anyway, with dire consequences. What is most important is that we must be prepared for trade-offs and failures and have the courage and tenacity to pick ourselves up and try again.

Some changes would be unpopular, and our leaders must be able to carry them. Hence, firstly, they have to win the hearts and minds of the people so that Singaporeans would be willing to take a leap of faith together with them.

Geopolitics have changed much and so have technologies. Have we made the necessary changes fast enough? Take the field of education. We need to constantly review the relevance of what we teach and how we assess our young. Perhaps we need to revamp our "O" and "A" levels and the subjects taught. Basic and general knowledge in all subjects lay a useful foundation but do we need so many students studying calculus or chemical interactions in such depth? With the pivot to Asia, should our students not be exposed to great Asian classics, such as the "Dream of the Red Chamber", "the Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Ramayana", in addition to works from Shakespeare?

When we implement changes, especially bold ones, we must ensure that both top-down and bottom-up approaches work hand in hand. This is because while focusing on visions in top-down policies, there may be gaps in the schemes, while bottom-up initiatives may miss the big picture even as gaps are filled. I hope our relevant departments will bear this in mind for our Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs).

In addition, bold changes require process re-engineering. To get rid of the old ways of doing things, we have to reduce unnecessary processes to free up time and space for thinking, creativity and problem-solving. Increased efficiency and higher productivity are mutually reinforcing.

We have witnessed how technology has disrupted how some commercial activities are organised and executed. A good example would be how quickly e-commerce has changed the dynamics of traditional retail. Similarly, it is timely to rethink how our administrative services can be organised in bold new ways, instead of just trying to incrementally improve how the existing Ministries operate. This will help us to be ahead of the curve to implement change rather than to deal with change.

My final point is about technological advances, which are radically changing the way we live, work and interact with one another. We must master these technologies and harness their power to seize the economic opportunities they present.

Some residents have expressed their concerns over our drive to become a Smart Nation. They are worried about new complexities and being left behind. They feel that our Government may be pushing this initiative too quickly.

I empathise with them but I really do not think we can afford to slow down. We must help them to adapt and catch up through schemes, such as SkillsFuture, but we must get on the tech train. We have an ageing population, but our seniors are better educated than their predecessors. I believe that where there is a will, there is a way. We must understand that we do not really have a choice as we would rather be ahead of the race and not just be in the race along the technology runway.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is currently creating a lot of buzz and a lot of worries too. AI systems lead to gains in productivity but threaten jobs in low-paid and low-skilled production industries and jobs that are administrative, clerical and procedural in nature.

Most of the productivity gains resulting from the use of AI, robotics and IT will accrue to those who own the patents, the machines and the capital. Hence, whilst we have to nurture more entrepreneurs and technology creators and innovators to reap the benefits and rewards of this technological development, we also need to find ways to more equitably distribute these benefits and rewards so as not to further widen the income gap.

Whilst we nurture our own talents and build our capabilities, we also need to be a player in the global transfer of expertise and technical know-how to boost local competencies which in turn strengthen the Singaporean Core. We want to continue to draw investments which create good jobs for Singaporeans, including high tech companies, such as those in the field of AI, cloud computing and robotics. However, we are also experiencing an environment of increasing trade protectionism among nations. How can Singapore deal with this current reality and find a path to thrive?

The complexion of global trade, economy and foreign relations is changing at a pace that seems much faster than before. Our next generation of leaders will have to be clear in their strategies and nimble in their actions to be able to execute policies that bring Singaporeans together and move Singapore ahead.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, great changes are afoot, and the waves will be strong. I support the President's call to our new generation to unite and work together to keep Singapore an exceptional country.