Debate on President's Address

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.]

2.45 pm

Ms Chia Yong Yong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President for her inspirational and aspirational message for the Second session of the 13th Parliament.

In her Address, the President calls for Singaporeans to walk alongside the fourth generation (4G) leaders in partnership to achieve an exceptional Singapore. The concept of partnership means that there is more than one person in this journey. Partners bring to the table their contributions, their strengths, their capital, they have different roles and responsibilities. They have a single commitment but they also bear risks together. That is a concept of a partnership and that is what we need to bear in mind when we build our country.

The premise of partnership is trust and, in this debate, in my speech, I would want to focus on the issue of trust. The debate is important because the President's speech is not only for the Second Session of the 13th Parliament. It is a call to Singaporeans to take Singapore forward beyond the 13th Parliament and way into the future. This debate is important because it takes place at a significant juncture in the political history of Singapore. Both the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party are undergoing leadership transition. The issue of trust is critical to all of us.

We are blessed to be in a country where the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party transit leadership in a managed process. And that is not to be taken for granted.

But however well-managed, there will be concerns, uncertainties and fears on the ground. Leadership transitions can reasonably be expected to be a time of vulnerability. Such vulnerability is easily exploited and can be exacerbated by circumstances, such as we are in now: shifts in alliances between countries, changes in the domestic landscape, disruption in the global economy, security threats.

So, understandably, citizens, like myself, are concerned as to where and how the 4G leaders will lead us, how the leading Opposition party will play its role as a check and balance vis-à-vis the Government.

As Singaporeans, we have a stake in Singapore’s future. Visions, plans and policies are important but, just as important, if not more, is whether and how the leaders actualise them. Checks and balances vis-à-vis the Government are important, but just as important if not more important is whether the checks and balances are executed in a constructive and pro-Singapore manner. In other words, whether you are the Ruling Party or the Opposition party, we, the citizens will watch how responsible you are to Singapore.

The 4G leaders clearly acknowledged in the President’s speech that they must earn the trust of the people, forge their own bonds afresh with the people, earn the right to lead. I believe this applies to all leaders, even those who have been leaders for a long time.

The mandate of the people is given only once at every general election. That mandate, in my view, entitles the winning party to form the Government. But it does not give the winning party the right to lead. That right must be earned, no matter how long you have been in Parliament and it must continue to be earned. So, I am encouraged by the acknowledgement of the 4G leaders that they must earn the trust of the people and forge their own bonds afresh with the people and earn the right to lead.

They, having thus spoken, the citizens will wait and see.

It is all about words and actions. We weigh the actions of the leaders against their words. We weigh their words against their actions. The words that precede their action, the words that accompany the action and the words subsequent to the action. The nuances, the shades. We watch their other actions, hear their other words. The totality will be the basis upon which we make our assessment. I will do the same for Opposition politicians and the Public Service. I want to know if you mean what you say and you say what you mean.

The 4G leaders and the new leaders of the Workers' Party are not strangers to Singaporeans. But compared to their predecessors, they have had a relatively short time up to now to prove themselves. They have clearly proven themselves within their parties. It is now time to prove themselves to Singaporeans. And this is not going to be easy. You have heard different, discordant noises on the ground. Some may be justified and some not. But all must be taken seriously because all emanate from hearts either of anguish or of passion for Singapore.

So, the issue of earning trust is fundamental. And I believe that is why the 4G leaders say they got to earn that trust. Because if I trust my leaders, no matter how vehemently we disagree, I will cast my lot with them. I will pay the price, together with my fellow Singaporeans and leaders, to pave the way for Singapore. But if I do not trust my leaders, they have lost me in the journey.

Building trust, however, is not a one-way effort. It requires one party to reach out and another to engage. It will be a long and difficult process. Especially if impressions have been formed, assessments have already been made, rightly or wrongly. So, we will need a lot of empathy and open-mindedness from both parties. We should not fear to speak and debate openly and frankly. We should speak and debate with cold logic, but with a flaming passion for Singapore. Neither Government nor citizen should fear criticism. It is healthy but it must be done responsibly. Let us be open with each other and only then will our enemies have one tool less against us.

The way ahead would be difficult. There is no doubt.

In tackling our challenges and building our future, the element of trust is important. There will be differing views, strong views, strong voices, loud voices. From this tumult, our leaders must discern what is in the long-term interests of Singapore, while looking after the immediate and medium-term interests of Singapore. So, you have said to us that you will demonstrate leadership and resolve. You will stand firm on principles and ideals while seeking practical solutions. You will listen to the people, you will not fear to mobilise public opinion in the long-term interests of Singapore.

And, indeed, as a citizen, I expect no less of Singapore’s leaders and the Public Service. To do that which is right by Singapore, boldly but humbly. Never fearing those who speak the loudest, or those wield the most power, making difficult decisions in the long-term interests of Singapore. But how will you communicate with us? How will you know that I believe in you? How will you know that when you make that decision, that difficult decision, which I disagree with, that you will have me on your bandwagon? It is for you to reach out to me and it is for me to open my mind to what you have to say to me.

Besides courage and principle, I and many I know will throw in our lot with leaders who uphold universal values of compassion, integrity and loyalty.

As a citizen, I will trust leaders who defend our Constitution and the sovereignty of Singapore, putting at all times the interests of Singapore above all. I trust leaders who exercise righteousness, dispense justice and equity, uphold the rule of law. I trust leaders who protect the people, who remember the poor and vulnerable, who grow the country economically, socially for all. Who lead us and who are above corruption.

In my sharing of my aspirations of leaders, I have steered clear of what policies and schemes we should have. These have already been greatly discussed and I leave them to better minds than mine. But for me, the element of trust, if you cannot build that, you have lost us.

The President also speaks about trust between the people. This is the second premise of the partnership: between people and people. If we do have trust, we cannot be united. If we cannot be united as one people, we do not require another enemy. We are our own enemy.

Deliberate Government policies, such as universal education, National Service, mixed housing and meritocracy have resulted in significant socio-economic progress and social mobility for Singaporeans.

We have done well compared to many countries. But, notwithstanding, Singaporeans have not become homogeneous. But why should we be? In the midst of our progress, we continue to carry with us differences in background, abilities, ideologies, culture, race and religion. Justifiably so. These are part of our identity as individuals, a part of our heritage. We are, indeed, different from each other, but we must not be afraid that we are different. We recognise that our differences have enriched the Singaporean fabric. Our differences have made us more accepting, broadened our perspectives, made us better, made us stronger.

Mr Speaker, many hon Members and Ministers have reminded us of our differences and that we are not yet equal. As such, the same differences that have strengthened and enriched Singapore can potentially tear us apart.

But we must not let that happen.

Consciously, we must use our differences to strengthen our society. When I have ability, I uphold and I lift the person without the ability, the person with the disability. When I have resources, I share my resources to level the playing ground. If I am weak, I look to someone who is strong to support me. If I am strong, I share my strength with my brother. Let us not allow anyone to attempt to fracture our society. Let us not coalesce according to socio-economic status, race, culture or religion. And we must never, never, never allow distrust to engender along these differences.

There is so much that we have to do together as a people. It is not just the work of certain agencies or certain companies but it is the work of every person, so much that we need to do, no time to fight. We must put aside prejudices, we must put aside snide remarks and insinuations. So much to do, can we construct and not destruct? After all, we have a precious common history and we do, we must, we will have a precious and common destiny. We have gone through thick and thin together. The Japanese war, riots, acts and attempted acts of terror, financial crises, SARS. We fought together, cried together, worked together, grew together. Will we throw that away? Will we throw that away at insinuations from people who may not even have any stake in our country? Would we throw that away just by listening to others and being persuaded without much thinking.

We are proud to be Singaporean and we should be. We are proud of our sons and daughters, regardless of their achievements. We nurture them. We empower our workers, employers, persons with disabilities. We celebrate successes of Singaporeans together. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their sons suffer mishaps during and in the service of the nation. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their family members suffer mishaps whether in Singapore or overseas. We call on the Government to protect Singaporeans who are vulnerable. We stand together against crime. We stand together against terrorism. Do we want to throw that away? We have too much at stake.

Even in situations of terror where our own people act or attempt to act against our country, we will stand with all Singaporeans, regardless of language, race or religion. We will be united against evil and terror. As our forefathers and founding fathers protected Singapore for us, we will protect Singapore for our children.

Why is trust so important? Without that, our society falls apart. No trust in the Government, no trust in each other.

We are Singaporean. We will determine our own destiny. We will listen to the views of others about Singapore, we will discern. We will improve, but we will not bow to criticisms by persons who have no stake in our country. Whatever their motives, however noble their motives, we are the ones who determine our destiny. And this, we must be clear. We must not allow others to influence our destiny. Will we take charge? Will we? And we should.

We are Singaporean. Whether we live or die, wherever we live or die, we are Singaporean. And if we die in a foreign land, there will be that corner of a foreign field that will forever be Singapore. Majullah Singapura!

3.01 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. The crux of President Halimah’s speech is about how we move forward together to build our future Singapore. And as I thought about the future of Singapore, I asked myself: what does Singapore mean for each of us? Although not representative, I did take a quick poll amongst several young people asking them to write in their own words what Singapore means for them. Initially, there was some reluctance to pen their thoughts but they did it. While each expressed it differently, interestingly, there were common themes and phrases used to describe how they felt: "home", "safe and secure", "provided me education and opportunity", "stability", "place I want to return to". These were the phrases that they used.

I also asked them what is the future that they wished for. Many hoped that Singapore can adapt to the fast-changing world and continue to stay secure, progress and grow, to have opportunities and allow aspirations to be fulfilled. There was also a call for an inclusive, united and compassionate society with more human touch.

So, as I studied how they felt, I realised that the answers reflected our shared experiences and identity. Shared experiences of growing up in a society based on, as what President Halimah in her speech called, and I quote, "our foundational values of multiracialism, meritocracy, incorruptibility, self-reliance, inclusiveness and openness to the world".

So, as I thought about the Singapore identity and what is it that makes Singapore stand out, I struggled, I really struggled, to describe it. I see it, I see it every day, I can feel it but it is hard to describe. Let me attempt to do so anyway. I believe that it is a combination of many factors. It is the skills and capability and conviction of our people, based on shared experiences that are unique to Singapore, based on our values whether it is our multiracial experience, our educational system, our heritage and our networks of relationships at the personal, business and community level. But what is most important is the harnessing of the power of our people and our shared values and experiences and our networks and relationships that has made Singapore what it is today.

And we should build on this. We should foster this. But, what is this? It is our Singapore brand and identity. The Singapore passport has recently been recognised as the most powerful passport in the world as it gets you through, I believe, 180 countries without the need for a visa. But what is behind, what is it that has made it possible? And, it is really trust. How did this trust come about? It is built over the years from our track record of making things happen, our reliability, trustworthiness and, to some extent, although I did hear in this House, some of us did ask for our kiasuism to be taken away. I think it is also part of our kiasuism and also as being a country that tries to make it easy for things to happen, for example, for businesses,making it easy for businesses to set up. It is all of these, it is of this coming together that defines the Singapore and the Singaporeans we are.

But as we look to our future, President Halimah also stressed that we cannot "assume that Singapore will always continue to be successful". There are shifts and developments that we must understand and deal with and these will need new and bold approaches.

The pace and scale of change that we are witnessing across industries are driven by the momentum in Asia, with the economic shift, the technological shift or what many have termed the Fourth Industrial Revolution and, for Singapore, our demographic shift with an ageing population.

So, the question is, are we prepared for this new economy? Do we have what it takes? How do we stay relevant and be able to compete with other cities and countries as they develop and get better?

In my speech at the First Session of this Parliament, I had spoken about jobs. I had said that to enable Singaporeans, no matter where their starting point, to continue to improve their lives, Singapore must be able to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs. At that time, I spoke about my belief that having meaningful work gives confidence to our people not only to make a living but also to feel included and, hence, a sense of belonging and commitment. With the changes we have witnessed in the last two years and the momentum of change we continue to experience, I now realise that while jobs are important, it is more than jobs.

It is about partnership and participation and working together that will make the difference for Singapore and Singaporeans. It is not just about the skills we develop, or the jobs we attain or the place that we learn. It is about partnerships to bring it all together and the interaction amongst people of like and different backgrounds that matter.

Initiatives, such as Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) Launchpad@one-north or Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)' Fintech Regulatory Sandbox and the planned Punggol Digital District, are platforms that provide the environment and the ecosystem to encourage people to come together and to build ties and create new opportunities. They provide platforms for engagement and they promote innovation.

MAS' use of regulatory sandboxes to encourage fintech experimentation has been instrumental in positioning Singapore in a short span of time as a major centre for fintech innovation. Deloitte's report on the world's best cities in which to launch a fintech firm, ranked Singapore as one of the best cities in the world for fintech. Criteria used included doing business, financial competitiveness and innovation.

Block 71 is another example of how the Government can foster an ecosystem for innovation and, in this case, it is about bringing together a startup ecosystem. The JTC Launchpad@one-north houses 750 startups, up from 250 when it was launched in 2011. This platform is now transplanted halfway across the world to San Francisco with the setting up of Block 71 San Francisco as well as closer in the region in Indonesia with Block 71 Jakarta.

This takes the Singapore brand abroad and, more importantly, is enabling a network of Singaporeans, partners and startups to drive innovation. This participation is about the exchange of ideas, innovation and expertise. I am not sure if many of you remember but only about eight years ago, Singapore was seen as dull and where you could not find any startups. Last year, the Global Startup Ecosystem Report by Startup Genome, a US-based organisation showed Singapore overtaking the Silicon Valley as number one for startup talent, notwithstanding that Silicon Valley still remains number one overall and there are still areas for Singapore to improve.

So, while SkillsFuture remains an important underpinning in supporting Singaporeans in developing new and required skills, I believe that there is a need for people to also have a platform to engage and to learn from each other. The same way, with examples like Block 71 and the Fintech Sandbox, that the Government has effectively catalysed and enabled the environment for startups and fintech, I believe that, together with the Government, academia and the private sector, there could be platforms to support platforms of learning for people to come together in their learning journey, in the same way we have developed and will continue to develop segments and industry sectors. We can do the same for individuals. By having a platform for people to come together, it would be very powerful in supporting skills development beyond formal learning and skills training.

With the disruptions and the gig economy, going forward, it may not be just about getting a job, but possibly, a few jobs with freelance work arrangements. It may not be just formal learning or certification of skills, but also learning that comes from interaction and sharing of ideas. The whole idea transcends from business to even a social and community level. The key thread is participation – participation in a supportive environment of individuals, regardless of backgrounds and experiences, the diversity and different perspectives will benefit all. Participation within such an ecosystem not only promotes learning but builds confidence, resilience, trust and allows one to be better able to seize opportunities.

So, as we start writing our next chapter, building on the power of our people, our shared experiences and networks, as Prime Minister Lee had said, I quote, "we have every reason to be confident and optimistic about our future". Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

3.12 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, the President's Address provides a consolidated view of established and recently announced Government policies.

Sir, it is important that our policies speak to the hearts and minds of all Singaporeans in their most decisive moments. The world is changing, getting disrupted, becoming more complex and, hence, unpredictable. Amidst this change, do our policies speak well enough to everyone? I will cite a few hypothetical examples.

Firstly, a young low-income couple contemplating the prospect of saving for retirement in the context of possibly an uncertain Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat price outlook in the distant future, will contemplate also the cost of tuition, amidst the rigours of academic competition and then decide to postpone their decision to have children indefinitely.

Secondly, a 45-year-old man who has been retrenched and is anxiously scouring the job market for any kind of paid work, probably encountering ageist prejudice along the way that is hard to complain about because it is hard to prove.

Thirdly – and this is actually a real person I met – a 25-year-old who is working in a full-time job but driving a private hire car at night, holding down two jobs so as to afford further part-time studies leading to a professional certification.

And fourthly, a 35-year-old woman who has just obtained a degree from part-time study at great cost, time and money who finds that her employability in the salary she can command is not what she expected. In fact, a recent survey found 4.3% of graduates in full-time jobs being severely under-employed, earning less than $2,000 a month.

We can say that there are already Government programmes in place to address the needs of these groups like Wage Credit, PCP, WIS and TAFEP which is true. We can also say that these problems are not unique to Singapore. Many are a consequence of global trends. That, too, is true. We can say that these people cannot always expect the Government to fix all their problems and there is truth in that as well. But if disruptive change is going to make such situations more and more common, is there more we can do for these Singaporeans, as a society?

One private university graduate made an impassioned post on Facebook last month saying, and I quote, "I graduated in the top 15% of my cohort. Surely, that counted for something. It should have wiped out the disaster that was my "A" levels. Man plans; fate jests. I have sent out thousands, hundreds of resumes, every month, every week, every day. I applied for job after job after job, hoping that someone would notice. Until then, I crunched numbers and copy clauses from story after story and picked up whatever freelance jobs and short-term contract jobs I could find. I did this for eight years. In eight years, I received nothing." What else can we say to Singaporeans like these?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in sketching these scenarios, I do not mean to argue that all is doom and gloom. Of course, Singapore and Singaporeans have achieved much in the past and there is much to be grateful for. The glass is half-full, as I have argued before in this House. But some of us would see it as half empty.

As was famously said in a scene in the movie Star Wars Episode 6, much depends on our point of view. Not only that. Sometimes, both good and bad effects can come from the system-design source. Our approach to public finance has created huge reserves for emergency purposes which help fund Budgets, but also created the need to raise costs via tax increases that place pressure on our people. Our education system has produced world-class PISA scores, but it has spawned a massive tuition industry that may erode social mobility and students who are substantially more stressed than the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average.

Going forward, as a country, we face a choice. Do we stick with the same policy and institutional ecosystem and merely apply a plaster or a bandage to control the bad effects? Or do we take the riskier approach of reforming the underlying policy, institution or practice, risking that the new approach, in seeking to reduce the downsides of the old policy, may wholly or partly lose the benefits of the old policy?

One way to decide this lies in seeing if the deeper trends going on in Singapore and the world will make the downsides worse than the benefits over time. If so, then go for reform. If not, let us do incremental tweaks and plasters now.

I was glad to hear references in the President's speech to an appetite for bold reform, which, of course, does not mean reckless reform. And in the spirit, I suggest reforms to two broad baskets of policies where longer-term trends argue for reform. Some of these ideas have been suggested by my colleagues and I on other occasions.

Firstly, the basket of policies that relate to the cost of living, education, inequality and social mobility, which are closely tied to citizen confidence as expressed in risk-taking, entrepreneurship, innovation and, indeed, Total Fertility Rate (TFR).

If and when a Budget funding gap is imminent, rather than raise taxes, is there more scope to review our policies towards the reserves, to tap more from the Net Investment Returns (NIR) and/or land sales, as my Party Secretary-General Mr Pritam Singh has eloquently argued? Such changes would not reduce the absolute size of the reserves per se but would slow down the rate of reserve growth.

This question is not only a technical economic question but a deep, philosophic question about inter-generational equity. And on this question I would put it to this House that there are reasonable views on both sides of the issue. After all, there was a time in the past when suggestions like spending some of the NIR or adding Temasek Holdings to the NIR framework might perhaps have been labelled as irresponsible.

Nominated Member of Parliament Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin made an interesting speech which asked about our reserves, how much is enough. I would build on that and ask: no doubt we need emergency reserves, we absolutely need that, but what rate of reserve growth is enough?

There are risks from reducing the rate of reserves growth. We gain additional security from a larger and larger emergency fund going forward. But there are also risks from allowing costs and economic pressures to rise in the future, inhibiting growth in other qualities we need to optimise among Singaporeans, like risk-taking, long-termism, entrepreneurism, TFR. In a word, confidence. Confidence that the future could be better than the past, confidence that the deck is not stacked against me, confidence that I need not run faster and faster just to stay in the same place.

Spending more on the current generations and reducing the cost burden may affect TFR. As Mr Pritam Singh said, TFR is an existential issue facing Singapore.

There is some evidence that anxiety about the cost of living and academic competition contributes to a low TFR and, indeed, our TFR is one of the lowest in the world. As our reserves grow and the need to promote confidence among Singaporeans grows, the case for reform to this basket of policies strengthens.

The fact of HDB flat lease decay is rightly a part of this basket of issues. The possibility of HDB resale prices in the future performing poorly as more Build-To-Order (BTO) flats are built, resale demand remains soft and more flats get sold on the marketplaces pressure on the goal of monetising one’s own HDB flat for future retirement income or even emergency or supplementary income. This is a large and complex issue which the Workers’ Party intends to study in the months ahead, with a view to make constructive suggestions.

At the same time, can we not review our education system, which was originally designed, we are told, such that tuition is unnecessary? Can we not review the balance between content mastery and time for non-cognitive skills development or even time for leisure, hobbies and family pursuits which aid healthy character formation? No doubt, content mastery has been pared down over the years, but do exams test the pared-down content taught in the standard curriculum or do exams test for content that goes beyond, thus acting as a sharper stratification instrument, whether intended or otherwise?

One letter published in The Straits Times Forum said, "The textbooks recommended by the Ministry and used in schools offer basic information. Yet, when it comes to examinations, the questions asked are often way above the level of the information in the textbooks. This is the main reason students seek tuition".

Is this a valid perspective? If so, is there room to re-balance further between developing cognitive skills on the one hand, which are important, and non-cognitive skills and leisure time on the other? Amidst the relentless advance of AI and robotics, as simple tasks become automated and a higher and higher premium falls on skillsets like creativity and leadership, the case for education reform in this respect grows.

Can we not review our class size, to take advantage of falling enrolments while leaving the teacher population stable, as I argued in an earlier Motion? Smaller Learning Support Programme (LSP) classes for weaker pupils could stigmatise those pupils. Moreover, smaller general class sizes could reduce the number of pupils falling behind that necessitates those smaller LSP classes to begin with.

There is evidence that smaller class sizes can yield significant education, non-cognitive skill and social mobility benefits. Our general class sizes are well above the OECD average. The question of class size at least warrants research in the form of a large-scale randomised trial to help quantify benefits versus costs, so that, as a country, we can debate this issue with all the facts on the table.

And can we regularly measure and debate social mobility, as my Party Chairman Ms Sylvia Lim has eloquently argued for?

Sir, the second basket of issues is institutional and political. Our system has many devices that favour stability. To be sure, stability is a good thing. But with such a framework, are we not sacrificing diversity? Does our institutional ecosystem do enough to promote diversity of ideas in the public square?

Can we not scale back the extent, if, indeed, there is any, of the "influence, resources and enforcement powers" of the Government being brought to bear on the way news is reported by mainstream media (MSM) outlets, such that MSM editors and journalists report the news as they see fit, within broad regulatory parameters pertaining to sensitive issues like race and religion, as I suspect most journalists would want to do? The quote that I used comes from a recent MSM newspaper editorial which called for "a state that does not use its considerable influence, resources and enforcement powers to box the local media into a corner."

Can we not have an independent Ombudsman to review complaints about Executive decisions without the complainant being faced with the costs and limitations associated with the process of seeking judicial review? An Ombudsman may uncover policy gaps or institutional shortcomings that are not related purely to corruption or finances as dealt with by CPIB and AGO.

And is our model of leadership future-ready? Traditionally, many national leaders have emerged from Government scholarship holders, some of whom go on to populate the top rungs of the Civil Service, GLCs and the Cabinet. This tends to reduce the pool of talent available to the private sector and civil society and it is important for both of these sectors to be strong in the future. Moreover, this pattern can produce political and GLC decision-makers who lack private or not-for-profit sector experience.

Many Singaporeans were very surprised when the new incoming CEO of SMRT was another former General. Did our Pioneer Generation Cabinet have such a high proportion of ex-civil servants?

To manage this, can we not consider a time bar for civil servants entering politics, as I have argued for earlier? And can scholars not only be given the option of serving part of their bond in the local small and medium enterprise (SME) sector or civil society sector, but also be encouraged to do so? If necessary, we can ramp up the scholar cohort size to ensure sufficient scholars remain to meet Public Service needs.

In addition to these points, the other huge part of the equation is how to generate economic growth, to grow the size of the pie. I have not touched on that subject in this speech, but my colleagues and I have made many suggestions on this subject in the past, from harnessing ASEAN disruptive industry growth to a dedicated bank for SME globalisation, to name but two.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, none of these suggestions by itself is a silver bullet. But giving serious thought to such suggestions can contribute to a more liveable, more future-ready, more democratic and more diverse society that will be a stronger and better home, built to last.

3.26 pm

Mr Ong Teng Koon (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Speaker, I would like to declare that I work in the utilities industry and I rise in support of the Motion. Technology is changing and our people’s needs are evolving, creating demand for new infrastructure. Expectations are always rising and, despite all that we have achieved, there is always more to do. We need to rethink how we build, what we build and how we pay for it.

To meet the challenges ahead, I wish to make three suggestions on ways to improve the infrastructure needs of our country.

My first suggestion is to improve the data infrastructure. Data is the backbone of our Smart Nation initiative. At present, there is only one fibre infrastructure backbone in Singapore. This makes sense from the point of view of affordability, but it creates a single point of failure.

For example, consumers will remember how the fire in Singtel’s Bukit Panjang Exchange building in 2013 affected consumers from multiple operators in the northern and western parts of Singapore. While some people joke that denying people WiFi is a violation of their human rights, it is no laughing matter as such disruptions have serious consequences for both individuals and businesses.

Former Minister Assoc Prof Yaacob Ibrahim identified redundancy as one of the four core components of a resilient network, the others being diversity, resistance and recovery. The traditional argument against building another totally separate network is the prohibitive cost. While the costs of not having back-up are constantly rising, the costs of building such a network are coming down as technology advances.

Connectivity providers in the UK are exploring creative solutions to traditional network laying. Sewers, spare electricity cable ducts, highways, overhead lines and rail networks are being explored for the right of way to lay cables. This creative approach to new networks is also being seen at a government level. For example, in the UK, the wastewater pipe network of Thames Water is being used to deploy fibre optic cables, instantly creating new, cost-effective and diverse connections in key business areas.

The argument for an alternative fibre network is strong and getting stronger. By leveraging existing infrastructure to reduce implementation costs and optimise asset use, the costs may not remain prohibitive.

I believe there is also room for private operators to play a bigger role, so that the Government would not have to shoulder the entire cost of implementation. But what is needed are clear rules to allow for the usage of existing infrastructure. I urge the relevant Ministries to take a deeper look at the issue.

We should also look at infrastructure from a sustainability perspective and, hence, we return to a topic that I have addressed before – electric vehicles (EVs). What seemed like toys for rich geeks just a few years ago are now seen as the future of mobility.

My second suggestion is to provide more charging points for EVs. Many countries are already laying plans to phase out combustion engines altogether. The UK and France have announced that sales of gasoline and diesel vehicles will no longer be allowed in their countries by 2040. The Indian government has indicated its intention to only allow EVs to be sold in India by 2030. China has raised the bar yet again for automakers when it announced late last month its proposal to implement aggressive new quotas for the production of new Energy Vehicles.

The world is moving towards the adoption of EV and such a move would be in line with our commitment to COP21. Singapore is well-placed to take the lead in the adoption of EVs, but despite its small size that is perfect for EVs, adoption has been slow because of the lack of reliable access to charging. It is a chicken-and-egg problem, if there are no charging points, car owners will not adopt EVs.

Private enterprises can play a role here. BlueSG is a co-funded programme by the Government to provide 1,000 EVs and 2,000 charging points by the year 2020. However, only 20% of these charging points will be open to the public.

One way is to open up more of these charging points to the public eventually but, without the HDB and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) carpark access, a pervasive network of public EV charging points will not be possible. The Government needs to support and encourage more public-private cooperation in this space.

My third suggestion is related to one of the common complaints that we hear from residents that there is frequent congestion on roads due to what they perceive to be uncoordinated roadworks by different utilities. To them, we seem to be constantly digging up and patching up the same stretches of roads over and over again. While there are, of course, legitimate reasons for this, can the coordination between utilities be optimised through the implementation of more common services, tunnels, such as the one that we have in the Marina Bay area? Or would it be possible to leverage other tunnels, such as the deep tunnel sewerage system or the underground transmission cable tunnel? Such a scheme can reduce traffic congestion, reduce risk of damage to utilities and allow for easier access for maintenance and repairs.

It is important to have a regulatory framework to allow these private or public tunnels to be accessed and utilised by all. At the same time, it ensures that utilities owners are properly compensated. This is in the larger national interest of reducing congestion and improving productivity.

Mr Speaker, please let me now make three suggestions on how we can make the infrastructure enhancements possible.

The first is to have a balance between public intervention and market solutions. We are moving into a much more challenging world and the Government needs to establish the right ground rules. There must be the appropriate balance between Government intervention where it is needed and allowing the private sector to find the best solutions. Should the yellow pages rule that the Government should not provide services that are already provided by private enterprises in the yellow pages continue to be our guiding principle?

On more micro initiatives, where the right solution might not be clear and where the private sector can find the best solution, the Government should exercise greater caution before getting involved. An example is the many subsidies that we are offering to SMEs to adopt technologies. Some vendors are pre-approved and that is great for them because they can be vetted for quality but, at the same time, their competitors are shut out, even if they develop a superior product. This can quickly become an accusation of favoritism where insiders make lots of money and outsiders are left to wither on the vine.

In contrast, while many of the infrastructure developments that I have just discussed, there are strong economic arguments for Government intervention as the private sector may not be willing to undertake the level of investment needed. As reliability and security are paramount for such projects, given the scale and national importance, the Government has to provide direction and ensure that the Ministries coordinate across all levels in a whole-of-Government approach.

The second suggestion is to develop a regulatory framework for public and private cooperation. Where private stakeholders are involved, a framework must be created to ensure proper compensation to the stakeholders that finance and build each piece of infrastructure. While it is tempting to regulate by saying no to everything, this will not lead to the desired outcome. There must be some spread of risk-taking because, if you take no risk, you will reap no reward and our nation will be the poorer for it.

The final suggestion will be on alternative ways to finance infrastructure projects. Only the Government has the financial clout to finance major infrastructural investments that we need. Infrastructure costs are long term in nature while financing is short term. If clear rules are in place that allows for private ownership, then Government will not have to carry the entire burden of implementation. This transfers the risk from taxpayers to private companies. We can go even further than just borrowing to finance investment as has been announced in the 2018 Budget. Another way to finance infrastructure is through infrastructure trusts. This has the benefit of democratising ownership by allowing the man in the street to have a stake in infrastructure. This is similar to the use of REIT to allow more people to benefit from real estate ownership. There are currently, lots of appetite both domestically and internationally, to finance long-term, stable assets. Such a move will help to develop a deep, liquid and transparent infrastructure market for SGX.

In conclusion, I believe that if we can strike a good balance between Government intervention and private sector participation, by having clear guidelines and a robust regulatory framework and the life of commercial rights to be respected and more flexible financing arrangements, we can build a better Singapore for current and future generations of Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion.

3.35 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. The President has articulated the Government's specific focus on facing complex challenges in an uncertain world, rooted with an appreciation of the needs of our elderly and the aspirations of our young. I will focus my speech on the social compact between the Government and the younger generation of Singaporeans who are coming of age and are trying to navigate a world very different from their parents when they were young.

The social compact during our early post-Independence years was simple, quite simple as it encompasses much of our ambition. I recall it simply says the Government will create a better life for Singaporeans. Our first generation Government forged this social compact with Singaporeans like my parents, when we were a nation struggling for survival and aspiring for a better living.

Back then, it seemed straightforward. The Government promised a home with modern amenities for Singaporeans. We all moved from our kampong houses to HDB flats; rental flats initially. But with economic progress, we moved to purchased homes, which appreciated in value over time. We wanted stable jobs in a dynamic economy. So, when the Government urged us to pick up manufacturing skills in vocational schools, we did. In the 1970s and 1980s, those were our only choices. At the same time, we were given access to quality education and many of us attained education and skills levels that our parents never thought possible. We wanted to be able to defend ourselves after the British forces withdrew, so, when the Government introduced National Service, we served.

Against the odds, our early generation transformed a small country into a thriving economy, established a strong defence force in a volatile geopolitical environment and built national unity from a multiracial, multi-religious society.

During this debate, many Members of the House have spoken on social inequality and cautioned against the ill effects of social stratification. Like them, I have come across cases of low-income families facing multiple challenges, raising concerns about the future of their children and wondering how is it that we still have such families, given 50 years of remarkable economic progress. It begs the question: have we failed in fulfilling our social compact with Singaporeans?

It is true that as our country develops economically, most Singaporeans saw improvements in their lives. We accepted the social compact forged at that time where meritocracy was the principal consideration and our priorities were to promote personal responsibility and optimise our scarce resources. Our middle-class group Singaporeans own homes and experienced significant capital gains when they sold their HDB flats. However, some Singaporeans unfortunately, lagged behind. The Government had not stood idly by. We adopted diverse approaches to provide support to the low-income group through initiatives, such as the Many Hands Approach, ComCare, the WorkFare Income Supplement Scheme. Despite these efforts, some continue to say that Government intervention has been inadequate and even argue that certain Government policies have led to this inequality.

Reflecting on this, I am convinced that the recent tide of concern regarding rising inequality is not so much an indication of an unfulfilled social compact. Instead, it shows a growing recognition that the balance will need to be struck between performance-based meritocracy on one hand, and compassion and opportunities on the other as our society and economy continue to grow and prosper. Are we looking for greater emphasis on compassion versus meritocracy? The larger question then is: is the social compact of the past still relevant today? Will young Singaporeans share the same aspirations and outlook as their predecessors?

Mdm President said in her Address that a new generation of Singaporeans is coming of age and bringing with them different dreams, hopes and fears. It is important for us to understand their concerns and aspirations, given that this generation will inherit and actively shape Singapore's future. Our Government will need to partner them to write the next chapter of the Singapore Story and co-create the right social compact for their time.

To do so, we must note our next generation – the Singapore millennials. The National Youth Council's 2016 survey highlights many positive characteristics of this generation of millennials that I believe put us in good stead in a new environment. According to the survey, young Singaporeans embrace lifelong learning and rated acquiring new skills and knowledge highly as part of their top life goals. They are also more socially conscious, future-focused and have greater international exposure.

Being a parent of two millennials, I must say that I am intimately acquainted with the challenges of trying to understand our children and youths of today. However, this pan picture of our millennials as depicted by the National Youth Survey is a useful reference point for us to keep in mind and as we continue to explore the key design considerations of what Singapore's future will look like. After all, this new social compact 2.0, as I call it, would need to be forged with and by those from this younger generation.

Mr Speaker, as I contemplated on how we as a Government can make bold strides in engaging our young people, I was struck by a report from a consultancy firm Interbrand and tech firm Oracle. It highlighted five strategies to reach out to our millennials today. What are these strategies?

It spoke of, one, creating an experience for them; two, making things frictionless; three, allowing customisation; four, building loyalty; and, five, demonstrating value.

While these strategies were originally conceived to inform retailers' efforts to win over the youth market, the insights are applicable to our context. The repeated questions were, I asked myself, how do these prescribed strategies upend our traditional business models of governance and public policymaking and, further, what further areas of governance, or what specific areas of governance can we infuse these strategies into?

So, let me try. First, the strategy to reach to out the millennial is to create an experience. In this context, perhaps, redefining success. In the past, the Singaporean Dream was often encapsulated by the 5Cs: cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club membership. But today, our millennials are developing their own definition of success. No longer satisfied with just the attainment of the 5Cs, our youths today crave memorable and purposeful experiences that emphasise the importance of the journey instead of being fixated with the destination. Encapsulated by the so-called "YOLO" or you only live once attitude, our youths want to be excited where to live, work and play.

To this end, our youths can look forward to raising families in homes that will boast the physical and digital connectivity. Just imagine, by leveraging artificial intelligence, smart homes could render current day household chores an afterthought.

At work, our millenials will also come to grips with the challenges of participating in the extremely competitive global labour marketplace. More would job hop with high attrition rates in some professions because just earning money is not enough. Young people want to know that they have made a difference. They look for newer experiences and want to learn new things as they know the possession of single and static skillsets is not sufficient to thrive amidst the competition. To balance work, our young people want a Singapore that is fun and vibrant. From hunting down the latest "insta-worthy" hang-outs to taking part in various arts or sporting events, the extent to which we can make Singapore the most liveable city is clearly only limited by our own imagination.

To satisfy this generation's thirst for novel experiences, this Government will need to partner our citizens to re-define the meaning of success and recognise that, paradoxically, it might be one that continually shifts and always gives us something new and better to aspire towards. In this new social compact, the role of Government is to bring public policy in line with Singaporeans' evolving aspirations for ensuring that national survival is not compromised.

The second strategy to connecting to millenials is making it frictionless. In the context of governance, perhaps, in re-imagining Public Service delivery. Today, our youths have increasingly grown accustomed to living in a frictionless society. Thanks to advances in telecommunications and the Internet, private sector companies have been able to leverage innovations and technologies to make our daily lives more convenient and hassle-free.

In transportation, for example, private hire mobile applications, such as Grab, that provide door-to-door services with seamless payment solutions have become commonplace and effectively disrupted how our people consume transportation services. Reminders like "do not board a stranger's car" do not resonate with young people. Similarly, e-commerce has changed the retail experience, making it possible to now make purchases of all sorts from the comforts of home at just the click of a button.

This is the reality that confronts the Singapore Public Service: that these forms of corporate innovations increase our citizens' expectations of service delivery, which, inevitably, extends to the provision of public services as well. This issues a clarion call to the Government to raise our standards of Public Service delivery to satisfy the expectations of our people. This is our opportunity to re-imagine many areas of governance, such as housing, health, social services, education and transportation. The time to act is now.

In this aspect, we can be encouraged by the progress that has been made by our Smart Nation initiatives. We have already made inroads in some of these areas. The parking.sg app is targeted at making the tearing of carpark coupons a thing of the past. I am sure that some still do tear the carpark coupons. Increasingly, there have been stronger calls to leverage a national digital identity to successfully implement a national e-payment solution. These ideas represent but the tip of the iceberg on how Singapore will bet big on technological solutions to transform the way we deliver healthcare, employment and financial services to the population.

This Government will have to convince fellow Singaporeans we are ready to get on with the times. To be daring and bold in exploring all ideas that will help ensure that our services are accessible on the go, available on demand, absent of cumbersome processes, supported by the use of safe and secure databases and equipped with feedback mechanisms for constant improvement. Through this, we hope to deliver the service standards that our citizens desire and deserve.

The third strategy is allowing customisation. In this context, a Singapore for everyone. Many of us in this Chamber can recall the days when kopi came mostly in recycled condensed milk tins and a kopi si siew kai counts as a special order. Today, walk into any modern cafe, often run by young entrepreneurs and you can select from a menu that ranges from nitro-cold brews to hand-brewed drip coffee with hints of cherry. The coffee beans will also be sourced from across the globe, catering to every palette and preference.

No previous generation has ever had such high expectations for variety and customisation. Nevertheless, our young Singaporeans are proving themselves as more mature than older Singaporeans sometimes give them credit for. Many young residents have shared with me that their perception of Singapore's value is not determined only by our plentiful economic opportunities but also by the extent that Singapore is home to people and places they love. They understand that Singapore, as an advanced economy, is unlikely to experience double-digit economic growth, but can still sustain a good standard of living if we remain dynamic in our outlook.

What the millenials seek, in the next bound of our development is greater involvement in shaping policies and the living environment that sets the conditions for our country's dynamism. They want the opportunity to customise aspects of their nation, just as they had grown accustomed to in many other facets of their lives.

I believe our younger Singaporeans seek to revisit a social compact where the Government had a monopoly on master planning the public good and create a greater role for citizen participation in city design and policy formulation. We have taken steps in this direction. One example is HDB's Adventure Playground@Canberra. This playground had features conceptualised, designed and built by residents living in housing estates in Sembawang. About 1,800 people were involved through design workshops, roadshows and surveys. The outcome is a facility that is fun for young residents with design elements that reflect the precinct's heritage. These are encouraging signs.

I spoke of YOLO earlier. Now, I am told, there is also FOMO: Fear Of Missing Out, a prevalent mindset of apprehension that you will miss out on something great. So, to the young Singaporeans, there is huge potential for co-creation. Do not miss out on this opportunity to create the future with the Government and forge a new social compact where every citizen has the opportunity to shape policies and public goods which they hold dear. This way, Singaporeans can take ownership of our country through the process of co-creation and everyone can be proud to call Singapore home.

The fourth strategy to reach out to the millenials is building loyalty. In this context, the implication for the Government is making Singapore where the heart is. Indeed, what gives our young Singaporeans a stake in Singapore will evolve. For a generation that is better educated, more-travelled, articulate and confident than their predecessors, the world is their oyster. Home ownership and stable employment might not be enough to keep our young Singaporeans anchored in Singapore.

On the other hand, the ever-growing demands of a small city state on its populace have not gone away. We will still need every Singaporean son to defend us from external threats. As we remain a diverse society, mutual respect for Singaporeans of all races and religions to uphold racial and religious harmony remains non-negotiable. Life and living as a Singaporean come with responsibilities of citizenship. For our young Singaporeans whose skills are valued by major cities across the globe, what makes Singapore their home of choice? What drives our love and yearning for home despite its imperfections and our household responsibilities?

I do not profess to know the answer for all Singaporeans. For my family, the trials and tribulations we have been through and the unbreakable trust we have in one another has held us together over the years. By extension, forging a sense of common destiny and winning the confidence of its citizens are imperatives of every Government and an essential ingredient for effective partnership between communities and their leaders. The 4G leadership of Singapore is no exception. Our role is to work together as we partner fellow Singaporeans in defining our chapter in the Singapore Story and delivering on our commitments to better the lives of every Singaporean, especially the under-privileged, the vulnerable and continue to reduce inequality.

As we tackle inequality head on, we must be cognisant of what social mobility means for all Singaporeans. Many have spoken about the Gini coefficient. It is a popular index of a country's income inequality. But it actually does not tell us much about income distribution and very little, in fact anything, about social mobility. The Gini coefficient is a relative measure and, therefore, has many limitations for tracking key issues, such as income or social class differences, and, particularly, how people are progressing in socio-economic terms.

Take, for example, the United Kingdom, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and Cambodia. They all share the same Gini index of 0.36. Yet, we know these societies are vastly different when you look at the social and economic conditions of people's lives across these countries. A better handle on measuring social mobility is needed to discuss meaningfully the causes of inequality and policies to tackle it. As Prof David Chan from SMU has highlighted, tackling social inequalities involves understanding people's aspirations and achievements. He wrote, "Social mobility issues are multi-faceted and inter-dependent; thus, requiring an integrated policy approach. This is undergirded by ensuring fairness and opportunities for all Singaporeans."

At present, the Government cannot afford to and will not hide behind excuses and statistics. Today, young Singaporeans have come of age in relative affluence but we will soon have to confront the cost of sustaining an ageing society and closing the inequality gap. They, too, should have the opportunity to articulate their desired social compact. As a Government, we stand ready to revisit the current balance between meritocracy and compassion to keep our policies in line with the social compact of the generation.

Beyond influencing policy, I urge young Singaporeans to be the change you wish to see in the community. If you feel strongly for causes to improve the lives of the less fortunate amongst us, step up and take action. We see many more elderly in the community living alone and at risk of social isolation. They need the support and our youth can respond. I am heartened that, increasingly, many young Singaporeans are answering this call.

Recently, a group of youths, calling themselves "The Gift Community" approached me for support for their project they call "Baju Bazaar" – baju means outfit, where they planned to collect donated Hari Raya bajus or outfits to be distributed to lower-income Malay/Muslim families to celebrate Hari Raya. They asked me for support for a location that they can conduct this distribution process. Of course, I offered them to hold the event at Wisma Geylang Serai.

As a nation, let us take pride not only in an economy where people's physical needs and wants are met, but in a strong Singapore society which we can all call home because of our individual and collective efforts to foster inclusion with fellow Singaporeans from different backgrounds. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, today is the first day of the month of Ramadan. Please allow me to wish a Blessed Ramadan to all Muslims in Singapore. I wish them well as they perform their fast throughout the month of Ramadan and may they receive His blessings.

Mr Speaker, in an increasingly challenging international environment, Singapore has to constantly take creative and innovative measures to secure a bright future. Therefore, I have a special message for our younger generation. They are called the millennials. As you work hard and progress, do know that the definition of success that we know today can, and will, change. So, who will determine this new definition? It is you! You need to create and open your own pathways towards a brighter future. Do not be bound to the old school of thought that over-emphasises academic results or sets too much limits on your career choice.

Feel excited about where you live, where you work and where you play. And be bold enough to challenge the status quo together with the Government and seize opportunities to sharpen your skills and let your natural abilities shine. But stay confident and strong about your identity and your culture – in fact, use it as the cornerstone in all your efforts. The path to success will not be easy. The road will be tough – it requires both sacrifice and hard work. Yet, the journey will be so meaningful. Why is that so? Because, now, you own this journey from start to end. Do not let your station in life today define who you want to be and where you want to be tomorrow. As a successful young people, you also have a role in spurring progress and developing the Malay/Muslim community in Singapore.

As we celebrate your success in various fields – be it academic, sports, arts or the professions – there will still be those who are lagging and left behind. But we are certain that their situation is only temporary. Their talent can be developed. Their capabilities can be enhanced. Therefore, they can move towards the next station in life. So, let us reach out and help them to ride the wave towards success, whatever the field may be.

With the combination of your youthful enthusiasm and your “YOLO” spirit, you can create creative solutions to mobilise your generation and help our community progress. As your generation likes to say – hash-tag go-je-don’t-scared. This is a new hash-tag, I am told – #gojedonscared. It means, just go, do it, do not be afraid. Our community’s success is in your hands!

(In English): Mr Speaker, allow me to conclude with the fifth strategy in reaching out to the millennials: demonstrating value. In this context, I would say, empowerment. Singaporean millennials would have to address many new challenges, including disruptions brought about by their peers across the globe. To do so, they need to have instincts, mental dexterity and skills that their global competitors possess. Just as the Pioneer Generation had entrusted Generation X to take Singapore into the knowledge-based economy, we should recognise the strengths and aspirations of the next generation of Singaporeans and give them space to forge the social compact of their time.

Mr Speaker, all of us believe in this special red dot. Sometimes, we all take for granted what we have. The next chapter of the Singapore Story must continue to capture the imagination of the storytellers, Singaporeans. They know it will not be easy. Our earlier generations have undertaken a similar journey. Now, we must go through our own journey. Each of us has a part to play.

To the parents, of all the obstacles we clamour to remove in our children's development, our preconceived notions of success is a good start. Success need not be about achieving or achievements of goals but the fulfillment of self, including the joy of being able to be useful to others. Indeed, we should suspend judgement and be willing to listen to what they have to say. Let us, as good stewards of Singapore, empower the next generation to succeed and take Singapore to greater heights.

To the millennials, the path to success will not be easy, however we define it. The road will be tough and requires sacrifices and hard work. Yet, the journey is meaningful because you will own it from start to end. Let your station today not define who you want to be tomorrow. We must continue to meet the future's challenges with a "YOLO" mentality and channel any "FOMO" tendencies towards a collective greater social good. To borrow a term commonly used on social media, this is our "hash-tag SG squadgoals" moment, as a new hast-tag – hast-tag squadgoals – and this is our hast-tag SG squadgoals' moment where we recognise that, going forward, you, the millennials, will be valuable members of our Singapore "squad". We must, therefore, band together, rally behind a common aspiration to build our Singapore of tomorrow. Let us know what you think. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is no fear of missing out on tea break. So, do not be scared. Go and enjoy your tea break. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.10 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Over the past 53 years, Singapore has done well as a nation. We are one of the more successful countries in the world with a high Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita. We are known to be non-corrupt, transparent and efficient. Whenever I travel overseas, many foreigners that I speak to, compliment Singapore and they hold us in high regard. Singaporeans are known to be hardworking, dedicated and trustworthy.

It is a good reputation to have and something that all Singaporeans should be proud of. But yet, sometimes, when I speak to Singaporeans, I do not sense the same level of pride of being a Singaporean.

Some of them are concerned about the future of our nation, being small and without resources. Some worry that the growth opportunities which my generation had may not be available to the future generations. Some are critical of the Government even though they know that Singapore is well-run. The frequent criticism is that the Government is well-intended but unwilling to listen to other views or is too defensive.

For those concerned about our future, the 4G leaders must demonstrate that they have the ability to lead the nation. They must provide a vision for Singapore and give assurance that Singaporean's future remains bright. My experience with the 4G leaders that I work with is that they are genuine and sincere about wanting to serve the people. They want to do their best to improve the lives of Singaporeans. However, governing is a complicated process and no government, no matter how well-intended, is perfect.

As the 4G leadership team leads Singapore to the future, I hope that they can improve on the way that we engage our citizens. I hope they will be more consultative in the policies and approach. I hope they can be a more receptive and kinder Government when dealing with people of differing views. At the same time, I hope that Singaporeans, too, will rally behind and support a sincere and honest Government because no matter how good our policies, a divided nation will always fail. As citizens, we can all be part of a solution by working together for a common purpose of making Singapore a better home for all of us.

Politics is a contest of ideas. With better explanations, Singaporeans will be able to discern what are good policies; beneficial for our people and for the nation. But we need to work hard to explain our policies to earn the respect of those who may not agree with or understand the policies. Our leaders must also learn to trust that Singaporeans are mature and know what is good for them.

I feel that there are several challenges facing Singapore for the future. One of the challenges is to ensure that the economy continues growing and Singaporeans continue to have access to good jobs. The reality is that our competition is the rest of the world. Painful as it may sound, getting a good job is not an entitlement for any of us. Each of us must find a way to provide better value to our potential employer. And when I read of the high unemployment rates in some of the more developed countries, I am glad that Singapore is still able to manage its unemployment figures. But we should never assume that full employment is our entitlement and will stay with us in Singapore.

Another challenge is to manage rising costs. Although I understand the explanation, the rationale given why water must be priced correctly, why parking charges must be adjusted, understand the rationale why the Goods and Services Tax (GST) must be increased in a few years' time to provide for better healthcare, but, yet, when you add together all the increase in cost, this increase in cost of living will cast a financial burden on our citizens.

Singaporeans hope for a better life for the future. An increase in cost of living will reduce their disposable income and affect their aspirations for a better life. The Government must keep a close tab on the increases in living expenses. Whether it is for water, transport fares, medical costs or food costs, we must be mindful that whatever the reason for these increases, when taken together, they will adversely affect the livelihood of our citizens, especially those of the lower income.

Next, to strengthen our sense of nationhood among our citizens, I hope that this Government will review the policy of tagging budgetary benefits to household type. In my constituency, I have many residents who either live in private homes or bigger HDB flats which were purchased when they were younger, working and economically better off.

However, today, many are retired with no income and some are unable to find similar paying jobs due to their age. Some are also middle income. And their frustration is that they always get left behind whenever benefits are announced in the annual Budget. It is essentially a non-event for them because the SG Bonus, GST vouchers or S&CC or utilities rebates are usually not for them. They feel that the Government has little appreciation for residents living in better homes despite their past years of contribution to nation building when they were working.

I am not suggesting simply giving handouts for them. It is about better appreciating those who had contributed to Singapore during their working years, those who had paid income taxes, but served the nation in different capacities. The Pioneer Generation Package was appreciated by many Singaporeans because the Pioneer Generation felt appreciated by the Government. So, I urge the Government to adopt policies which signal to our citizens that they are appreciated for their contributions to nation building. This will give them a sense that they are Singaporeans, too, whenever the Budget is announced, instead of it being a non-event.

To better help our less fortunate, I hope that this Government will also review its policy of tagging the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) benefits to the household income of the individual. I have come across residents who lost their blue CHAS card status because they had worked harder and were given a small pay raise. Thus, for a $100 extra monthly income, they lose the medical benefits tagged to the blue CHAS card. They then end up paying more for medical care. It does not make sense why the CHAS system penalises someone for working harder and earning more. A graduated system may be fairer to those who really need the CHAS benefits.

There are many other policies which can be improved upon. But it does not mean that the policies are wrong. However, with minor adjustments, we can make the policies better and create a more positive impact on our citizens. My appeal to the Government leaders is to be always open to suggestions for improvements; for our civil servants to adopt a framework of asking, "How can I do this better?"

Mr Speaker, I am confident that our current leaders have the ability to plan for the future of Singapore. However, I wish to sound a word of caution that Singapore should not be seen as a company where everything is simply transactional. We are a nation and a home that all Singaporeans can be proud of. So, I urge the Government to develop policies which will strengthen our nation's core values; to inculcate in our citizens the importance of values like meritocracy, self-reliance, incorruptibility, diligence, honesty, humility and loyalty to the nation as we all continue writing the Singapore story. I support the Motion.

4.38 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Sir, I support the five priorities as highlighted by the President as follows: (a) securing a place in the world for Singapore; (b) building a world-class city; (c) developing a vibrant economy; (d) forging a caring and inclusive society; and (e) nurturing a distinct Singapore identity.

Sir, as a small country with limited natural resources, Singapore must always strive to nurture our human resource, seize economic opportunities and stay relevant to the world. Singaporeans must be mindful that we are living in a highly competitive world and we must continue to develop the drive to be innovative and competitive, without losing our ability to stay grounded in reality. We must stay united as one people so that we can progress together for a better future.

Sir, to achieve the desired outcomes of the five priorities, there is a dire need for us to transform the built environment in Singapore and I wish to propose three areas which the Government can focus on to transform our built environment for the future. First, transforming our built environment for the future economy; second, transforming our built environment for quality living; and, third, transforming our built environment for retail and recreation.

First: transforming our built environment for future economy. Sir, we need to take bold steps to transform our built environment to cope with the new challenges of the future economy. The transformation of our built environment must be aligned with the proposed industry transformation as laid out in the 23 Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs). There are three ways we can transform our built environment to support the industry transformation.

First, review of land use planning policies and regulations. Sir, the planning authorities, URA must review our existing land use planning policies and regulations to better support industry transformation and the clustering of industries. More planning reforms, such as plot ratio increase or change of use, should be implemented to attract industry champions to spearhead industry transformations and developments. Sir, we often receive feedback from the business community that our planning regulations pose many constraints on business and increase business costs. With the proposed industry transformation, it is, therefore, an opportune time for the authorities to review their respective policies and regulations. The provision of some breathing space from excessive regulation may help to foster a more vibrant and innovative business community which will inevitably contribute to the economic well-being of Singapore.

Second, provide more flexibility in our building, environment and manpower regulations. Sir, we must also review our building regulations, environmental rules and manpower policies to create a more pro-business environment. For instance, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) should continue to encourage buildability and maintainability of buildings. But it should allow more flexibility for the industry stakeholders, such as developers, consultants, contractors and suppliers, to develop solutions for productivity and quality improvements.

Sir, to prescribe the use of certain methods of construction, such as Pre-fabricated Pre-finished Volumetric Construction (PPVC), though it appears to have saved time on construction and manpower, may have undesirable consequences, such as increasing the cost of construction, straining the capacities of the industry and will cause maintainability problems in the future.

Third, building industrial premises for SMEs in industry clusters. Sir, to better support SMEs and enable them to provide better services to industry clusters, JTC should build more industrial premises for SMEs in these clusters. These premises can be rented out to promising SMEs for longer leases of 20 to 30 years at an affordable rental so as to reduce the operating costs of SMEs. Where possible, the industry clusters should also be located at places well-supported by our transport and logistics infrastructure, such as MRT stations, seaports and airports.

Next, transforming our built environment for quality living. There are three ways we can transform our built environment to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans. First, encouraging families to stay near each other. Second, building an elder-safe environment. Third, providing sporting facilities for Singaporeans.

First, encouraging families to stay near each other. Sir, we need to transform our built environment to make it more elderly- and family-friendly. This is particularly so in HDB towns where young and old families stay together. Our housing policies must continue to encourage families to stay near one another. HDB should build more BTO flats of various room types in both older and newer estates so that more Singaporeans have more choices to stay near their parents and families.

Second, building an elder-safe environment. Sir, with a fast-ageing population, we need to expedite the transformation of our built environment to be more elderly-friendly. Although various developments are in place to support ageing, there is an urgent need to make every home to be elder-safe, every community to be elder-safe and make Singapore to be an elder-safe country for both Singaporeans and tourists. We need to take stock of the existing town amenities and shops and take bold steps to change the amenities and tenant mix of shops to better serve our seniors. For instance, some town centres have many similar types of shops, such as hair salons or renovation shops in one location and, thus, do not serve the needs of the residents, especially seniors. As such, seniors in these towns have to travel to other places to buy elderly products and services.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Biow Chuan) in the Chair]

Sir, to better support seniors to age in place, URA and HDB must take bold steps to change the tenant mix of shops in town centres. We must identify the range of elderly products and services and provide these amenities in the community so as to improve the quality of life of our seniors. These elderly-friendly amenities will also encourage seniors to develop self-reliant capabilities, thus, improving their quality of life.

Sir, to make every home elder-safe, MND should provide standard elderly-friendly solutions such as ramps, grab bars, anti-slip flooring system, alert system and lightings. These standard solutions will encourage more families to make their homes elder-safe thus, encouraging family members and friends to visit each other. To further expedite the making of more homes elderly-friendly, I would propose that HDB review the eligibility criteria for its Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme.

Sir, as for the community, the Town Council can play a more active role to make common areas barrier-free and provide more amenities to encourage active and healthy lifestyle among our residents, especially seniors. Popular amenities for seniors include fitness gym, multi-purpose court, walking track and community garden. The Town Council can also provide better connectivity within the town by building more footpaths, cycling paths and covered linkways. This will encourage more residents to walk and cycle, thus, enhancing their health and well-being.

Sir, to make Singapore more elderly-friendly, we must ensure that our built environment is 100% seamless and barrier free. At present, many buildings and places do not have barrier-free access. Our public transport system is also not fully integrated to provide seamless travel for all seniors and wheelchair-bound commuters.

Sir, the Government must invest more in building the infrastructure to support an ageing population. We need a whole-of-Government approach at the Ministerial level to enhance the barrier-free connectivity of our built environment as many Government agencies are facing many barriers presently.

Third, providing sporting facilities for Singaporeans. Sir, swimming is ranked as the top three most popular sports among Singaporeans. Swimming is a low impact and wholesome exercise suitable for all age groups, especially the seniors. With an ageing population, many seniors are experiencing knee and joint problems and, thus, have reduced or stopped physical exercises. This trend is unhealthy. Furthermore, many seniors are not keen to take up swimming due to the hot and wet weather conditions in Singapore.

To overcome these challenges, I would propose that Singapore Sports Council build shelter with skylight for all public pools. Sheltered swimming pools will provide a more conducive environment for seniors to enjoy swimming and water sports in our public pools. It will also increase the usage of our public pools at all times during the opening hours, including adverse weather conditions and days.

Transforming our built environment for retail and recreation. Sir, online shopping has affected the brick-and-mortar retail shops badly. Many retailers are struggling to survive and continue to face rising business costs due to labour shortage and high rental cost. The high turnover of retail shops has resulted in much wastage of resources and disruption of services to consumers. We need to take bold measures to revamp the retail industry in Singapore. I wish to propose three ideas to support the retail industry transformation in Singapore.

First, regroup retail outlets and shopping centres to form mega shopping hubs so as to provide better experiences for shoppers. Sir, we need to review our planning guidelines to facilitate the grouping of shopping centres and retail outlets to form either large shopping districts, such as Shinjuku, or specialised shopping areas, such as Akihabara, in Japan. In this regard, I would urge the Government to review the development plans for Tampines, Jurong East and Woodlands regional centres to transform them into mega shopping hubs.

Second, build underground shopping malls with factory outlets to connect various MRT stations outside the city centre. These underground shopping malls can be located at residential areas and parks so that people can walk, shop, eat and relax in the parks. For example, we can build an underground shopping mall connecting Ang Mo Kio to Bishan Park and Thomson area. These underground shopping malls can also become evacuation or bomb shelters in times of emergency.

Third, transform our HDB neighbourhood centres into shopping malls and markets selling fresh produce and products. Last year, Bukit Panjang transformed its Bangkit neighbourhood centre into an art street selling a wide range of products and services. The transformation has attracted many more shoppers to the neighbourhood centre and provided much vibrancy to the town. Residents can now enjoy shopping in a barrier-free and weather-proof shopping environment.

Sir, the built environment of our country is the physical foundation of a world-class city. We need to align the built environment transformation to support the industry transformation so as to provide better jobs for Singaporeans, a better living environment for Singaporeans and a better quality of life for Singaporeans.

But Sir, we cannot rely on foreign talent alone to transform our built environment, we need to nurture Singaporeans to be world-class built environment professionals. We need to train more Singaporeans to be world-class project managers, facilities managers, architects, engineers and quantity surveyors to build and maintain our world-class city.

Sir, I urge the 4G leaders to pay more attention to the built environment and give due recognition to the professionals who build our physical environment for Singaporeans to pursue their dreams and aspirations. Sir, the transformation of our built environment is an excellent way to prepare Singapore for the challenges of the future. However, the method in which we plan for such a transformation has to be purposeful. A vision of a built environment which is bold and creative while remaining grounded in reality will be of great value to current and future generations of Singaporeans. Together, we can make Singapore a world-class city.

4.52 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Education and Trade and Industry (Mr Chee Hong Tat): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion. Sir, we must and we will pursue economic growth. We must grow so that Singaporeans can have good jobs and opportunities. We must grow so that we have the resources to build our home, to take care of one another and to protect ourselves. We must grow for our children, to give them a better future.

Singapore is now a more mature economy. Our workforce will not increase as quickly as before. In GDP terms, we will not grow as fast as before.

But growth is much more than just GDP. We can grow in many more dimensions. Earlier this week, Minister Chan Chun Sing painted the vision of Singapore Unlimited. We can grow in productivity, so that our companies and workers do things smarter, faster and better than others. We can grow in skills, so that if you want to get difficult things done reliably and creatively, you will get it done through Singaporean workers and Singaporean companies. We can grow in innovation, so that if companies want to create products and services to serve the fastest growing area in the world, which is Asia, they will come to Singapore to turn their ideas into reality.

To grow, we must do three things. First, we must be pro-business in our rules and regulations. Second, we must be pro-Singapore: believe that our local companies and workers can compete with the very best. And, third, we must be pro-talent so that our people can have the best opportunities in Singapore.

Sir, the Government’s role is not to pick winners or to think that we know how to run companies better than our entrepreneurs, that we know more about business operations than our workers on the ground. We do not. Our focus is to set good rules and regulations, to protect our consumers and to foster a pro-business, pro-worker environment. We do not take this responsibility lightly. Because poorly designed or outdated rules can have unintended consequences. Where possible, we want to allow market forces to work efficiently, so that enterprises can compete fairly and achieve the best outcomes for society and consumers.

And we know we have to regularly review our rules because technology and business models change. When rules are set smartly, fairly and in a pro-business manner, our people and our companies benefit. This nimbleness sets us apart from other countries. Companies want to set up shop in Singapore because they know that here, they can operate in a trusted and reliable environment which is dynamic and connected with the world. They can pioneer a new business idea in Singapore, prove that it works and then export it around the world.

Our Government agencies are fully on board. We will do the following.

First, we will proactively seek feedback from businesses to make it a part of our DNA and our instincts to be pro-enterprise; to continuously improve our rules and licensing framework, speed up processes and facilitate new business ideas.

One example is how AVA and SCDF worked with the Singapore Manufacturing Federation to enhance regulations for cold stores. Previously, fire prevention compartment walls in cold stores posed hygiene concerns as they could attract pests. Based on industry feedback, the agencies worked with SMF to allow an alternative insulation material which will retard the spread of fire without posing hygiene risks. It is a win-win outcome, which helped companies save several thousands of dollars per year for each cold store. It also demonstrated how Government agencies can work with industry partners to adopt pro-business approaches without affecting regulatory objectives.

Second, we will cut red tape and simplify our licensing regime to reduce compliance costs for businesses. The Pro-Enterprise Panel (PEP) is currently working with the Association of Catering Professionals Singapore to do a deep dive into the regulatory requirements for the food sector. The food industry is not the biggest sector in our economy, but we chose to start with this as a pilot because we believe the regulatory improvements can benefit many of our SMEs and workers.

Currently, companies can have up to 14 regulatory touchpoints with different Government agencies before they can set up a food shop. We asked ourselves, is it really necessary to have 14 touchpoints? I believe we can do better. The PEP is working with the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office and GovTech on this review. We have set for ourselves an ambitious target to streamline the 14 forms into one form and to correspondingly reduce the time taken and licence fees which companies have to pay to start a food business. I do not know if this pilot will succeed but we will try.

As Minister Ong Ye Kung advised us when we embarked on the review, “Think big, start small, act fast.” We will begin with this pilot, learn from the experience and extend the concept to other sectors subsequently. I believe these moves can have a positive impact on businesses by reducing regulatory costs and speeding up the application processes. They also help to shape a more positive pro-enterprise culture amongst our Government agencies.

Third, we will encourage experimentation via mechanisms, such as regulatory sandboxes. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has introduced a regulatory sandbox framework for the financial technology or fintech industry. This encourages stakeholders to experiment within a well-defined “safe” space. Other agencies like the Ministry of Health and Energy Market Authority have also started their own regulatory sandboxes for telemedicine and the energy sector.

There is some risk when we embark on rules review and implement regulatory sandboxes. Some of the pilots could fail and some of the new rules may not work well. But we have to try, as remaining status quo and playing it safe is simply not tenable when we have to compete with other cities in the world for ideas, investments and talent. In such an environment, the most dangerous strategy is to make no bold moves. What is important is to learn from the failure and have the resilience to bounce back and try again.

Being pro-business in our rules is much more than the economy. It is about shaping our social norms and our social compact. It is about supporting risk-taking and overcoming our fear of failure. In the process of trying something new, we learn and become more resilient and more resourceful. Such changes can have a significant and lasting impact on our societal culture and the kind of society we want Singapore to be.

Recently, I met the three Singaporean students who started Binjai Brew – Rahul, Abilash and Heetesh. They are engineering students at the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and spent a year together at UC Berkeley for their overseas attachment. Rahul did an internship with a brewery in Richmond, California, and that was when they picked up the interest and knowledge to brew their own beer. The three young men experimented with different brewing techniques. They adopted an engineering approach, building their own fridge to control the temperature settings, measuring the results of different recipes and brewing methods. After some months of trial and error, they produced good quality beer which they then shared with their friends at NTU, not just one variety but seven different types of beer. I have tried their beer; it is very good.

Unfortunately, they were not able to continue with their brewing on campus. The students told me that NTU has been very supportive and encouraging and offered to help them to continue while complying with the law. The PEP Secretariat and I have also offered our help. We met the three students over dinner and had a good discussion on how our current licensing regime could be reviewed to lower the barriers of entry for micro-brewers to test out new products during an initial trial period, before applying a more rigorous set of rules when they subsequently scale up their production and sales. My colleagues and I are looking into this proposal and we will discuss with the regulatory agencies. Again, I do not know if we can successfully implement this regulatory change but we will give it a shot.

I told Rahul, Abilash and Heetesh that I admire their enterprising spirit, their willingness to take risks and try something different and their dedication in applying their engineering training to perfect the recipes and brewing techniques. These attributes will be valuable for them in future, whichever career path they choose. I hope more of our young people can have similar opportunities to pursue their passion and have support from their families and society to take a less trodden path.

Next, we must believe in our enterprises and our people. Singapore companies and workers can compete with the very best in the world and come out on top. To thrive and grow, Singapore companies know they have to sell to the world. To develop products and services for the rest of the world, they have to prove their viability in Singapore. We must give them the opportunities and help them to succeed.

The Government will give fair consideration to Singapore companies when we procure products and services, to seek out creative and innovative ideas from our companies; to partner them in our Government projects; to enable them to build up a track record to compete overseas.

For example, the Health Promotion Board appointed Activate Interactive, a local SME, to develop the Healthy 365 mobile app and provide the step trackers for the first season of National Steps Challenge. All 100,000 trackers were taken up by our enthusiastic participants. Activate built on this success to spin off another company, Actxa, to venture into the wearables industry. Actxa is now able to hold a place in the wearables market among well-entrenched competitors, such as Apple and Garmin, and it is developing new innovative products and expanding into overseas markets.

We have many good local companies run by talented Singaporeans. I met Syafiq Yussoff last month. He is the founder and CEO of Riverwood, a home-grown logistics company. Syafiq dropped out of school when he young as he had to support his family. But he never stopped learning. While working as a personal trainer, he picked up useful business lessons and ideas from his clients. He then started Riverwood, armed with only two vans and four employees. Through hard work, taking calculated risks and learning from initial mistakes, Syafiq has grown his company to where it is today, with more than 60 vehicles and over 100 workers. More than 80% of his employees are Singaporeans.

Syafiq also impressed me with his drive to constantly innovate and grow his business. Riverwood has applied technology and productivity measures extensively to boost its competitiveness. Last year, Amazon picked Riverwood as the vendor to deliver their products in Singapore. Syafiq is now looking at supplying halal food products to Japan. I asked him why Japan, the country does not have a large Muslim population. He explained that the Japanese are interested in halal food products to serve the growing market of Muslim tourists and also to prepare for Tokyo Olympics in 2020. So, there is an opportunity for a company like Riverwood to enter the market and apply their logistics capabilities and the trusted Singapore brand name to ensure process integrity and quality assurance for halal food products.

Third, we must have the best talent in Singapore. Sir, the Government has rolled out several initiatives over the past few years to calibrate the total number of foreign workers in Singapore and safeguard the well-being of Singapore workers. These include training and skills-upgrading for our workers under programmes, such as SkillsFuture, Professional Conversion Programme and Adapt and Grow.

We also implemented the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF) and the Tripartite Standard on the Employment of Term Contract Employees. Companies with unfair hiring practices know they will run into problems and troubles with the authorities. About 150 companies have improved their HR practices and moved out of the watch-list. This shows that a differentiated approach is effective in sending the correct signals to companies and incentivising them to adopt good practices that benefit Singapore and Singaporean workers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, to be pro-Singapore worker is not just about having safeguards. And it is certainly not about building walls and closing our doors to new immigrants and global talent. With Singapore’s ageing population, such an approach will only hurt the country and our people. To be pro-Singapore worker, I believe the more effective way is to grow our economy, help our companies to do well, so that they can provide better jobs, better pay and better life for our workers.

Singapore produces many talented people through our world-class education system. Singaporeans are held in high regard for our work ethic and reliability. Our workers are highly skilled and trustworthy and we have the ability to work in a diverse environment with people from different cultures and backgrounds.

The made-in-Singapore Dyson motor is a good example of how our people are collaborating with the best talent in the world. Dyson, a British company which manufactures household appliances like vacuum cleaners, uses its advanced manufacturing facility in Singapore to produce almost all the digital motors for their appliances sold throughout the world. Yvonne Tan, who is Dyson’s research and development engineering manager, has overseen the production of more than 20 million digital motors since joining the company in 2015.

We also have Singaporeans holding senior positions in our multinational corporations (MNCs). Linus Lee heads Twitter’s data science team in Singapore. Clarence Chew led Decathlon’s entry into Southeast Asia and Australia.

Interacting with our students gives me confidence that our society and our education system have produced many young people with the resilience, resourcefulness and gumption to compete with the best in the world. I recently attended the graduation ceremony at Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP) where I met Emmett Goh and Lynette Lau.

Emmett did well at ITE and earned a place at NP. He won the Tay Eng Soon Gold Medal at the recent graduation ceremony. But it was not all rosy for him from the start. He was once arrested for getting into a fight with schoolmates when he was 16. After that incident, he decided to turn his life around. During his time at NP, he did a six-month internship at Metta Nairobi, an entrepreneur’s club that brings startup communities together in Kenya. Emmett has many dreams he wants to pursue, including joining a private equity firm, running an exotic resort and becoming an inspirational speaker.

Lynette’s story is equally impressive. During her time with NP, she did a six-month internship with Grab Indonesia where she travelled across 10 cities to conduct market research for its business expansion. She successfully devised a new method to reduce the backlog of driver sign-ups and increase their productivity. She even picked up Bahasa Indonesia during her internship. Lynette is now running a startup, Pixcels, which provides photobook services and she aspires to own a successful business one day.

To maximise the potential of our people, Singapore’s economy must have the capacity to generate good jobs and provide our people access to the best opportunities, the best networks and the best ideas. We cannot rely on MNCs alone to achieve this, but neither should we look inward and only focus on local SMEs. I agree with Mr Liang Eng Hwa that the two need to go hand in hand. MNCs benefit from a strong base of SMEs and SMEs can grow and build new capabilities by working with MNCs. We need an economy with strong companies, whether they are local offices of MNCs, large local enterprises or SMEs.

To grow our economy, we have to develop Singaporean talent and also attract talent to our shores so that we can compete with other top-tier cities in the world. Ministers Chan Chun Sing and Heng Swee Keat have spoken about this. It is not just about growing our economic capital, but also our intellectual capital. This is why Silicon Valley remains the "centre of the tech universe". Nearly three-quarters of its skilled workers are foreign born. More than 40% of US companies in the 2017 Fortune 500 list were founded by someone who is foreign-born or has parents who are immigrants. Similarly, many of our startups in Singapore have co-founders who are foreign-born. Some have now become Singaporeans, adding to Team Singapore.

Besides bringing talent into Singapore, we should also think of ways to tap on the large talent pool in our region. We want to grow a group of regional talent who are familiar with Singapore and whom our companies can work with, both in Singapore and when they expand overseas, not only bringing the region into Singapore but also bringing Singapore into the region. Enhancing such connectivity will provide more win-win opportunities and help our companies to succeed when they expand overseas, when they operate in Singapore. Ultimately, what we want is to strengthen Singapore to benefit Singaporeans.

In a recent Straits Times article, Maybank Kim Eng economist Dr Chua Hak Bin said while there should not be a relaxation of the foreign worker policy across the board, there is a need to look at certain sectors which require talent from abroad to support their growth and allow Singapore to seize opportunities and be at the forefront of change. Dr Chua is right, we cannot compete with other top-tier cities in the premier league if we do not have the best talent.

Mr Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore, has framed the issue very well. He said: "It is about growing the Singaporean talent base as well as being a magnet for the world's talents...Most of all, being open in spirit and mindset, staying open to diversity, being comfortable working in multicultural settings, thriving in a globalised world, having an enterprising spirit, always seeking new and better ways to do things."

I agree with Ravi that this is how we can create more opportunities for our people, to grow our economy, to enable our companies and our workers to do well and to create a better future for our next generation. Sir, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Thomas Chua feels that the Government and businesses should have trust in each other and learn from each other. I agree with him. This can help the Government to better understand the needs of businesses and help them to succeed. Only by doing well can businesses provide good jobs for workers, support lifelong learning and skills upgrading.

Before entering politics, I had met Mr Thomas Chua several times. I have learnt many things from him, including his views and experience in running his business. I remember that when he was the President of SCCCI, we worked together to set up the Trade Association Hub (TAC Hub) in Jurong. This is an important collaboration project between the Government and the Trade Associations. The purpose is to support the development of TACs, deepen the cooperation between the Government and businesses and create a pro-business, pro-worker environment.

Another area of cooperation is regulatory review. Government agencies must understand the cost impact on SMEs as a result of regulations, listen to their feedback and reduce unnecessary rules and regulations. With flexible management, we can help businesses to innovate and transform.

(In English): Mr Speaker, in the 1960s, our Pioneer Generation of leaders made two strategic economic decisions which were contrarian to the policies adopted by most developing countries at that time. First, we rejected import substitution and instead relied on free trade and export-driven growth. Second, we attracted MNCs to invest in Singapore and made this a key pillar of our economic development strategy. These enabled Singapore to move from Third World to First in one generation.

In the 1990s and 2000s, we made bold moves to open up our services sector ahead of other countries in Asia by privatising Government-owned entities in industries like telecommunications and power and transforming our services sector through market competition. These changes spurred our local corporations to become more productive and more competitive. Entities like PSA, Singtel and DBS are now leading companies in Asia and have created wealth, good jobs and career development opportunities for many Singaporeans. And there is room for them to grow further by tapping on the rise of Asia over the next decade.

We are now in a world where some countries are starting to turn inwards and become more xenophobic and less welcoming to trade and foreign investments. As a small open economy, Singapore must resist these forces of populism and protectionism. Let us have the courage to once again take a contrarian position by keeping Singapore open and connected with the world and to boldly experiment with innovative ideas and transform our economy. We must continue to grow, so that we have the resources to hold our society together to invest in our people and build new infrastructure and capabilities. To achieve these goals, we need to be pro-business and pro-worker and ensure that the fruits of economic growth can benefit all Singaporeans.

During his 60th birthday dinner in 1983, Mr Lee Kuan Yew said, "The past 24 years were not pre-ordained. Nor is the future. There will be unexpected problems ahead, as there were in the past. They have to be met, grappled with and resolved. For only a people who are willing to face up to their problems and are prepared to work with their leaders to meet unexpected hardships with courage and resolution, deserve to thrive and to prosper."

Mr Lee's words are a useful reminder for all of us, including a new generation of Singaporeans, to look ahead with confidence as we write the next chapter of the Singapore Story, facing the future together with the same pioneering spirit as our lion-hearted forefathers who built this land. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

5.20 pm

Mr Alex Yam (Marsiling-Yew Tee): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to the President. Please allow me to return to the theme that I have focused on in the last few years and, at the risk of repeating this ad nauseam, housing was, is and remains the key pillar of our social compact with Singaporeans. Therefore, in our pursuit of a world-class city, one that is well-connected and admired, we cannot forsake the fundamentals.

Our development in the last 50 years has been to place the survival of Singapore and the benefit to Singaporeans at the core. This we must not forsake in our next lap.

I welcome MND's Addendum to Mdm President's speech, especially the reiteration that home ownership gives Singaporeans a tangible stake in our country and a critical sense of belonging. However, I wish to jump in immediately to address a hot potato that has resurfaced in recent months, especially in media opinion pieces. And this is the issue of 99-year leases. While it arose because of the collective sale fever at the tail end of last year, I think we should take the opportunity to address this issue now and head on. The furore that has surrounded it reflects how much home ownership has become part of the Singaporean identity. The passions that have heated up around its discussion recently are not so much a reflection of angst but perhaps of genuine worry on the ground about how lease decay might fundamentally change the way we view our assets.

For a long time, Singaporeans have known that leases will run down eventually. It is also not that a majority of flats will be reaching the end of their lifespan anytime soon. Only about 7% or 70,000 flats will reach the 50-year mark at the tail end of the next decade. In the context of the recent collective sale bubble, lease decay has also led to the unfortunate comparison of parity – that a 20-year-old apartment or a 40-year-old HUDC project can undergo collective sale and thus monetise the asset for the owners and turn back the clock for developers, seems somewhat unfair.

Of course, there are major differences between both. But, in situations like these, no amount of rational explanation can address the perceived unfairness completely. What was perhaps a non-issue just not so long ago, has made a number of Singaporeans unduly worried.

One homeowner I met recently shared how she was worried about not being able to sell the family flat in the future. She had never contemplated it previously. All of a sudden, in response to media articles, the family is now making actual plans to sell their 30-plus-year-old flat to purchase a newer one.

Just yesterday, during my block visit, I caught up with two families. One was worried that their flat value will decline rapidly soon. Another mother told me that she was contemplating applying for the new projects in Tengah in view of her children growing up. Given their worries, you would be forgiven for thinking that this block I visited is quite old. In fact, it is all of only 21 years old. It is a very, very young flat.

So, this reaction to this decay has perhaps taken on a life of its own. Ultimately, we all know that housing is, fundamentally, a depreciating asset in the long run. But with such widespread concern, I think some clarity from the Ministry and the Government is called for at this point in time. Because we cannot, on the one hand, say that home ownership offers a tangible stake but, at the same time, have homeowners wondering how stable and lasting that stake will be for them.

There have been a number of suggestions from hon Members of the House. I would suggest that a modified SERS system be considered in the future for expansion. Let us take this from the view that we are a land-scarce city state. Even the recent projects that we have announced means that we take over land from areas set aside for other developments in the past like in Tengah, Paya Lebar, an airbase, and Bidadari, a former cemetery, for housing development. At some point in time, we will have to consider how much of land is left and it may make more sense and be more cost-effective to eventually SERS some of the flats at the 60-year mark and re-intensify the land with topped-up leases.

Older flats do take more to maintain. Those of us who look after Town Councils can attest to that. Constant piecemeal upgrading might not be the most cost-efficient method beyond a certain age. China, for example, faces a situation similar to us and their leases are shorter – 20 years and 70 years – some of which are coming up by 2030. Last year, Premier Li Keqiang, announced that the government of China would be seriously considering a Real-estate Protection Provision, a change in the law to automatically renew the leases, but because it is such a complex issue, they have set up a committee to review this over three years.

For us in Singapore, we are still some way from that magical age. But it does not hurt to consider long-term solutions now and reassure Singaporeans of their stake in the country.

Related to the issue of leases is also housing for our elders. These are the builders of our nation. I, therefore, again, welcome MND's Addendum that a new model of assisted living will be piloted. We have seen one example of early success with the completion of Kampung Admiralty. While retirement communities are one way forward, I urge the Government to also put serious consideration into helping more elders age inplace.

My constituency of Yew Tee is an upgraders' town, which means that many of our residents moved in in their late 30s and early 40s just about two decades ago. These are their second flats, upgraded from their first matrimonial homes. After 20 years, these first generation of owners have aged as our town has matured. They like it here. It is a quiet town, homely. But they also worry. They want to stay where they are. Majority, however, are 5-roomers. They look at their 4-room neighbours and ask why the Government will not extend the Lease-Buyback Scheme (LBS) to them.

Indeed, why not? Extend the LBS to 5-roomers. The Government has already revised the flat sizes once before, they say. Attachment to a place gives a greater sense of belonging, especially to older Singaporeans. It is a place that they are familiar with, comfortable with.

As more of these naturally occurring retirement communities are formed, early identification of demographic shifts will allow the Government to plan ahead to put in place resources and facilities to cater for the needs of our elders.

Of course, ageing-in-place requires changes to be made. So, the enhanced EASE programme will transform existing flats into those suited for our elders and the infirm. From my visit to older residents, some areas to consider include suggestions of lower wash areas, kitchen tops for elders dependent on mobility aids or wheelchairs.

Like other hon Members, I also believe that technology will play a big part in our next lap. Beyond the grab-bars, ramps and accessibility ramps connecting our elders to the wider world through technology should also be explored. Items, such as home monitoring systems, home alarms, elements that allow the home itself to take care of you, preparing communal facilities in advance are also an important step.

Let us take my constituency again as an example. Yew Tee is usually regarded as a relatively young town by our total population. So, when I made the decision to convert one of our early childhood education centres to a senior care centre a number of years ago, I was asked why. But as I had alluded to earlier, though we are statistically quite young, the transition to the silver years will occur in bulk once the first generation of home owners enters their late 50s and 60s.

Today, our Senior Care Centre is already up and running and almost at full capacity. So, if we had waited till the demographics changed, we would have had to play catch-up.

Over the last few years, I have also been urging the Government to do more for Singapore. I am, therefore, heartened that MND has made significant changes to address the housing needs of our singles, including single parents and divorcees. Yet, there are those who continue to find it a challenge. I, therefore, suggest that the Government extend the short-lease flats currently available under the Fresh Start Housing Scheme and 2-room Flexi Scheme for elders to also younger singles. They must, however, adhere to the minimum 20-year occupancy period.

Certain additional conditions contingent on employment and income can also be factored in. This will allow those who are lower- to lower-medium income earners who are singles to obtain a flat which might be out of reach for them on a single-income based on the longer leases. I have encountered enough examples of singles, especially divorcees, who face sometimes unsurmountable barriers to their next housing option. Extending this additional option to them and other singles will, similarly, give them an opportunity to have a continued stake in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] This is a poem that was written by a famous poet Du Fu from the Tang Dynasty and the title is “The song of my thatched cottage being destroyed by the autumn wind”. It demonstrated his concern for the country and people.

To explain in modern language, the poet asked himself in the poem that, when the thatch on his cottage roof had been blown away, “How can we provide thousands of big and bright houses to house all the poor in the country so that they can live happily?” The houses will not be shaken by rain and wind, as steady as a mountain.

Mr Pan Shou, our famous local calligrapher, has written this poem, which is now displayed in the foyer of HDB Hub. This has shown the commitment and the resolve of our Government to improve our people’s living environment.

We can say that Singapore has achieved the dream of Du Fu to allow everyone to have a place to live. The older generation of Singaporeans will be familiar with the housing shortage situation around 1959, which led to social instability. The PAP Government decided to treat the housing issue as one of its fundamental national policies. Today, Singapore is probably the only country in the world that has achieved close to 100% homeownership. This is something which we should be proud of.

We must not forget this in the next phase of our national development. While we pursue to become a modern and advanced metropolis, we must continue to keep in mind Du Fu’s poem and adopt a people-centric approach by putting people’s interest and welfare at the centre of our development efforts.

The Government has built multi-generation flats in HDB towns to enable three generations to live under one roof and also to allow different races of Singaporeans to live harmoniously together. In terms of urban planning, I hope the Government will continue to maintain our unique Southeast Asian characteristics and history and promote the development of the unique culture of our various ethnic groups.

As we develop, we must not forget our roots. We must build a future city which can give the people a sense of belonging and identity. Only by doing this can we demonstrate that Singapore is not just a modern and advanced city but also an endearing home.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Mdm President, in her Address to this House, said and I quote, "With bold thinking, we will create a metropolis that will embrace the future." This metropolis must, indeed, embrace the future for Singapore to progress. Yet, more importantly, this metropolis must embrace all Singaporeans in that journey of progress or we risk becoming no more than one of many cities in the world – cold, utilitarian and unwelcoming.

So, even as we embrace progress, let us not forget that in our role as stewards of the future, we are also our brother's keeper. In a built environment, we must look after people and have them at the core.

To the lonely elderly, may this new metropolis bring warmth and the comfort of friendship of care. To young families, may this metropolis provide opportunities to excel in their work and also to raise a family in a supportive environment. To the disadvantaged and the disabled, may this metropolis be one designed with them in mind from the beginning, but not as an afterthought. To those as yet unborn, may this metropolis be a beacon of hope and light for future generations of Singaporeans, where every child, every life, is valued, protected, embraced and encouraged. Only then will this metropolis shine even brighter as a little red dot. [Applause.]

5.34 pm

Mr Yee Chia Hsing (Chua Chu Kang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for her maiden Address. The President mentioned that Singaporeans want to live in a fair and just society. She also asked that we must have the courage to go for bold changes and not just tweak things at the margin.

One area which I think we should re-consider is our unwritten principle of relying on market forces and being generally reluctant to impose too much regulation in the spirit of promoting free enterprise. However, market forces may, at times, result in inequitable outcomes.

Sir, one area which I am concerned about is the relative mismatch in bargaining power between small businesses or SMEs vis-à-vis big corporate landlords for commercial and retail space when it comes to leasing contracts. Allow me to elaborate.

Over the past few years, control of commercial and retail space is getting more concentrated. A handful of large property management and investment companies now controls a large slice of the market and are in the position to influence leasing practices and rental rates collectively.

Typically, most SMEs leasing commercial or retail spaces from these big landlords will be offered an initial lease period of three years. Upon the expiry of the three-year period, many tenants received a rude shock from these landlords that rates have increased significantly. They are thus forced to pay the higher rentals. Even if they choose to move out, they would face heavy losses as their investment in the furniture and fittings would become worthless. Moreover, very often, they even have to fork out more money to reinstate the premises to the original bare shell condition. The current situation thus allows the landlords to hold small businesses ransom due to the unequal bargaining positions.

Mr Deputy Speaker Sir, I decided to talk about this topic as I was eating at a café on the ground floor of an office building and overheard the lady boss telling her staff that they most likely are going to close soon as the landlord has informed her that rental will increase by 50% upon renewal.

Sir, if we uphold the concept of fairness, then this is indeed not a level playing field between the landlord and the tenant.

Our fellow Member, Mr Murali Pillai, also spoke about this during an Adjournment Motion on the power imbalance in contracts involving small businesses in February this year. In his speech, he advocated offering small businesses the same level of protection as would be offered to individuals. This is the case in Australia and, to a lesser extent, Hong Kong.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is an urgent need to relook how such unfair practices are affecting small businesses. If left unchecked, it may harm entrepreneurship, increase cost of doing business and, eventually, lead to higher cost of living in Singapore.

Sir, I think the initial lease term of three years is too short a period for new businesses trying to set up shop. The short lease period would not allow them to build up a steady clientele base for them to recover their investment in their furniture and fittings. As such, I would like to propose that landlords have to give all prospective new tenants the option to lease for a period of up to five years, while subsequent renewals can remain at three years. This allows a longer runway for SMEs to build up their businesses and recover their investment in the premises.

An exemption from granting the five-year option may be made for tenants who take over existing furniture and fittings from a previous tenant and also do not have to reinstate the premises to a bare shell condition upon the expiry of their leases. This will help to lower business cost and discourage landlords from inserting the reinstatement requirement into their leasing contracts. The reinstatement requirement is not only costly to businesses but also environmentally wasteful. Without the reinstatement clause, businesses, which take over the furniture and fittings may only need to make minor renovation adjustments. This will help lower business cost.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, for too long, we have left things to market forces and not impose any regulation on commercial and retail leases. I think it is time to consider this as a sacred cow which we have to slay in the name of fairness and help to level the playing field for small businesses. On this note, I reaffirm my support for the Motion.

5.40 pm

The Minister for National Development and Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President.

The President's speech laid out the priorities of the Government and I will focus my remarks today on how we can build a better city, one that is more innovative, inclusive and resilient. We often think of cities as buildings, hardware and infrastructure. But cities can also be thought of as living organisms. In nature, it is survival of the fittest. Likewise, cities must evolve and adapt to survive in an ever-changing world.

There is no such thing as status quo; we are either improving or we are declining and going backwards. And there are countless examples of cities that once were centres of economic activity, but are no longer relevant today. At the same time, many emerging cities are working hard to leap-frog the competition and get to the top. So, the choice for Singapore is simple: adapt or perish.

We see that from our own history. Over the last 700 years, Singapore's fortune had waxed and waned. The ancient seaport of Singapura thrived in the late 13th century. In fact, it was described in the Malay annals as the first great Malay trading port. But by the 15th century, the port had declined and the city had been depopulated. Then, the arrival of the British in 1819 set Singapore on a different trajectory, which is why we are commemorating the bicentennial next year. Post-Independence, we have succeeded against tough odds and moved from third world to first. So, what is next for our city?

In answering that question, I think we have to also reflect on our fundamental purpose. And as Mr Gan Thiam Poh said yesterday, Singapore's raison d’etre has been and will continue to be that of a trading hub serving the region and the world.

But in today's world, it is not just about trading in goods. It is also about the flow of people, talent, finance and other services. It is about being at the centre of action, the centre of research, knowledge-based and innovation activities across Asia and the world.

And that is why, in his Budget speech this year, Minister Heng Swee Keat talked about anchoring Singapore as a Global-Asian node of innovation and enterprise.

We are taking bold and decisive steps to realise this vision. We are all familiar with the plans for the new Changi Terminal 5 and Tuas Megaport. These are not just individual projects; they are the catalysts to transform major parts of our island.

In the east, we are reviewing how the entire area around the expanded Changi Airport can be renewed and put to better use. For example, we can develop new industries, especially those related to the aviation sector. And these activities can also benefit from linkages with the nearby Changi Business Park and SUTD.

Likewise, in the west, we are looking at new industry clusters that can be located next to the port and leverage on synergies with the port. These will also be connected to broader developments in the west, including the Jurong Innovation District and Jurong Lake District.

In the north, we are stitching together multiple developments, from Woodlands to Sembawang and Seletar, as well as the upcoming Punggol Digital District. So, it is an entire northern corridor, which can anchor new businesses and investments.

The point is that we are not just doing more of the same. Each new development will be better than the one before. Each new project will push the boundary and pilot innovative solutions to make our city more attractive and further enhance our quality of life. And this is what we have been doing all the while.

Look at what we have done in our HDB towns. Our newest town is Punggol. The blueprint was launched in 1996 and then we had to slow down due to the financial crisis. But we improved and upgraded the plan, relaunched it in 2007. Now, Punggol it is almost complete and it is a beautiful waterfront town where new flats are very popular with young couples.

The next town is Tengah. It is a forest town which we have designed and the first batch of flats will be sold in November this year. We will improve on what we have done in Punggol so that Tengah will be even better, with new concepts of urban living, like smart home solutions, eco-friendly features and even autonomous vehicles (AVs) to provide shuttle services around the estate.

And besides launching Tengah, we are now already looking at the next new site and, that is, Paya Lebar, after the air base relocates to Changi. The site is bigger than Ang Mo Kio or Bishan. So, there are huge opportunities for further urban innovation for a better quality of life for Singaporeans.

In the same way, we have been constantly developing and improving our city centre. We started by renewing our CBD in the 1970s to create more office space. Then, we extended the CBD to Marina Bay. We started reclaiming the land in the 1970s. We launched the masterplan for Marina Bay in 1983 and, over the subsequent years and decades, worked hard at conceiving and developing the Marina Bay that we have today.

Next, we will extend the city further to the Greater Southern Waterfront, after the ports move to Tuas. The space is three times the size of Marina Bay. But we want the impact to be much more than three times of Marina Bay. This is a completely blank canvas for all of us to dream of exciting new possibilities for the future and to make these dreams come true.

So, when we say that we are not done building Singapore, it is not a slogan. It is a single-minded commitment and mission to keep building and improving our city. And I can confidently say that, over the coming years and decades, Singapore will be undergoing its most extensive transformation yet. What is our goal? To make Singapore one of the great cities of the world. A truly outstanding city to live, work and play, the kind that people talk about and return to over and over again. A city where everyone belongs; where all of us are proud to call home.

An outstanding city is not just economically vibrant but it also needs to be socially inclusive; a place that embraces diversity, where different groups mix easily and have equal opportunities to participate. Unfortunately, if you look around us, it is not always the case in many cities. Often, the downtown area looks good, but other areas in the city are left to deteriorate, resulting in urban slums. From time to time, you will see segregation of neighbourhoods: between rich and poor; between ethnic groups; between young and old.

We have worked very hard to avoid these problems in Singapore. Every HDB town has a balanced mix of residents across different ethnic groups and backgrounds. Every town has a mix of public-private developments, as well as different HDB flat types catering to diverse needs. Every town has common spaces where residents of different backgrounds get together, socialise and forge shared memories together. We have neighbourhood shops and hawker centres. We have playgrounds and fields where the children grow up and play. And, personally, growing up in Marine Parade, I still have very fond memories of the dragon playground downstairs next to my block and the children from all around that block coming down to play together. All of us may not know one another very well. From different backgrounds, it does not matter, we all get together to play. The void decks used to always be animated with activities; it will be a real treat for us to see a magic show and then there will be potluck and the parents will cook and we all eat together. And this special quality of HDB living, I am sure all of you can attest to is still alive and well today.

We have done well in the last 50 years, but more still needs to be done. Our housing and urban plans must continue to push back against the growing pressures of inequality and social stratification. We cannot just leave things to chance, but we must deliberately plan for a more equal and inclusive society. And that is why we have been building more rental flats with newer, better designs, alongside the sold flats in various HDB towns. This means that families grow up in the same neighbourhood and the residents share the same common areas and facilities.

We are now going one step further to integrate rental and sold units within the same HDB block.

We are also doing more to help families in our rental flats. Last year, almost 1,000 households moved out of rental flats to become homeowners. They are supported by significant housing grants as well as new programmes like the Fresh Start Housing Scheme. One thousand households from rental to homeownership. That is not bad but we must do even better than that.

MND will be working with MSF, SSOs and the VWOs to see how best we can support the families, help them solve their issues holistically and get back on their feet.

Besides looking out for rental families, we must also take care of the elderly, especially those who are living on their own in studio and 2-room flexi apartments. We do not want them to feel isolated and disengaged, as Members have highlighted just now. So, we are putting a lot more emphasis in the way we design our HDB flats and estates.

This means more shared public spaces, like civic plazas and community gardens, for them to stay active. It means more community services and amenities, all under one roof, for convenient access.

And a good example of what we have done is Kampung Admiralty which was officially opened over the weekend. Kampung Admiralty is just one small kampung with just over a hundred units, but we will plan for more “kampungs” in other HDB towns.

Another aspect of inclusive development is to continually renew our buildings and infrastructure, because we do not want a situation where certain parts of Singapore are left to degrade and we end up with deteriorated neighbourhoods or towns, inhabited largely by lower-income or elderly residents. This is not just a Government matter. It is a shared responsibility. It requires the Town Councils to do proper maintenance and upkeeping of the estate. It requires residents to take care of the neighbourhood. But the Government has and will continue to do its part. All Members are familiar with the programmes we have put in place for estate renewal. You know them by the acronyms. We have the Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS), Remaking our Heartlands (ROH), Neighbourhood Renewal Programme (NRP) and Home Improvement Programme (HIP).

All of these programmes are scoped carefully to ensure they are fiscally sustainable. SERS, as the name implies, is done only on a very selective basis. ROH is for town-wide enhancements; we have largely completed six towns and consultations are ongoing for three towns now. NRP which is for neighbourhood facilities, is ongoing for blocks built up to 1995. And HIP for enhancements or for retrofitting within the unit itself, is being completed for the flats that were built up to 1986. The selection of flats will be done as soon as possible so that we can complete this batch of HIP.

Many Members have asked for extensions of these programmes. You would like to know when ROH can be done for your town; or when HIP can be extended to the newer flats. We do want to renew and rejuvenate our HDB towns in an orderly fashion. But as I have explained before, upgrading projects are expensive and span many years. So, we are studying this carefully to make sure that we have the resources to follow through on any future commitments.

The need to maintain and renew our HDB towns is also linked to the issue of the end of lease. We have made clear from the outset that the HDB lease is 99 years. There is no doubt about that. Ninety-nine years is a long time – it covers two generations. The oldest HDB flat today is around 50 years and the vast majority have more than 60 years remaining. So, this is not an immediate issue at all. Yet, some have already called for automatic lease extensions or for HDB lease top-ups by private developers. It will be easy for me to give you a politically expedient answer now and try to wave away the problem. But there are serious trade-offs and ramifications to consider.

Take the issue of lease extension. It sounds easy to do but it is not a straightforward matter. First, we should not assume everyone wants it. Second, as all of us who run Town Councils know, much more maintenance is needed for older flats. Imagine the flat beyond 99 years and how much more maintenance is needed and how costly it will be for residents.

More importantly, despite our best efforts at planning, we are still severely constrained by space in Singapore. If there is no more land to recycle for future public housing, then what will happen to our children and grandchildren? How will they have access to subsidised housing in the future?

So, this is a complex issue and I am glad many Members who spoke about this recognise this. Several Members have offered suggestions, including Miss Cheryl Chan and Mr Alex Yam. Mr Leon Perera also spoke about this and I look forward to the Workers' Party's suggestions on this matter because he said that the Workers' Party is studying this matter very seriously and I look forward to receiving your suggestions as well. In fact, we welcome views on this matter from all parties and all Singaporeans. We recognise that it is a matter that Singaporeans care about and we want to listen to your views and feedback.

Ultimately, the Government must grapple with these difficult questions, study the matter and do the responsible thing. Our duty is not just to the current generation who already own homes, but also to the future generations – those not yet voting and those not yet born, those whose lives and future depend on us making the right decisions now, on their behalf.

At the end of the day, we want to ensure that every generation will be able to have an affordable and quality home in Singapore.

We still have the time to do this work, as I have emphasised earlier but, for now, what is important is that we do not speculate, we do not spread misinformation which can impact the market. And this is critical. In fact, recently there was speculation that the Government would stop the use of CPF entirely for the purchase of HDB flats. It started from a media report highlighting a suggestion from an academic. He later clarified that the article did not fully reflect his views, yet, the information continued to circulate online and through WhatsApp groups. Just earlier this week, a resident came to me, showed me the phone with the screenshot of the article and said, "Is the Government going to stop the use of CPF?"

So, let me be very clear about this. We are not stopping the use of CPF for HDB purchase. Even for older flats, CPF can still be used but under certain conditions to safeguard retirement adequacy of home-buyers.

There has also been concern about the impact of lease expiry on HDB prices. But there is still value in older HDB flats – value which can be unlocked for retirement. We looked at real transaction data over the past year. An older 4-room flat with less than 60 years remaining would sell for around $300,000, median price; and a 5-room flat would sell for around $400,000. These are for non-mature estates. For flats in more popular locations, prices can be significantly higher – more than double the prices which I just mentioned earlier, more than double. So, a 4-room flat with less than 60 years remaining can sell for more than $600,000; a 5-room flat can sell for more than $800,000. Not pretend data, theoretical data; transaction data over the past year.

So, the transacted price depends not just on length of remaining lease, clearly, but it also depends on many other attributes – factors like location, the storey height, the condition of the flat, these are all very relevant. Whatever the price you get from the sale of a flat today, the sales proceeds would be more than sufficient to purchase a smaller flat for retirement, for those who are interested in right-sizing. For example, if you sell a flat now, a 4- or 5-room, you can purchase a 2-room flexi flat from HDB with a 40-year lease for around $100,000; or a 3-room resale flat for around $250,000, depending on location. And people are doing that. I give you an actual example that happened recently.

Mr Abdul Aziz Haji Hamdan, who is 67 years old, originally owned a 3-room flat in Marsiling with around 60 years of lease remaining. He decided to right-size to a Studio Apartment in Kampung Admiralty with a 30-year lease. He sold his 3-room flat for $250,000, purchased the Studio Apartment for just over $100,000. So, he has more than $140,000 in cash and CPF proceeds to supplement his retirement savings.

For those who prefer to stay in the same place, there is also the Lease Buyback Scheme, where you can sell part of the remaining lease to HDB; or the option of renting out a bedroom.

So, the monetisation schemes we have are in place and they are working; and we will continue to review and enhance these schemes and help our elderly unlock the value of their flats for retirement.

Buying and selling a property can be a complex undertaking and it is easy to get carried away by market sentiments. Just not too long ago, there were people speculating in older HDB flats hoping to get SERS benefits and not explicitly saying that they were doing that. Now, the reverse has happened and there are people overly anxious about how much their older flats can fetch in the resale market.

So, my advice to Singaporeans is this: do not buy or sell based on speculative information. Look at the facts and, if you are in the market for a home, do your homework carefully and choose something that fits your needs. We will make the resale market work better for potential buyers and sellers. In fact, I was reminded of this in a recent MPS. One resident came to me to seek help for more time to sell their flat because they could not get the price that they were looking for. Right after that, another resident came and said, "I need a flat urgently, please give me a direct allocation of a flat from HDB". I told her, "I can't do that, you got to ballot, but if you want your flat so urgently, why don't you go to the resale market?" And she immediately said, "Resale market too expensive."

So, on the one hand, sellers find it hard to sell; on the other hand, buyers are saying that prices are still too high.

So, we need to find better ways to match buyers and sellers in the HDB market. We started with the HDB Resale Portal, which has simplified and speeded up the resale transaction process and we will continue to do more. We will provide more information on the available flats in the market – be it new flats or resale flats – so that we can help buyers and sellers transact more smoothly and we can help Singaporeans make more informed housing decisions that best suit their needs.

Besides the public housing market, we are also watching the private housing market. The property market, like any other asset market, will go through ups and downs. The Government cannot control or fix prices. But neither do we take a completely hands-off approach. We recognise that there may be over-borrowing in a very low interest rate environment and that sharp price changes that run ahead of fundamentals can be destabilising to the broader economy. So, we have put in place various measures over the years. We will continue to monitor market trends closely and make use of various policy levers to ensure a stable and sustainable property market.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a nation of homeowners. So, it is understandable why housing remains a top concern for all our people. My assurance is that the Government will continue to provide affordable and quality homes for all Singaporeans – both now and into the future. We will make sure that, in every town, we have a range of housing and amenities for all ages; more shared spaces for all to enjoy; and a place where every Singaporean feels that they belong.

Besides being more innovative and inclusive, we also have to incorporate resilience in our urban development.

What will happen to the world in the next 50 years? No one can predict. But we can be sure there will always be crises and threats and even black swan events. So, we have to build resilience into our city and urban systems. One big unknown is whether the planet can continue to sustain continued economic activities. If the world does not do enough to tackle climate change, Singapore will be at risk of coastal inundation due to sea level rises.

So, we need to start making preparations now to strengthen Singapore’s resilience against climate change. One specific project we are doing is the polder development in Pulau Tekong. The dike system in the polder is designed to cater for sea-level rise and the dike can be raised and upgraded more easily compared to traditional reclamation. Concurrently, we are also studying how best to safeguard Singapore’s long-term coastal protection needs and we are undertaking detailed modelling and engineering studies for this purpose so that we can identify and recommend appropriate protection strategies. They may include use of dikes, pumps or other technologies, but the most important thing is to be prepared.

So, this is just one example of how we are building resilience into our system and there are many more things that we will need to do to be a more resilient city.

The urban transformation plans I have shared are significant in scale and require considerable fiscal resources. Mr Pritam Singh said earlier in the Debate that the current Government has more financial resources than previous generations of PAP leaders. But he forgot to mention that our fiscal commitments and spending are also at their highest ever levels. Singaporeans today are being provided with more services and support than before. For now, we are just able to meet all of our spending needs with current resources. But without additional revenues, how are we to meet the growing healthcare needs, as well as the many other proposals that various people, including the Workers' Party, have been asking for? And both Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Leon Perera have reiterated the call to change the rules on the use of reserves so that we can draw more from the reserves. Mr Leon Perera said that this was not just a technical issue, but a philosophical issue and I agree with him. But the rules were discussed at length, debated in this House thoroughly, so that we can find the right balance between present and future generations and we enshrine the rules in our Constitution. And this was done not too long ago.

What does it say about us and our mindsets and attitude, if the minute we need the money, the first thing we do is to relax the rules? Surely, that will be ill-disciplined, imprudent and unwise.

This goes back to the issue of responsible governance. Look at the challenges that other First World democracies face – their politics have become more fractured, chaotic and unpredictable. One common thread across many of these countries is that they are in fiscal difficulties. Why? Because the politicians pander to the electorate; they spend more than they collect in taxes and run up unfunded obligations and debt. Ultimately, the ones who suffer are the citizens, especially the most vulnerable.

Singapore is in a different position today. Our fiscal position is strong, but if we succumb to temptation; change the rules, chip away at our reserves, we run the very real risk of compromising the long-term health of our nation. That is not the Singaporean way.

The Singaporean way is to look ahead and prepare for the future responsibly. We level with our people, so, everyone knows what to expect and what hard choices we need to take. We work to serve the interests of all Singaporeans, not just for one or two electoral cycles, but over the long term. That is what we have been doing and will continue to do.

Earlier, I likened the city to a living organism, where we either adapt or perish. Let me use another analogy. In some ways, our next phase of development is like pushing a boulder uphill. It requires constant effort to keep going up. The moment we relax and let go, the boulder starts moving downhill, slowly at first and then at uncontrollable speeds and then it will be too late. The higher up the hill, the greater the tendency for the boulder to roll down. And, indeed, we are now at a higher point on the hill.

So, we need all hands on deck to keep pushing the boulder together and to reach even higher peaks of excellence. That does not mean that you have to agree with every Government policy; if you have a different idea or proposal, we stand ready to listen and to review our policies. But please do not disagree just for the sake of doing so.

I recall a speech that Mr Rajaratnam once made where he said, "It’s easy to win attention by disagreeing with the Government. If the Government says ‘white’ and you advocate ‘black’, you will be hailed at the next cocktail reception as an original and bold thinker."

But in the end, what is important is that we all come together with the genuine interest to solve the real and vital problems affecting our nation.

The academic I mentioned earlier on the CPF matter, Prof Walter Theseira, when he clarified his remarks on the CPF issue, also wrote on his Facebook page: “It’s easy to make fun of policymakers and it’s also easy to critique policy. Finding workable solutions that promote the public interest is a lot harder but, more than ever, we need to work together to help improve policy in Singapore.”

I fully agree with him. This endeavour of building our future Singapore cannot be done by the Government alone; it must be a collective effort involving all Singaporeans.

For the MND work, there are many areas where we will want to invite Singaporeans to share their views and perspectives, from major projects like the Greater Southern Waterfront and the Rail Corridor, to the design of new HDB towns and right down to specific improvements that can be made in your estate and neighbourhood. We want to build a city that reflects the aspirations, the values and the spirit of our people. That is the work we have to do together over the next 50 years. And then, when we celebrate SG100, we can look forward to a greener, smarter and even more beautiful city, one that all of us are proud to call home. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Pritam Singh.

6.09 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Just following up on the speech of Minister Lawrence Wong, pertaining to Government surpluses. I noted in my speech that, at this current point, the Government has slightly in excess of $15 billion in accumulated surpluses. The Minister was speaking of a debate we had when the NIRC formula was amended to include Temasek. In that debate, if I remember correctly, the reasons given for the change were higher expenditure on healthcare, higher expenditure on ageing and infrastructure development.

And just to get a sense of the Government's plans in future, given the accumulated surpluses at hand, largely, I would believe as a result of Temasek's inclusion, do we have some understanding of what new projects or even endowments will be created by the Government for the years to come?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, when Mr Pritam Singh referred to the surpluses this year, I think we have made it very clear during the Budget and in the Budget Debate that these were exceptional items, one-off items, and should not be extrapolated. They were specific to certain contributions from MAS which we have explained. Through the rest of the term, I think the Minister for Finance had made clear during the Budget Debate, and I would repeat, that we believe that we have just enough resources to cover Government needs for this term of Government. But beyond this term of Government, we know that expenditures will continue to rise. There is no doubt that healthcare spending will rise; there is no doubt about that. It is indisputable because the population is ageing; and it will rise very sharply. So, on healthcare alone, the increase is significant and we have to cater for this.

On the revenue side, if you look at our revenues, there is a part of them that is linked to income and taxation, largely to the economy. But we know that the economy is not going to grow in the same way that it used to in the past. Growth is moderating and so revenues from these different taxation models will moderate too.

Then, we have NIRC. This is already the single largest item in our revenue source today. NIRC, as a percentage of GDP, will continue to provide us a steady stream of revenues for the future, but we do not expect that to increase as a percentage of GDP. It will just provide a steady constant stream of revenue as a percentage of GDP. We do not expect that to go up. In fact, there is a risk that it may even come down. Why? Because if you look at the trends in the asset markets today, interest rates are at historically low levels. If you look at equity valuations, they are highly elevated. So, there is a risk that long-term asset returns may be lower in the future.

So, if you look at this overall picture, spending beyond the term of Government going up, inexorably and clearly going to happen, revenue uncertain and, if anything, there are more downside risks than before, then I think you would appreciate that our fiscal position is, in fact, not that strong and we need to take steps to further strengthen it.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Sir. I thank the hon Minister, Mr Lawrence Wong, for his comments and references. Just two points of clarification for the Minister.

Firstly, in view of the likely future changes and the demographic make-up of Singapore, the size of our reserves, the needs of our society and our population, would the Government not, at some point in the future – I know that it is hard to specify when – consider evolving the position on the treatment of reserves in line with the changing of conditions? Or is it something that is set in stone and cannot be changed. That is my first point of clarification.

The second point for the Minister: would the Minister acknowledge that there are other costs on the other side of the equation? The more future Governments are to raise things like GST, the more that raises economic pressure and, potentially, anxieties experienced by Singaporeans and the more that can affect other things which are important for the country and also important for economic growth, like TFR which, I think, has been said is an existential issue for Singapore, like entrepreneurship, risk-taking, long-termism, innovation and things like that. If we give more room to those things, might there also not be the possibility that these things could raise economic growth and, therefore, raise revenue further down the line?

Mr Lawrence Wong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have learnt in Government to say, "Never say never." As I mentioned earlier, we are prepared to listen to different views; we are prepared to listen to different proposals; and when these proposals come, we will always be prepared to review our policies. But my point on the NIRC rules is this: that this was debated at length only not too long ago.

We went through this discussion in this House, debated thoroughly the points and we settled on a framework. A framework that we think best meets the needs of both current and future generations and balances that fairly. And we decided to enshrine these rules in the Constitution. Let us not be so quick to rush the minute we need money and say, "Can we tweak the rules again?" So, that is on the first point.

On the second point, would cost of Government impose a drag on the economy? Yes, for sure it will. If the Government Budget – which means the revenues that we need to collect to meet the Budget – balloons to 25% of GDP, 30% of GDP, 40% of GDP like in some European countries, for sure it will be a drag on the economy. So, what I would very much like to hear from Members of this House is: if you think this is a concern, please let us have proposals, not to spend more, which we keep hearing, but to spend less for a change.

6.16 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information and Transport (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of thanks to our President for her Address.

Sir, my first speech in politics was in November 2009. At that time, I was a volunteer and an activist with Mr Sam Tan at his Radin Mas branch. There was some tea involved, not all of which was drunk. The next thing I knew, I was invited to deliver a speech at the PAP party convention in November 2009.

I made a speech about a couple that I had met who ran a bicycle shop and from whom I had bought a bicycle. The speech was about the way they had run their business, they had pivoted to a new business model; and the opportunities that they saw, I suppose, today, I would have used terms like "disruption", "SkillsFuture", "resiliency". But really, my agenda was to talk about cycling and to put across the idea that cycling had an important role to play for commuters. I had a pet peeve about cycling. I had been cycling as a commuter for some time and I found great difficulty as a result of one rule. And that rule was that I was unable to take my folding bicycle on the MRT, except at some very peculiar hours, very early in the morning. And this one rule got in the way of my ideal commuting solution. So, I used that platform to talk about how we should allow folding bicycles on the MRT at all times.

Since then, I have made many speeches. Some of them were related to transport, the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, free rides on the MRT in the morning as a way of dealing with congestion, and several more about cycling. Nine years later, I find myself posted to the Ministry of Transport (MOT). Never let it be said, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Members of this House do not have a sense of humour!

Much has changed in that time. There have been new industry models that have affected our public transport framework. We have the Bus Contracting Model where the Government owns all the assets. This model allows us to be far more responsive to changes in ridership, to the needs of commuters, to drive better competition, better efficacy and better efficiency. We have the new Rail Financing Framework, again, hoping to deal with issues of responsiveness and contestability in the market, putting a different emphasis on renewal of assets and the financial sustainability of our public transport infrastructure.

We have seen an expansion in capacity, a $1.1 billion programme, the Bus Services Enhancement Programme for 1,000 Government-funded buses, improving capacity for 70% of bus services. We have seen the introduction of City Direct Services, shorter waiting times, new rail lines which have either been built, opened or for which construction has started in Downtown Line, the Thomson-East Coast Line, Jurong Regional Line, Cross-Island Line and extensions to many existing MRT lines. We have seen that trial of free MRT rides in the early morning. All MRT stations now have barrier-free access. All trains have space for a wheelchair and handrails in the central carriage. All bus interchanges are barrier-free: 97% of bus stops and 96% of buses have wheelchair access. And by the end of the year, 2018, this year, we will have 200 kilometres of covered linkways under the Walk2Ride programme.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen the technology around digital motors and battery technology improve to the point where a significant number of power-assisted bicycles have appeared on our roads and e-scooters have appeared on our pavements as a result of which we had to have the Active Mobility Act, dealing partly, amongst other things, with which device goes where and which pedestrian commuter or mobility solution has the right of way. We have seen the appearance of bicycle-sharing service operators, dockless bicycle-sharing service operators. This has significantly improved the last-mile connectivity, but it has also disrupted plans that we have had for docked bicycle-sharing services. It has created a whole set of disamenities and complaints and concerns.

The number of HDB cycling towns has now increased to nine, with the paths and associated bicycle parking spaces. And some years ago, finally, I was able to take my folding bicycle on public transport at all times. None of these happened because of any one speech. Many Members of this House have spoken on these matters, many volunteers, many activists, have made representations and there continues to be an on-going serious, significant channel for public feedback.

MOT and LTA received, in this year past, more than 850,000 enquiries and points of feedback. In that same one year, 1,000 media enquiries and 200 media releases. A constant process of engaging with academics who are interested in this space. And the academics are a combination of engineers, public policy academics, but also economists and urban planning specialists.

We engage with industry, people who operate our services, the people who run research and development programmes, the trade associations and the unions on policy, regulatory and operational matters. We have engaged with local communities, grassroots organisations, grassroots' leaders, advisors, interest groups and activist groups. My colleagues and I in Punggol may have contributed significantly to some of those 850,000 enquiries over the last year, my apologies to my new colleagues in MOT and LTA.

Over the same period of time, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Faishal Ibrahim has started and led the Active Mobility Advisory Panel, now in its second term reviewing the effectiveness of the interventions that they have introduced. They engage in a process of consultation that requires in-depth interviews with a wide range of commuters, pedestrians and active mobility users. A public survey that went out to over 5,000 people, focus group discussions with hundreds of people. Similarly, we have had the Family-Friendly Transport Advisory Panel co-chaired by the Chairman of the PTC, Mr Richard Magnus, as well as our colleague Mr Sitoh Yih Pin. And similar consultative exercises for our Land Transport Master Plans 2008 and 2013. Online surveys, focus group discussions, an international advisory panel, grassroots organisations. Singaporeans have been whole-heartedly engaging in this process, enthusiastically, and, sometimes, not so pleasantly, but, in general, with a view to improving our system and processes and making this work better for them and for our country.

This is no surprise because our land transport system is a significant part of our lived daily experience. It affects our economy, it affects our happiness, it affects our social life, it affects our family life and our kids’. Transport for education; 15.4 million journeys daily. It supports 1.1% of our GDP, creates 123,000 jobs. This is an important part of our daily experience.

But the Government's role in this is not just about operating and effectively managing a feedback channel. We have to act in a certain series of dimensions. We have to firstly safeguard the public interest. In this, we have to look at basic infrastructure, the core components, roads, tracks, stations, depots, railways. These are large long-term investments. And difficult, if not impossible, for a purely commercial interest to take the right kind of perspective, the long-term horizon and balance out the public interest with the opportunity for profit. We also, in the same space, have to think about regulations and safety standards, service quality; we have to ensure that the equipment is maintained and lives up to performance, using levers, such as licences and contracts.

But we do not want to remove profit completely. We want to ensure, through our second thrust of work, that we level the playing field to allow private enterprises to step in, to allow businesses to develop new models of work, new commercial operators to come in, to minimise the regulatory barriers and to use as light a touch as possible to have the benefits of commercially-driven innovation and fair practices and a competitive environment for business, to bring to bear those benefits that are available for our land transport system. This can be about the services, the direct provision of services for transport; it can also be about the auxiliary services around transport, inter-operability of the modality of payments, for example.

Finally, we have to address market failures, such as the example I gave around bicycle-sharing services; while this is an important service, it provides that last-mile connectivity, it is welcomed by its users, but the negative externalities of the errant parking, the discarded bicycles, cause significant problems. We then had to have the Parking Places (Amendments) Bill to introduce the licensing regime.

So, in this area then, what are the changing circumstances, the changing environment and the new opportunities that we will need to respond to for our land transport system? Well, we have seen and we will continue to see developments around the private hire car industry, the point-to-point industry – Uber, Grab and various other players. The introduction of those algorithms and their changes to the fares available and the opportunities that commuters took advantage of have been welcomed but they have also driven disruptions and changes to our taxi industry and the people who drive the taxis. We have seen the growth of on-demand bus services and bicycle-sharing services and are likely to develop new products, new solutions, to meet those needs and those aspirations that commuters have.

Simultaneously, we have had a sense of increasingly diverse needs. We have an ageing population, an increasing number of commuters with mobility challenges and we will need to look at increasing accessibility. We are proud of the number of our services, stations, trains and buses which are wheelchair-accessible or barrier-free. But just like that one regulation had impeded and hindered my commuting journey, when it comes to issues of accessibility, when mobility is a challenge, it does not take much to get in the way between the intent or the idea and the ability for someone with a mobility challenge to effectively use public transport independently. A small step misaligned, a small design flaw and it gets in the way of a functional outcome that is necessary for that person or that family.

And families need to be considered, specifically, for the future of our public transport system. We need to be increasingly family-centric if we are going to take our car-lite approach seriously, then families with small children especially, need to be able to navigate our public transport system effectively, comfortably and see it as a viable alternative to owning a car.

The changes in our economy are going to affect how we deal with our land transport plans. We see the new centres of employment that Minister Lawrence Wong talked about recently: Jurong Lake District, Punggol Digital District, Sembawang, Woodlands and Changi. These areas will need to have a greater degree of access to them to bring in those flows of workers. We need to make viable, full transport, this vision to have employment close to home for Singaporeans. But not every Singaporean who works in those new areas will live in those areas. We will need flow to those areas and we will also need flow between those areas. These changes to the patterns of flow of people will affect how we design our connectivity nodes and the main pipes for our land transport system.

Some of our new behaviours, the rise of online shopping, this idea that you will have goods delivered to your door instead of going down to the shops, this has disrupted traditional freight movement. Direct shipping has lots of benefits. It is extremely convenient, it means we have access to goods from around the world but, again, it causes potential disamenities. You need space for the delivery trucks to come in, drop-off points for people to leave those trucks while they take those goods in, lockers. And we will need to think about how we calibrate that balance between the convenience for the consumer, the demand for that convenience and the congestion that it generates, even as we maintain the opportunity for new business models to be developed. People are developing new types of jobs – flexi jobs, flexi place, telecommuting – and these shifting patterns of behaviour will also affect how our land transport system is used.

Taking all this feedback into account, looking at these changes, looking at these challenges, we are embarking on the next phase of developing our land transport masterplan. And, as always, as we have done, repeatedly, we want to do so in consultation, in collaboration with Singaporeans from all walks of life: families, workers, parents, grandparents, industry, academics, activists, grassroots.

We want to bring everybody into this process because this matters to our land transport system. It makes it relevant and responsive to the needs and aspirations of the public. But also because, the public, we, have a large role to play in making an effective and pleasant land transport system. Whether it is the choice of the route, the choice of our transport modality, the choice of how and at which time of day we travel. Or the choice around our behaviours: how we choose to board the bus or the MRT, how we choose to stand or sit, how we look out for each other on the roads.

We have a plan and we know what we have to do. We know where we have to get to. But how we get there, how quickly and at what cost, what are the priorities? These are the things that we need to hear and we want to hear your views about. We want to continue to consult widely. Please get involved. Please come and let us know, add to those 850,000 emails and phone enquiries that we have.

Frankly, if you have a view not just on this journey that I have described but also the destination, if you think that that shape of a strategy, that shape of a big plan about where we want to get to, if you have views on that, let us know. Let us have that discussion and let us have that contest of ideas, so that we can generate the best possible public Land Transport Masterplan for Singapore. We want to hear.

With our efforts, we think we know what Singapore needs. But if you are in a position to know better, please, come to us with your proposals. What is the direction, where is the destination? Currently, what is our vision and what are we trying to achieve? We want to provide a seamless land transport system, one that can easily integrate new and innovative mobility solutions as they emerge.

Whatever we have seen in the last few years, whether it is about the point-to-point industry, private hire cars, bike-sharing and, now, e-scooter sharing, who knows what is going to happen in the next five years? Whatever comes along, we need to find a way, we need to design our public transport system in such a way that whatever comes along will be easily integrated and be part of the solution.

In some places, people talk of Mobility-as-a-Service (MAAS). What do they mean when they talk about Mobility as a Service? The implication is that you will have multi-modal transport. Perhaps a shared bicycle to the MRT station. The MRT takes you to a destination at which point you have a point-to-point car waiting for you that will take you eventually to your place of work. That journey should be seen ideally as one journey, as opposed to three separate journeys. Perhaps you can arrange and make a decision about how long it will take you, how much it will cost you on one app, or one platform, or one decision point. Ideally, pay for it using a single-solution. That end-to-end transportation solution is referred to as Mobility-as-a-Service.

There are calls that we should do this as a Government. There are people who feel that this idea should be driven by the state. But, ultimately, if we do so, we would remove commercial opportunities. We will remove the opportunities for businesses to come in with their ideas and their ability to drive innovation and innovative practices. And frankly speaking, if you look at what we have today, we have a mixture of state-provided solutions, platforms, services and assets as well as industry-provided, business-provided services.

That seamless feel, that integration from end-to-end of your solution and your service, it does not have to all be provided by one entity. If you look at, for example, what people do on their phones: someone sold that to you, you have got your telecommunications subscriptions, the service that you are accessing, if it is a journal or a website, you may have a subscription. But at the end of the day, you use your phone seamlessly and your experience is relatively blind to the various commercial providers you engage with.

Similarly, if you use cable: who owns the cable, who owns the telco, the subscription that you have paid for and perhaps your pay per use, pay on demand that you have subscribed to. All these are different entities, but the solution to you is integrated, is seamless. So, you can have a functional outcome of Mobility-as-a-Service and that is where we want to go to, where the state, the Government, has the lightest possible intervention and regulatory touch, in order to make these different components synchronise together.

What will it require? It will require us to set some standards around safety, but also around inter-operability. It may be necessary for the state to just build a handful of products to interface software, to share data, to put up an API. But, ultimately, we want to allow that space to be present for businesses to thrive in.

Secondly, we need a transport system that caters to the diverse needs of all commuters and empowers all to use our system independently. When we think of that aspiration in the light of the changing mobility challenges, the changing demographics in age especially, this is going to have an impact on resource and resource allocation. How do we do this in a way that is fair and feels just to Singaporeans? We will need to have a conversation on this.

Thirdly, we will develop stronger connectivity to the regional centres that we talked about – bring jobs and daily activities closer to home. But as we do that, as we prioritise these centres in order to drive the economic activity there, in order to drive investment there, we may have to invest ahead of demand for our transport connectivity. We may have to prioritise transport connectivity to these areas so that economic activity is made available close to Singaporeans' homes. That seems reasonable but that will have an impact on our overall planning on our priorities, where we will allocate transport connectivity and resources. Again, we will need to have that conversation.

In going forward with these three big ideas, we assume that we must go in the direction of being car-lite and that we have to emphasise and encourage people to think about walking, cycling and riding as part of the solution. And as we do so, it will have benefits. It will have benefits through our system in terms of the loading capacity and the congestion. It will have benefits to our health in terms of our ability to get a bit more exercise in our day whether it is walking or cycling and it will have benefits to our environment in terms of the emissions as well as our carbon footprint and energy consumption.

But again, if you feel a need, a desire or some knowledge on the basis of which you want to challenge those assumptions of going car-lite or talking about walk, ride and cycle and how we address these solutions, we want to hear your views.

We will consult widely and ask for public input through many channels. We are setting up an advisory panel with representatives from commuters, workers, academics and disruptive businesses and many more to address our needs for the Land Transport Masterplan going forward, to make recommendations to the Government and to report back to this House, where I anticipate we would engage in a robust and dynamic debate with many strong opinions on our transport system.

Our land transport system connects people with their jobs; goods with markets; connects ideas together with opportunities; and brings friends and families closer together in communities. It is essential to the experience of living in this wonderful tropical island that Singapore is, the city-state that we call Home. And this, our public land transport system, is one of the key defining characteristics of our home. [Applause.]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

6.38 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to respond to the President’s Address.

First, I would like to thank the President for the Address. I have heard many in the House speak about inequality and the urgent need to address the growing gap between the wealthy and the less privileged.

Let me start by reading an excerpt from a book that has greatly influenced my own theatre practice and which I feel we can learn a lot from.

The book is "Pedagogy of Hope" written by Paulo Freire, who is a Brazilian pedagogue-educator. In the book, Freire recounts a talk that he did for workers about freedom, authority, punishment, reward and dialogical education, based on his own research and field studies on the ground in Brazil. During the talk, Freire argued for a dialogical loving relationship between parents and children in place of violent punishments, especially amongst the underclass.

After his talk, a man, aged about 40, looking worn-out, asked to speak. After he had praised Freire for his nice work, which presented complicated ideas in simple terms, he posed a question to Paulo Freire. I quote the question: “Dr Paulo, Sir, do you know where people live? Have you ever been in any of our houses, Sir?”

And then, this man began to describe their houses: the lack of facilities and extremely minimal space within which the families must cramp into. He spoke about how lacking they were in basic necessities. Freire had visited these houses but never lived in them.

Then, the man asked another question, “Doctor, I've never been over to your house, but I’d like to describe it for you, Sir.”

The man then started describing Friere's house, complete with its amenities: running water, rooms for his children and his personal needs and so on. These are the same amenities that the man himself did not get to enjoy, but which Friere had become accustomed to.

Then, the man said, “Now, Doctor, look at the difference. You come home tired, Sir, and I know that. You may even have a headache from the work you do. Thinking, writing, reading, giving these kind of talks that you’ve given now. That tires out a person too. But Sir, it’s one thing to come home, even tired, and find the kids all bathed, dressed up, clean, well fed, not hungry. Yet, it's another thing to come home and find your kids dirty, hungry, crying, and making noise. And people have to get up at four in the morning the next day to start all over again -- hurting, sad, hopeless. If people hit their kids and even ‘go beyond bounds’, as you say, it’s not because people don’t love their kids. No, it’s because life is so hard they don’t have much choices.”

It was a sobering sharing for Freire, but he felt very misunderstood. So, he complained to his wife but in response, his wife said, “Could it have been you, Paulo, who didn’t understand them? They understood you, but they needed to have you understand them.”

There are two issues here. Firstly, it is really very difficult to acknowledge that one is in a privileged position, whether it is white privilege, Chinese privilege, class privilege, male privilege and so on. To acknowledge it means you are admitting that you are where you are at in life not solely because of your merit, but because your privilege has -- knowingly or otherwise -- helped to get you to this position. That knowledge might make us indignant, especially if we were never conscious of our privilege, let alone think that it is part of why we are successful.

We cannot talk about inequality without first acknowledging that some of us are more privileged than others. If we want to address inequality, we must acknowledge the systemic factors that allow for unequal distribution of resources and opportunities. We must think deeply about how we have all -- in some way or another -- contributed to the persistence and growth of inequality.

Hence, is it accurate when we say that meritocracy is the way to help keep inequality in check? I do not believe so. In fact, the social stratification we see in our midst only reminds us of the imperfection of meritocracy. Meritocracy must be not an end to itself. Rather, I believe that it is merely one of the means to a greater end.

So, what is this greater end? It is to ensure that Singaporeans and anyone living and working in Singapore are given respect and dignity as an individual being. By that, I mean respect for his or her emotional, spiritual, physical, social and political well-being. And to achieve this, mere economic policy would not be sufficient. We need a cultural shift to think about things humanistically.

I think that all of us sitting here in this House would admit that we are the privileged today, even if some of us may have come from a less-than-privileged background. In fact, we may even use ourselves as an example of how meritocracy can work. We might say, “If I have made it, then others also can or will.” Yet, a statement like that does not acknowledge that each of us faces different challenges, which may affect the options we have and alter the paths we can take in life.

So, how do we discern these differences? I have talked about vulnerable listening in the last speech I made during the Budget debate and, here, I would like to add one more quality to that, to look at the way we behave culturally.

Paulo Freire, through this experience, developed an approach on how to work with the underclass, the people who are oppressed. He said that one needs to listen with compassion and, importantly, one needs to be humble when listening. As we listen, we need to know that we hold positions of privilege. We need to acknowledge that knowing the facts or being intelligent does not mean we can solve all problems and offer good solutions.

To take a recent example: in trying to save Ellison Building from being demolished and then rebuilt again, various civil society and heritage experts came in to offer solutions. URA and LTA agreed that they would need to listen deeply, to be more attentive to the needs of all parties and acknowledge that they may not know the best solutions. Through these negotiations, I am glad we have come to a good decision for the future of Ellison Building.

Good leadership is about humility. Being a good leader is not about showing how visionary you are, but about letting people be part of that visioning process. Lao Zi, in 道德经, or The Way, has these wise words for leaders: 不自见，故明；不自是，故彰。To paraphrase, one should not be prejudicial or you will lose your objectivity. With humility, one can then attain and allow for greater possibilities and discoveries.

At the same time, we, as the people, must be critical citizens so that we can demand for good leadership. In fact, I would even go so far as to say, without good and critical citizens, we will not be able to get good and responsible Government and leaders. Governance is not just about what we expect of the Government, but also what we demand of ourselves as citizens. We should not just think that our rights as citizens are merely about voting in the leaders. As critical citizens, we must be able to express our views about issues of concern. We should be able to engage in discourse with reason, passion, humility and empathy.

Discourse amongst people, between different sectors or between people and leadership should not be about winning arguments or about flushing out the other views. It is not about shaming, name-calling or bullying. Rather, discourse is about understanding and learning to live with the others.

We have acknowledged in this House many a time that the world we live in is getting increasingly more diverse. In fact, instead of saying that we are now living in a world of "us versus them", "majority versus minority", I would say that we are living in a world that is made up of disparate minorities. We must look towards a heterotopia, a space for all that embraces these differences we have.

But there is a trade-off in this. Maybe we will be less efficient in managing all these differences. But I strongly believe that efficacy is more important than efficiency. We cannot just simply invoke this often-used mantra "agree to disagree", so as to expedite decisions. We need to find the time and a way for us to listen to and understand each other long enough so that we are able to agree to disagree, meaningfully.

And then, our disagreements will still resurface, but when they happen in future, these differences will not be contentious. Because we have listened with compassion, because we have not assumed that our privilege gives us the ability to offer all the right answers every single time, because we know that, through this long engagement, we would build trust. In this way, we can address disagreements with empathy and generosity.

Debate resumed.

6.49 pm

Ms Kuik Shiao-Yin (Nominated Member): Two months ago, Prof Tommy Koh invited me to speak on a panel at Tembusu College, discussing Singapore’s hopes for the next Prime Minister. The College had also selected a student leader to speak on behalf of his cohort. And to prepare, this student leader spent a whole month running focus groups and surveying his peers. That night, he read out an open letter addressed to the future prime minister that summarised the themes emerging from his research. Prof Koh, who chaired the discussion, and the rest of us panelists recognised it as the best speech of the night.

You might have already seen that speech online that went viral and, if you have not, here is the printed version.

Three weeks ago, those precocious students hand-delivered 16 letters to my office – one for each of the fourth generation leaders – hoping that I would bring them to Parliament on their behalf. I will keep that promise and pass these to the Clerk for the team. Many have already weighed in on this letter online and some praise it for being inspiring but others have slammed it for being naive. And whatever your inclination, it is worth a read because it reflects the perspective of a new generation of voters that will be making themselves heard, regardless, at the ballot boxes in the next few years.

I was nominated into Parliament to give insight into youths’ concerns. So, I will thus orient what is probably my last major speech around the three big questions in the students’ letter for they resonate with the themes brought up by Mdm President last week.

The students’ first question for their future prime minister is, “How much do you trust us?” This echoes Mdm President’s concern about the future leadership’s ability to listen to, trust and work with the people, particularly those with dissenting views. Their second and third questions for their future prime minister are: “How will you unite Singapore?” and “What is Singapore to you?”. This ties in with Mdm President’s call for leadership to deal with social inequality and cast a more inclusive future vision that can “fire up…the spirit of young Singaporeans”.

I will explore the questions and make suggestions that I hope are respectful enough of Mdm President’s call for bold changes versus marginal tweaking.

First, “How much do you trust us?” In their letter, the students shared their uncertainty about whether their voice in the public square would be welcomed if they did not share pro-establishment views. They wrote: “Do you see us as equal partners, leaders you want to empower, or as citizens you need to govern? What kind of role do you trust us to play? We are prompted in school to think critically and voice our opinions, but we see some naysayers being treated negatively. We are encouraged to push boundaries…yet, those of us who write articles online are reminded to respect existing boundaries. And we are taught it is important to learn our history, but are certain narratives preferred over others?” The youths believe that having dissenting views does not mean they are any less passionate for Singapore’s good or less loyal to Singapore’s interests. They speak out because they care and they want to see their leaders model curiosity and compassion in their engagement with divergent views.

And lest we brush aside these dissenting young people as just part of a “vocal minority” that can be ignored, I find their youthful opinion matches the sentiments I hear from a number of 20- to 40-something professionals from the quieter middle ground.

My own sense of the ground, and I could be wrong and you may disagree with me, is that there are more people who have dissenting views about what is going on in our country than Government-commissioned opinion polls reveal. This is partly because many people in this segment are unlikely to answer such polls in the first place. They do not like registering their dissent openly, be it on survey or social media or any form of record. The reasons why these people keep their dissent to themselves vary. Some honestly assume that their opinion is unimportant or unqualified; some like getting along and fear that their honesty will invite an open rebuke or a cold shoulder from the establishment; and others say it is just self-preservation based on their past experiences. Whatever it is, their quiet dissent is real and such withholding of views may give the leadership the wrong impression that all is quiet on the western front.

The shock at the electoral results in the UK, US and Malaysia has shown that some leaders can live in an unfortunate bubble and, sometimes, it is not one entirely of your own making. It is a well-known phenomenon that one unintended effect of being in a powerful leadership position is that people surrounding you may start to presume, wrongly or rightly, that their job is to tell you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to hear.

One of the most poignant reflections I read about this problem was from former US Secretary of State General Colin Powell. To ensure he always had a clear picture of the ground, Powell said that he made his staffers stick to four simple rules: “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And always distinguish which is which."

But even so, those four good rules still could not prevent the issue of withheld dissent which caused him, and his country, to make an astronomical mistake. He recounted, “There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn’t, don’t tell him that he doesn’t. I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the United Nations in 2003 about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes was not based on facts, though I thought it was…A number of senior analysts had big “don’t knows” that they never passed on. Some of these same analysts later wrote books claiming they were shocked that I had relied on such deeply flawed evidence…So, why did no one stand up and speak out during the intense hours that we worked on the speech?…It takes courage to do that, especially if you are standing up to a view strongly held by a superior or to the generally prevailing view, or if you really don’t want to acknowledge ignorance when your boss is demanding answers. The leader can’t be let off without blame in these situations…He has to relentlessly cross-examine the analysts until he is satisfied he’s got what they know and…what they don’t know. At the same time, the leader must realise that it takes courage for someone to stand up and say to him, “That’s wrong.” “You’re wrong.” Or: “We really don’t know that.” The leader should never shoot the messenger. Everybody is working together to find the right answer. And if they’re not, then you’ve got even more serious problems.”

So, I do worry when I read surveys that seem to present too positive an assessment of public opinion on controversial issues like transport or water prices. I believe such polls may cause an unintended widening of the communication gap between leaders and the ground.

In a recent Straits Times interview regarding whether the ground cared about the six-hour questioning of Dr PJ Thum by the Select Committee, I saw this quote, “We went to the grassroots, into the constituency, door to door, and nobody asked about it, nobody wanted to talk about it and nobody was the least bit concerned about it.” And perhaps, but I respectfully offer you my observation that this has not been my own experience of the ground.

In my work, I do get to talk to a considerable number of youths and white-collar working professionals. There were definitely some people asking about it, wanting to talk about it and showing concern about the general handling of dissenters. So, I do not think it is a case of "nobody" cared.

Many of these lay observers, even those who were more establishment-leaning, did express their deepening discomfort with watching the establishment go for, what they perceived, as over-kill when it came to dealing with naysayers from the Opposition, from civil society and even from within the establishment’s own ranks. And now, these observers were not saying let us go soft on dissenters who are clearly professional agitators.

But they were asking: how far do we really have to go to bring down people with political opinions that may be different from our own? What do we gain and what do we lose when we win the argument but display clear contempt of the other person? Must it always be a zero-sum game in dealing with dissenters or can we work towards a win-win? And these are not simply questions they are pinning onto political leadership alone but questions they are reflecting for themselves. Because many of them are leaders, too – from non-profits, corporations, public service. They do work that does require them to work with dissenting stakeholders. So, they are always looking for inspiration and role-modelling.

One of Mdm President’s most memorable observations in her speech was about how the new leadership “will need to listen to the views and feelings of the people, and by their words and deeds, show that they have heard…And this is how they will earn the right to lead…In each generation, the people and leaders must work with one another…and forge their own bonds afresh”.

The student’s letter shows us how a new generation of voters would like to work with the new generation of leaders who desire the right to lead them. They say, “We want you to trust that we do not disagree for dissent’s sake and that we can find unity even in the face of our differences with you…Disagreement is not weakness and your appointment is a chance for a new way for our differences to be received. We truly believe that it is only in facing our differences together openly, honestly and fearlessly that our discourse can be strengthened, outcomes can be sharpened and our relationship can be deepened.”

I train people in how to build trust through conversations and we have a simple rule of thumb. In every argument, we really only have two end-games to play: you can either prioritise being right, or you can prioritise retaining the relationship and the results that come through that relationship. This applies as much to arguing with your family as much as it does to arguing with stakeholders. When you prioritise retaining relationship over being right, what you gain is new ground to work together towards doing what is right anyway, towards the results you care for. Together is the superior end-game.

We can avoid unnecessarily adversarial relationships with our dissenters if we choose to be slow to speak and quick to listen for the truths our naysayers are offering. The purposeful inclusion of more thoughtful voices who are unafraid of challenging establishment views will make our system stronger. So, can I suggest that we intentionally seek out more non-establishment types to participate in our national level focus groups, committees, boards, Ministries and Parliament? If we want our system to be resilient, we need to boldly open up our echo chambers and learn to ask both friends and detractors, “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And help me distinguish which is which.”

And if we have power, let us be aware of its silencing effects on people so that we can learn to lay it down purposefully to help others feel they have permission and safety to share their truths. As the founding Minister S Rajaratnam once said, “Don’t tell me things you think I want to hear; tell me things I should hear even if they make me feel uncomfortable.”

I will now move on to my second point on income inequality. Mdm President warned of dire consequences if we do not deal with it "vigorously". In their letter, the youths echoed: "We are very worried that social inequality is becoming an issue that is dividing Singaporeans faster than we can mitigate it." As we zero in on meeting the needs of children from lower income homes, I hope we do not neglect their parents' needs. We must not operate from a subconscious mindset of "save the children because the adults are a gone case". Because a child's well-being is tied to their parent's well-being. Children's needs are tied to parents' needs, children's problems are tied to parents' problems. And that is how family works. That is how country works. Everyone is linked up, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer. Parent and child are a package deal. If we want to help the child, we help the parent too. Their children would say the same thing, because that is what love says. We want to be in this together.

So, as we provide education subsidies to support a child at school, let us simultaneously provide secure affordable housing to his unwed mother. Stable housing with longer term tenancies and less crowded rooming conditions through the child's crucial schooling years will give these kids a fighting chance with kids from the richer households. There should be no favouritism. The same dignities we accord to middle- or upper-income families should be accorded to the lower income. If we do not think it is culturally dignified or politically viable to tell two single, unrelated upper income individuals or a middle-income family of five to share one HDB room together, then let it be just as inappropriate to tell lower income people that they have to do so, and still achieve great outcomes.

Inequality has to be approached on a whole-of-Government examination of policy. Because it is never just about income but power disparity as well. The power gap is entrenched in policies about housing, healthcare, education across Ministries, because policy is, after all, power frozen in place. For instance, when policy declares, you and the child that you gave birth to cannot be officially defined as a family nucleus even if logically that is what you are, you are frozen out of the system and quite powerless to access certain good choices. You depend on access through more powerful individuals like a Member of Parliament or social worker to advocate for you on a "case-by-case basis". How much better would it be to go for a policy change that can let power thaw, flow and refreeze into a new, hopefully more empowering place, one where the previously disempowered can now help themselves and independently access the options they need to move ahead in life. There, but for the grace of God, go we.

Who is to say one day we, too, may not come into a similar station in life? Is it that unthinkable? Because if we lost it all and became the powerless ones, how would we want the system to work with us? I hope, some day, we can consider looking beyond just Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of our success and implement a companion measure of holistic progress along. Income is a vital and necessary indicator of well-being but it is not all-sufficient nor is it conclusive.

In 2012, economists Yeoh Lam Keong and Manu Bhaskaran talked about how GDP growth must not become the be-all and end-all for Singapore. They proposed alternative indicators, such as measuring income inequality, the proportion of citizens’ "out of pocket" healthcare expenses and the breadth of outreach of our public hospitals. There are, currently, a few alternative indicators out there in the world: Bhutan's Gross National Happiness, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Better Life Index. And if we think these indicators or others like Gini coefficient are flawed or not applicable to our Singapore context, then why not create one of our own? A uniquely Singapore system of meaningful measures for well-being would help the people and the Government better communicate where we are and where we want to go.

We can raise our collective level of well-being if we knew which metrics mattered most. We manage what we measure. We chase what we measure. We get what we measure. What we do not measure will always be treated as something lesser. We can criticise Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index, but we cannot dismiss the effect it had in kickstarting the world's thinking for years about what it means for economies to work on the things that matter most to people. Canada's Well-being Index chooses to measure things like community vitality, culture and time use. But we can base our well-being index: on what we believe reflects our unique values: unity between different races and religions, democratic participation, justice, equality, happiness and, of course, economic prosperity and progress.

The third and final question the youths had "What is Singapore to you?" is a provocative question to pose not just to leadership but to ourselves as an electorate. Who do we want Singapore to be? For our country is in our hands. The votes we cast, or do not cast. The positions we support, or do not support. The donations we give, or do not give. The risks we take, or do not take. The people that we serve, or do not serve. Singapore is as bold, and as kind, as inclusive, as original, and as vital as we make her to be.

Our country is us, the sum total of all our choices. And that is the power of a people. The Prime Minister quoted Ecclesiastes yesterday. It made me consider, much as we love our Pioneers and admire the times our country came from, we cannot go back. For they say, “The past is like a foreign country: they do things differently there." Where it was their time to plant, perhaps now is our time to uproot. Where it was their time to tear down, perhaps now is our time to build up. Where it was their time to keep silent, perhaps now is our time to speak. There is a time for everything and a season for every one of us, under the heavens.

This is our time. And we must make of it what we will. We are not Lee Kuan Yews, Goh Keng Swees or Rajaratnams. And we need not pretend to be. They were who they were and they were who they had to be. Those times and their times are past, but our time is now. We each must learn to be bold enough to live out who we are and dare to challenge who we could be. We need only be the best of ourselves, seizing the most of our times, steering our country our way. And if we are scared, then let the words of Mr Chiam See Tong, Singapore's longest-serving Opposition Member, give us courage. When people praised him for being brave in stepping up to serve despite being perceived as too ordinary, he said, "I am not actually a brave man, but I love Singapore and I love Singaporeans." So, let our love find the way forward out of here. I support the Motion and the future of our country. [Applause.]