Debate on President's Address

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

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

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

Question again proposed.

2.50 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Baey Yam Keng): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address. In his Address, the President highlighted the need for the Government to partner citizens to shape our common future. He also urged all Members to work closely with the people to write the next chapter together. We must and we shall. As a more diverse society emerges and with a more complex global environment to navigate, we should put our heads together, to take things forward as one people.

Madam, in 2012, we held Our Singapore Conversation to listen to what mattered most to Singaporeans. We heard from some 47,000 Singaporeans, expressing views on matters concerning our livelihood, such as job opportunities and housing. We also heard calls for a more fulfilling pace of life, where we can pursue other aspirations outside of work. There was also interest among many to forge a stronger sense of a national identity and these are all important, and have guided the Government's work in the last few years. This is still work-in-progress.

But we need to adapt how we, as Singaporeans, want Singapore to be run, with the new challenges we face. And as it is evolving quicker than ever, we need everyone to chip in, to make it work for all of us. As Minister Grace Fu said last week, we need all hands on deck to face the challenges ahead. It is time to take action. We want to build a democracy of deeds, where Singaporeans have a greater sense of ownership, responsibility and a greater connection to what it means to be Singaporean.

That is the premise behind the SGfuture engagements launched last November. It is an opportunity for Singaporeans to come forward to share their views and suggestions on how to build a better future for Singapore. These are focused engagement sessions, aimed at looking into specific topics, including the arts, sports, volunteerism, environment and even hawker food culture. These are not just discussions, but brainstorm sessions to establish the next steps on matters that concern us.

I attended one of the sessions last Thursday with over 70 youths. Their enthusiasm was infectious. Ideas came fast and furious, on ways to help other segments of society. For instance, one participant had the idea of building public gyms for people with special needs. Another suggested having retro disco parties for the elderly in the void decks of housing blocks. There are all ideas worth pursuing, so I encouraged them to take it further and, if necessary, consider how they can partner the relevant Government agencies and other organisations to turn these ideas into reality.

Madam, I believe we have all seen on reality TV shows, how it is not just the celebrities, but also ordinary people who shape the plot and attract viewership. Not everyone can be on the show. But there is a role for the audience to play in deciding who gets to go, who gets to stay and who finally wins the contest. Hence, we should not sit passively to watch the Singapore Story unfold. Take part in one of the SGfuture sessions, or get involved in other forums that exist. We should take an interest in following the developments and better still, play a part in shaping the Singapore we want for our future generations.

We have all seen the power and effectiveness of collective wisdom. Crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding, for instance, are concepts that have fuelled opportunities for many people and businesses. The run-away successes of Kickstarter, Uber and AirBnB for instance are not solely because of the technology or the products they offer. They manage to effectively match demand with supply and vice versa. Their apps bring people together for a mutually-beneficial outcome and their apps make it easy for people to see what is out there, seize it and achieve a better outcome for themselves. In the same way, SGfuture harnesses the wisdom of crowds.

This idea of co-creating with the people is not entirely new. But SG50 has given us a renewed sense that Singaporeans want to be involved. This democracy of deeds will therefore be an integral part of this term of Government. This also means within the Government, public agencies will need to reorganise ourselves, in order to effectively involve and engage Singaporeans. The SGfuture engagements give a glimpse into how we are intending to do so by matching ideas with action and people with projects.

As Members of the House, we also need to do more engagement with our residents, whether is it to decide on what to build and where to build in estate upgrading projects.

Madam, one of the groups that I hope to involve closely in this, is our youths. They are vocal, energetic and teeming with ideas. I know many of them want to be involved in shaping the Singapore they hope to live in. I have been hearing from more of them since taking up my appointment at MCCY. Recently, I spent a day at Outward Bound Singapore on Pulau Ubin kayaking and abseiling with students from Bartley Secondary School and Tanjong Katong Girls' School. As I think about the time we spent together that day, I was encouraged by the display of teamwork and resilience in our youths.

I hope to be able to catch up with more young Singaporeans in the coming months. I want to hear about what moves them and what they want for Singapore. I hope to share with more of them that they are in a good position to make a difference for Singapore and that the future is theirs to own. I hope to do so through more informal ways, including more kayaking or abseiling, if necessary.

Over the last few years, as a Member of Parliament, I have found it useful to create such relatively informal channels to reach out to Singaporeans, through face-to-face conversations, social media and even exercising.

Madam, since General Elections (GE) 2011, I have been holding monthly "KopiTalks" in a food court and online chats through my Facebook account. It is a way to connect with my residents in Tampines and the public at large. During these informal sessions, my residents raise questions as well as give feedback on improvements for the constituency. We also talk about ways to manage issues, from noisy neighbours to national topics like whether there should be free parking at national parks, which the Senior Minister of State talked about just now. It is all very casual and free-flowing. But from these regular check-ins with my residents, and even some non-residents, I get a good sense of what concerns them.

What I have observed, over the last few years of such engagements is that Singaporeans are moving away from just giving feedback or complaints. Increasingly, I see offers to get involved, for example, the Hope Centre's monthly bread distribution to rental flat residents in Tampines North which started last year. Hope Centre and Tampines North grassroots organisations are now discussing and planning for a new free tuition service for children of needy families.

At the same time, I am also getting requests to help with their causes, for instance, in promoting a giving culture, better road manners and even attending their baby shower parties. This is encouraging and affirms, too, that the approach we are taking as a Government, starting with the SGfuture citizen engagement, is timely and a step in the right direction.

Madam, another way I try to reach out to fellow Singaporeans is through exercise. I run about twice a week. Regularly, I would post an open invitation on social media, for anyone to join me in my runs. These sessions, which I call "Run with BYK", allow me to meet more people. As we jog around places like Marina Bay or Tampines EcoGreen, we chat and learn more about one another. These groups are not large; in fact, often, there are just about two, at most six people. But what makes it different is that it is also very conducive to hear from one another because every new person I speak with is a new opportunity to learn about them, to gather feedback and to look at how we can improve the way we do things in Singapore.

I think this is the mentality we should adopt when we talk about engaging the public, that there are no "right" platforms. We just need to recognise the many opportunities around us to engage with one another, to enlarge the common space to collaborate and to co-exist. And "Run with BYK" is all the more meaningful too now that I am with MCCY, where together with Sport Singapore, we are promoting better living through sport. During each small group run, we enjoy our conversations as well as the beautiful sights and green spaces of Singapore along the way. So, if you are keen, you can look out for the next run through hashtag #runwithBYK. Well, this is my personal exercise regime which I do anyway. I am just opening it up for others to join me. Likewise, public engagement should be and will be in the Government's DNA.

These channels will augment the other established channels that the Government already has, from the REACH platforms, to the hotlines and Facebook pages that almost all agencies have. Our Singapore Conversation and the SGfuture engagements are the most recent efforts to reach out. These are not one-off efforts, but they are a continuum in the Government's plans to reach out to Singaporeans over the years. And with SGfuture, we also want Singaporeans to take up projects, to seed a change and to shape our future.

Many views will emerge, as well as ideas to take Singapore forward. Importantly, we want people to take these ideas and views further, to translate them into action. The Government cannot do it alone or unilaterally, more so as our society becomes more diverse and the demands more diffused. But the Government can and will partner people in making Singapore a better home for all.

Madam, on this note, I would like to comment on several issues raised by Members Sylvia Lim and Leon Perera earlier in the week.

Mr Perera spoke about an op-ed piece by Arts Engage on the Government's role in funding the arts. In Singapore, funding of the arts is a partnership between the state, corporates and individuals, which reflects the spirit of shared responsibility and co-creation that I talked about earlier on. This approach acknowledges the role that the Government plays in supporting the development of the arts sector. Over the last three years, with the Arts and Culture Strategic Review, we have not only seen increased funding but also more arts groups and talents in the arts community are benefiting from this funding. This is because the Government sees the importance of the arts and culture in meeting the aspirations of the people and in building a sense of national identity.

But as the custodian of public funds, the Government is also accountable to the public in the application of funds towards achieving our social objectives. The need to maintain a wide common space among communities and ensure social harmony in our multi-racial and multi-religious society has been expounded by many speakers before me. The public expects the Government and public agencies to uphold these values in our policies, including our funding guidelines for the arts.

At the same time, there is funding from the private sector: corporates and individuals. They do not necessarily carry the same social objectives and are not bound by our arts funding guidelines. However, one can expect conditions to be similarly imposed by these private donors and individuals. The conditions may vary from meeting brand attributes to audience size, but the point is that there will be conditions.

It is therefore not realistic to expect any public funds to be given out unconditionally. For example, the Productivity and Innovation Credit that helps companies raise productivity comes with conditions in employment. Sports scholarship for our athletes comes with conditions in training and in performance. The public expects us as custodian to discharge our responsibility with care and to good effect.

But rest assured, as an advocate of the arts, NAC will continue to focus on arts excellence and continue to make the case for enlarging the space for our artists and arts groups to grow. We will get better in doing this. And when there are broader interests of society that may be at odds with this role, we will try to bridge the differences. At the very least, we seek to help all parties see the other points of view. After all, there should be better and deeper engagement.

Madam, let me now talk about the National Sports Associations (NSAs) that Ms Sylvia Lim had talked about. She questioned the need for Members of Parliament to take up leadership roles in NSAs. I would like to clarify in the House that all the leaders in NSAs have to be elected in accordance with the respective constitutions. The Ministry does not appoint Members of Parliament to head NSAs. They must be elected by their members.

The only exception today is the Football Association of Singapore (FAS) where the President of FAS has been appointed by the Minister responsible for Sports. But this, too, is changing. FAS is transiting to a system of election by members. By June, an AGM will be called during which members will elect their next president.

Members of Parliament who are holding NSA leadership positions have to earn their stripes and gain the respect of the members of the associations. They bring along with them experience and expertise in their own right. At the same time, the vast majority of NSAs, in fact, 55 out of the 63 NSAs, do not have Members of Parliament as their leaders, for example: Singapore Swimming Association, Singapore Sailing Federation, Singapore Bowling Federation, Singapore Rugby Union, Fencing Singapore, Singapore Silat Federation and many others; and these are very good NSAs. In fact, leaders from NSAs have joined us in the Chamber as Nominated Members of Parliament. We have Jessie Phua, Nicholas Fang and Dr Benedict Tan. Madam, I would like to clarify in the House again that leadership in NSAs is not dictated by the Government.

Madam, let me now touch on my last topic of today's speech, long-time PRs. There is a group of Permanent Residents or PRs in Singapore who have been calling Singapore home for decades but they do not enjoy the privilege of having our red passport or pink IC. Many of them live through the years when Singapore and Malaysia were both British colonies, when Singapore joined and subsequently separated from Malaysia.

Typically, they will fall in such a profile: with little or no education, about 60 years old and above and have raised a family of children who are Singapore Citizens. Usually, only they themselves or sometimes with their spouses, still hold Malaysian passports.

I have seen enough appeals for citizenships and permanent residency to speculate that ICA look at the following key factors in assessing the application: applicants' educational level, income status, age and how well they have integrated into the Singapore community. This group I am speaking up for today, most probably or most definitely, would fail the first three criteria miserably. They would also fail the minimum English Language standard for new citizens as proposed by Member Darryl David.

However, they would be able to strike a good conversation with many of our Pioneer Generation members in Mandarin, dialects, Malay, Tamil; and Mr Seah Kian Peng would be happy to hear, probably Singlish, too. After living in Singapore for the most part, and some, all of their life, they are as Singaporean as can anyone can be in their experiences, lifestyles, attitudes and social habits.

Some of these PRs tried applying for citizenship in the past but did not succeed. Others did not even try, for two reasons: either they did not think they stood a chance, or they did not see the need then. To be fair to them, Singapore only started to make a bigger distinction between citizens and PRs in the last five to 10 years. For a long time, PRs were treated no differently from citizens. Hence, many of them did not bother with the hassle of going through the paperwork.

But now, there is a huge difference between subsidies for PRs and citizens especially in education and healthcare, for very good and valid reasons. While education may not be the top priority for this group of residents at this phase of their life, healthcare cost is. So, do we begrudge them that they are now seemingly only re-aligning their loyalty or allegiance for selfish interests?

Yes, indeed, they may now realise that by not being citizens in Singapore, they would face higher medical expenses. But it is probably their Singaporean children who have to shoulder the heavier burden. What matters to them too is that after all these years in Singapore, they hope to able to travel with their children without having to apply for visas. They hope to queue in the same line when they are at the Singapore immigration counters, or simply to rest in peace as Singaporeans. There is a Chinese saying, 没有功劳，也有苦劳. While these people may not be well-qualified in education, may not earn a high income, they have contributed to Singapore, even as a housewife, taking care of children, raising a family of children. They have done their part as good member of the Singapore society and the Singapore community. Therefore, I hope the Government can give this group of long-time PRs from Malaysia special consideration and concession in their citizenship application.

Mdm Speaker, let me conclude by re-affirming my support for the Motion and for the President's call to partner citizens in writing the next chapter of the Singapore Story, as we progress towards a better, more inclusive nation in SG100.

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

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam, a clarification for the Parliamentary Secretary. He spoke in his speech about leadership of sports groups and also referred to what I had said earlier. I am glad to hear his confirmation for the association where the Government is nominating all the council members, in other words, in the Football Association of Singapore, that that is being changed and now they would have an election. But, of course, he brought up the bigger point about leadership in other sports associations and he pointed out that many of them who are led by non-politicians are actually doing very well.

I wonder if the Government thinks it is actually better for politicians to refrain from going into contest in these sports associations. After all, we have enough talent in the sporting fraternity and I am not doubting the sincerity of the PAP Members who have gone into certain sports associations, but the bigger point is: is it not better to build a stronger sporting leadership and for politicians actually to sort of step back and let others take the lead and they can always support in other ways?

Mr Baey Yam Keng : I thank Ms Sylvia Lim for the question. I was the President of the Volleyball Association for eight years. Honestly, I do not know a lot about volleyball. But the Association had benefited from various Presidents coming from Parliament through our networks, through our grassroots experience and they have continued to request for us to continue and for other Members to succeed when our term ends.

As I mentioned, currently, there are only eight NSAs with Members of Parliament at their leadership. A huge majority of NSAs do not. The Government does not ban politicians from entering NSAs nor dictate that the leadership must be helmed by Members in this Chamber. So, it is really up to NSAs to decide and to elect their president, their leadership as they deem fit, that is, in the best interest of the NSA.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to put a clarification question to the hon Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey Yam Keng. Mr Baey referred to my speech when I quoted from an op-ed piece by some of our artists.

I would like to ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary if he agrees with the views specifically expressed because it was not entirely clear. So, here, I am quoting from the op-ed piece by Mr Tan Tarn How and Mr T Sasitharan. Mr T Sasitharan, as you know, if I am not wrong, is a Cultural Medallion recipient. In any case, he is a very prominent local artist speaking on behalf of the Arts Engage network of Singapore which involves a number of local artists.

The view that he expressed was, and I quote verbatim here, "Our website also documents cases of works censored to protect the Government from embarrassment rather than for society's good. Perhaps it is fitting to remember here that arts funding is not the Government's but the people's money." So, I would like to ask the hon Member does he agree with that view; and if not, why not?

Mr Baey Yam Keng: As part of the funding principles of NAC, there is a requirement and understanding with the arts groups and the applicants that they should not put any public institutions in a bad light or put them in a derogatory position. It is in this context that was quoted by Arts Engage that the funding was re-considered.

But also, there was a change in substance of the content of the works that were first submitted for application and the eventual product that was produced by the artist. So, there was a difference in what was submitted earlier. There was also some of this to and fro that happened. Among the many applications and support that NAC has given to the many arts groups and artists in Singapore, these are a minute minority of cases which the group has pointed out.

As I said in my speech, in MCCY and NAC, our role is to advocate the arts. We will stand on the side of the artists in their pursuit of artistic excellence. We hope to create and develop a bigger common space so that Singaporeans and the community-at-large can enjoy the works of our very talented artists in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

3.15 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Much of the attention surrounding the President's speech at the Opening of Parliament concerns the upcoming changes of the political system. The President's speech intermitted that an inclusive Singapore is a clear objective of the Government. I will speak on one aspect of the political system that I believe can play a very significant role to improve both politics and policies in Singapore and that is through Parliament and the institutions it offers.

Mdm Speaker, Woodrow Wilson was quoted to have said, "It is not far from the truth to say that Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee rooms is Congress at work".

To this end, Select Committees that meet regularly when Parliament is not session are fundamental pillars of many parliamentary democracies. The Erskine May on parliamentary procedures, the signature reference book used by parliaments in the Commonwealth, including Singapore, notes that Select Committees "have over recent years become the principal mechanism by which the House discharges its responsibility for the scrutiny of Government policy and actions". It goes on to say "the Select Committee members have been able to acquire significant levels of expertise in the specific areas for which that committee is responsible. This, together, with the resources available to them have reinforced the authority of their reports".

Mdm Speaker, Select Committees are also an important means by which Members of Parliament build a public record, communicate with other Members of Parliament, civil servants, activists and the general public. It is my view that the processes afforded to Select Committees are helpful because the testimony of witnesses, who could be private sector individuals, civil servants or implementing agents on the ground, would lead to greater information sharing and the acquisition of greater knowledge on specific policies by all Singaporeans, not just parliamentarians.

In addition, an appreciation of the trade-offs in a more complex Singapore and a more complex international environment beyond SG51 would, in my own estimation, significantly mature our political discourse, level up knowledge and serve to unify our people. It would also encourage Singaporeans not just to look at an issue more deeply, but to understand why what may be a solution to some, has to be balanced with other demands, all of which must confront the question of financing, a question that a small country with no natural resources can ill avoid. The depth of knowledge of policies and their trade-offs enabled by Select Committee hearings and reports can also be a strong insurance against the danger of retail politics and political aspirants who irresponsibly make policies in the hopes of winning votes.

Fast forward to the next 50 years, any conversation with Singaporeans cannot only be about seeking feedback and brainstorming sessions from the people before policy-crafting and implementation, which is important in its own way. But instead, it has to involve Singaporeans along every step of the way, including during execution, so that mid-course corrections, reviews and assessments can be made together.

In September last year, as Members of this House were busy at the election hustings, the UK House of Commons' Select Committee on Business Innovation and Skills received evidence on the UK government's productivity plan. This plan sought to address the main causes of low productivity in the UK. The Select Committee sought to determine whether the government's policies were likely to achieve their desired results. Ordinary citizens were able to submit their evidence to the committee through the UK parliamentary website. There was also the prospect of giving oral evidence at hearings that are open to members of the public and companies.

As an example, some of the companies that gave evidence at the productivity inquiry included Rolls Royce and Virgin Atlantic, hence, providing a lot of scope for a deeper understanding of the problems of the day surrounding productivity from a wide canvas of citizenry.

Even Hong Kong's Legislative Council carries out significant policy work behind the scenes. The Hong Kong Legislative Council hosts 18 different panels to deliberate on issues relating to specific policy areas and also to give views on major legislative or financial proposals before their formal introduction to the Council or the Finance Committee. These panels also examine important issues of wide public concern as referred by the Council or raised by the panels themselves. These include the development of elderly care services, retirement schemes, studies into free kindergarten education, animal welfare and cruelty to animals and even hawker policy.

In practice, Mdm Speaker, our Parliament does not need to mirror the UK system, Hong Kong system, or any other system in its entirety, nor do we need to establish an excessive amount of Select Committees for the sake of it. However, there is a number of issues that would clearly keep the Government and the Opposition occupied in the years to come.

In view of the longer experience and size of the UK, they host an extensive A to Z of Select Committees. Our Parliament, on the other hand, can establish Select Committees for key issues of the day as determined by Parliament. What could be some of these issues?

First, there is a prospect of a Singapore where the number of elderly Singaporeans is expected to double in the next decade. It will have an attendant impact not just on our healthcare system, but on families too with more children having to take time off to look after their parents to see that they age well and gracefully. An Active Ageing Select Committee would be helpful in this regard to understand what gaps need to be plugged, in addition to where the deficiencies continue to exist in the system, the reasons for their existence and how they can be overcome.

Second, there is a difficult population policy issue for which the Government has announced a mid-course review to take place around 2020. The Population Select Committee could potentially start hearings on this issue early, allowing Singaporeans to understand the decisions taken thus far and outline what other policies need to dovetail closely with our population strategies. It could also flesh out the different perspectives of Singaporeans with regard to trade-offs between the dwindling Singaporean Core and the economic strategies required for Singapore not just to survive, but to thrive in the next lap.

Mdm Speaker, this House can endeavour to establish just one Select Committee in the immediate term, as a pilot Select Committee, and that is a SkillsFuture Select Committee. In his speech, the President clearly emphasised the importance of SkillsFuture to the economy, how important it is for SkillsFuture to be a success and how it must to be a national movement. There are many dimensions to SkillsFuture: PMETs, career guidance, sectoral manpower plans, Earn and Learn credits, individual learning portfolios, amongst others, across the age spectrum.

Then, there is the issue of productivity. As I noted in my Budget Debate speech last year, the National Productivity Council has now come under the purview of SkillsFuture. For many advanced economies including Singapore, improving productivity is a serious matter. Even in Singapore, we have not achieved the productivity aims set in the Economic Strategies Committee Report 2020 of 2%-3% each year, and our numbers continue to look weak.

As productivity and the acquisition of new skills are closely linked, a SkillsFuture Select Committee of Parliament comprising Members of Parliament from all parties would be in a good position to pursue and consider improvements and innovations to the Government strategies. This would ensure that SkillsFuture would work well on the ground, and examine how it could do more and to account for the taxpayer dollar that is eventually expended on it.

The presence of Select Committee Members from all parties would not just be symbolic. In fact, it will be in step not just with the wishes of many voters, but it would mirror the inclusive Singapore the President spoke about and the Singapore we all desire. More importantly, it would operationalise what the President meant when he said, "Individual aspirations may defer, but we have to work together to create a common future".

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the tremendous scope of Parliament and specifically Select Committees to make our politics more accountable and better accessible to all Singaporeans should not be underestimated. This proposal to establish a SkillsFuture Select Committee can be read in two ways. The more cynical view is that Select Committees could be used to secure information not in the public domain on Government processes and decision-making, and to embarrass the Government. But there is another long-term perspective to be considered. And that is the in-depth granularity offered by Select Committees on vital issues affecting Singaporeans which would contribute significantly to create a culture of mastery and excellence; and for Singaporeans to take a deep interest in policies and to understand the trade-offs surrounding policymaking.

This theme of excellence and mastery, not just competence, was covered in the Finance Minister's Budget speech 2014 and that is exactly what SkillsFuture is about.

Parliament is in a privileged position to re-configure the relationship between the public and the Government as we march towards SG100. A more public role for Parliament and more time spent in it by Members of Parliament, offers greater scope to better our political system so that it governs effectively in the interests of all. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

3.25pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of the first session of this Parliament.

President Tan reminded us that we are a small country with no natural resources and our strength is our people. This improbable nation, Singapore, is the result of the people who came before us. Their conviction, courage and hard work brought us to where we are today.

There are several areas that are important. Many Members have discussed in the last few days in terms of ensuring that Singapore continues to be a special place for all Singaporeans, young and old, to realise their aspirations. I would like to speak about jobs.

We all have aspirations to provide for a better life for ourselves and our families. To enable Singaporeans, no matter where our starting point, to continue to improve our lives, I believe that Singapore must be able to give Singaporeans fulfilling jobs. I believe that to have meaningful work gives confidence to our people to not only make a living but also to feel included and, hence, a sense of belonging and commitment.

This point was so nicely said in a movie that I recently watched titled "The Intern". Robert De Niro, who plays a 70-year-old retiree, decided to apply for a job as an intern in an online fashion site, a work environment very different from what he knew. He spoke about why he was doing so and I thought was so apt. He said that he wants "the connections, the excitement, I want the challenges and I guess I want to be needed."

With evolving business models, our economic changes, technological and social changes, the kind of work and the "workplace" is changing rapidly. Many of today's top jobs did not exist a few years ago and even how work is organised is changing. The workplace is evolving. There is no longer a place for people to go to work, with more people being able to work from anywhere.

I am both somewhat optimistic of the new opportunities that will be created, as well as concerned of the impact and disruption on Singaporeans that these changes will bring. According to preliminary estimates released by MOM, while the unemployment rate in Singapore remained low last year, total employment growth slowed to a 12-year low. Redundancy increased in the fourth quarter of 2015, as 4,200 workers were laid off. This was higher than the previous quarter and the year before.

Although anecdotal, I am hearing residents' concerns about losing their jobs and the anxiety of not being able to get another job given the slower economic growth or taking longer to get another job, given what businesses are going through in terms of the changes.

The World Economic Forum's "The Future of Jobs" report that was issued this month outlined that these changes are not unique to Singapore. It highlighted that "many of the drivers of major transformation currently affecting global industries are expected to have significant impact on jobs, ranging from significant job creation to job displacement and from heightened labour productivity to widening skills gap."

While we must have strategies to ensure that Singapore continues to have good growth and quality jobs, what is equally important will be to ensure that Singaporeans are able and more importantly, ready to take advantage of these job opportunities and that businesses in Singapore are also able to fill these jobs with the right talent. This readiness goes beyond just the hard skills and knowledge and will involve greater adaptability.

Given these employment trends and feedback from businesses that it is taking them longer to find the right persons to fill the roles they are hiring for, I believe that there is urgency to ensure that we adapt to this changing employment landscape.

So, how do we future-ready our workforce? There are fears that these changes will displace jobs and routine work would be automated or business models would change and make certain jobs go away. These changes can also create new jobs or greater job scope and opportunities.

While both these views are valid, if we want to be future-ready and if we want to future-ready our workforce, we must advocate a mind-set of learning and curiosity. This will enable us to adapt and embrace these changes so that we can take advantage of these opportunities. We will have to acquire new skills on an ongoing basis. And this ability to continue to learn and to build a portfolio of skills and experience will affect everyone regardless of whether we are young and just entering the workforce, or an older person, or whether we are a lower skilled worker or PMET.

Technology is pervasive and is impacting many aspects of our work and life. Today, with the ability to use search on even, what many of us have in our pockets, a smartphone, you will have quick access to information, to knowledge, even on a subject that you know nothing about. And with this, you can ask, "Is that good? Is that bad?" I think it is a good thing in the sense that it enables us to do work more quickly and more efficiently. But it is also important that we understand the information that is coming towards us and what to do with that. That is what we have to equip our people to be doing.

So, in that sense it frees us. But if we are not careful and we do not apply it, then that becomes a challenge. With technology, relationships are also becoming more networked rather than hierarchical, so hence, being able to use these technologies will enable us to have faster and more effective communications and connections.

But it is important to prevent an opportunity divide. We must ensure that all people at all levels and ages are comfortable and able to leverage the use of technology. We need to better equip our people and we must invest in developing strong communication skills so that people can communicate their ideas better and connect and share these ideas.

Some fear that the lower skilled jobs will disappear with technology and that these roles will be displaced. I think that it is true but it could also create new and better jobs. Let me give an example: the cleaning industry. Without having to do extra work, if we put sensors in the areas being cleaned, one person could probably be able to monitor a larger space and then go to the places where there are more people and where more cleaning is required. And you can do that without having to make that person work extra hard. But it has to be applied correctly.

To differentiate our workforce, as many have said in this House, we must have a mastery of skills and innovation. With the rapid changes that we are experiencing, while knowledge is easily obtained and probably computers can handle information better than a human being, I still think that the person has a very important role to play and if we know how to leverage this knowledge, we would be able to leapfrog on innovation.

I believe you cannot replace a good teacher, a good nurse or even a good salesperson. But with the use of the right business processes and technology, you can provide them with the ability to do what they do best and improve the experience for the student, the patient or the customer.

One area that I must emphasise that we must never lose, is our desire to improve and a mind-set of resilience. I want to share a story of a young boy whom I met many years ago in my first term as a Member of Parliament. He and his mother had come to see me because this boy felt that he was being singled out by his teacher. When he came to see me he was suspended for some incident in school and he felt that he was being singled out. And he said to me, "I have been unfairly singled out by a teacher." Then, I asked him why, and he said, "Yes, because he does not think I am capable."

I said, "Okay, if he does not think you are capable, do you think you are capable?" He says "Yes!" I said, "Then, the best way to win your teacher over is to show him that." And I did not see this boy after that, but one day when I was in a school at a Book Prize Award ceremony. This lady came up to me smiling away and I was trying to figure out where I had seen her. She said, "I am here because my son is getting an award and recognition." And guess what, it is the same boy, in the same school, a year or so later, being recognised for his capabilities.

While circumstances can affect us, we have to have that mindset of resilience and we must have that confidence and that belief.

Another area that I feel needs attention is the Human Resource (HR) function. As we talk about all these changes, businesses will need the HR function to be a lot stronger because not only will your talent base come from within your company, you will need to source available freelance talents somewhere else; you have to go into partnerships; you have to plan for that. And in order to do that, you need a very strong HR function. I do not think we are doing enough in Singapore to develop this competence and capability and I hope that we can do more.

Let me finally talk about a very important area, called the Singapore Core, and, in particular, the Singapore Core in our workforce. As outlined by MOM in the Addendum, strengthening this Singapore Core in the workforce in very important. I believe that given that Singapore has a highly educated workforce with more than 50% holding PMET jobs, this trend will continue to increase and, so, we must have high-quality jobs that Singaporeans aspire to do and can do.

What must we do to achieve this, apart from the measures that MOM is driving? I believe that employers must play a big role for a strong Singapore Core to be successful. It will require employers to be willing to make a deliberate bet on building a Singapore Core. Because with the rapid changes in the workforce, regardless of whether you are a large or a small organisation, it is difficult for your talent to keep up to reskill and upskill fast enough that there would not be skills gaps. Businesses would find it difficult to find the exact skill they will require and, so, if you do not take proactive actions to develop them, then it is not going to be possible.

The Member Pritam Singh talked about SkillsFuture, PMETs, all these programmes. I encourage employers, workers, educational institutions to leverage and use these. I must say that while I do applaud the involvement of Select Committees to do this, I think what is more important now is for us to exercise what is there so that businesses, individuals and associations and educational institutions will be able to knock out the kinks to see what those requirements are, to further refine it so that we can really build up that skills base that is required for our workers to be really strong and to really build a Singapore Core.

I do implore companies, because this is not about companies doing what is right or what is good. It is a win-win situation. You have access to a talent base in Singapore that is highly educated, very, very highly educated, both men and women. In fact, the women are more highly educated now, so do tap on the women as well.

My point is, for companies, you have a very strong base to tap on; why ignore that base? Yes, you have to put some investment into it. But you have the backing of funding for the programmes and at the same time, you also have the educational institutions. If you are a small company, you have the educational institutions working with you and with that talent over a period of time, to actually help you with the skills development and skills match.

It is a win-win for all and the individual as well. I would say, go in with the right mind set. And I am not talking about just the graduating workforce. We have a very, very precious workforce called the middle-age or the mature PMEs. They have a wealth of experience. Go watch this programme that I talked about, "The Intern" and you will know what I mean. When you bring that diversity of talent together, both young and old, you will see the impact that will bring. Therefore, I do encourage all of us to go forward to build that Singapore Core.

If I can quote President Tan in his speech, "To remain special, we must first resolve to move ahead together". In order to future-ready and build a strong Singapore Core in our workforce, I implore all of us to work together.

3.39pm

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address this House in this new term. Incidentally, I have made a mental note to watch "The Intern" this weekend. Thank you to Member Jessica Tan.

I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, please allow me to begin my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore's ability to thrive and survive as a prosperous nation with a plural society depended upon several fundamental principles, which did not come about by accident. It is an ongoing effort that includes good and credible governance that corresponds with current and future needs.

Nonetheless, the situation will not remain static. Just look at the ever-changing global situation, whether in terms of the economy, politics, social and security, it will affect and impact us greatly. The harmony in society is one of the most valuable assets that we must look after.

Hence, I truly welcome the review of Singapore's political system in order to secure the future of the nation for the long term. The changes proposed take various aspects into consideration, among others, ensuring good policymaking through good politics.

The Elected Presidency, for instance, it is appropriate that the qualification criteria is reviewed because many changes have taken place, including the administration of the state institution, while the size of national reserves have also changed since the system of Elected President was introduced.

We have to be responsible in ensuring stability, because when a leadership change occurs in the Government, we will need sufficient safeguards to ensure that any government, regardless of which party it is, will act responsibly when making key appointments and in the protection of reserves.

The role of the President has undergone many changes, not only as the Head of State who represents Singapore's interests, but also as the guardian of the national reserves. We must use this review process to further highlight the actual role of the Elected President, and the people need to recognise and understand the President's functions and powers, that is, the President's role is not imbued with political power, and he does not play a role in developing policy initiatives. Many people are still unclear, including some candidates, about the actual role of the Elected President and they may even confuse the voters.

I welcome the move to form a commission to analyse the qualification criteria for Presidential candidates because it is important that we get male or female candidates of a high calibre and who are suitable and can represent us inside and outside the country. The proposed changes will further strengthen the institution of the Elected President that is already robust. However, a review needs to be done to make this institution more relevant and able to constantly meet future needs.

I would like to now touch on an important area regarding the changes proposed in the Prime Minister's speech, that is, the interests of minorities which have always been the concern of the PAP Government.

I am sure that the Malay community welcomes the considerations made to provide for a minority candidate for the office of the Elected President. Although it is too early for us to understand how this will be implemented, nonetheless, in terms of concept and principle, it is something that is gladly welcomed by the minorities. It will certainly fulfil the aspirations of the Malay/Muslim community, who have longed for a Malay President. Singapore had not had a Malay President since the late Encik Yusof Ishak in 1970, which is over 45 years ago.

We still remember the vast contributions of Encik Yusof Ishak, the people's President. It has been a source of great pride for the Malay/Muslim community.

If the community is proud to have had President Yusof Ishak performing that role – he represented all races outstandingly – surely, there will always be a Malay of a suitable calibre and can fulfil the qualifying criteria. But it will be unfortunate if our qualified Malays do not have this opportunity just because of the voting pattern.

Another important issue is how the provision is implemented. It must be done by ensuring that there are no perceptions that this is an affirmative action; and it must ensure that the candidate is presented on the basis of merit, and can fulfil the qualifying criteria. Ultimately, what is important is that we must ensure diversity, without compromising the issue of merit and without affecting the quality of candidates.

Our meritocracy system has worked well. We can see more of our Malays in key positions and there have been no questions on their abilities or qualifications.

The GRC system is a concept that looks after and protects the interests of minorities in the landscape of a plural society in Singapore. As we plan for more Single Member Constituencies, the Government must also ensure that minority representation continues to be safeguarded.

As a community, the Malays support this concept and this can even help us contribute more at the constituency and national levels. The increase in the number of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) also allows more Opposition representation in Parliament, which will ensure more diverse views and opinions, and may also give more opportunities for Malay opposition candidates to enter Parliament through this scheme.

Hence, I support the intent of these changes, in terms of providing diversity in this House and also because the Government is trying to fulfil the aspirations of the younger generation, who desires diversity in the Parliament of Singapore.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, as President Tony Tan mentioned in his Address at the Opening session of Parliament, we need to keep our politics and our governance updated. In this regard, Prime Minister's speech on Wednesday was a timely reminder of how our political system had evolved since Independence and why we need to continue to evolve our political system to prepare Singapore for the future, from the NCMP and GRC schemes to the Elected Presidency.

The NCMP and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) schemes both came about as a response to have more diverse views in Parliament – one partisan and the other one not. The Elected Presidency came about 25 years ago as a custodian and a checking mechanism to protect Singapore's national reserves and the integrity of the civil service. In doing so, the President would help to deliver long-term stability for Singapore.

As we have seen in the last Presidential Election in 2011, this function of the President can no longer be taken for granted. To be a stabilising force, the President has to be above party politics and play a stabilising role for Singapore, even if there was a change in the ruling party. Since the last election for the President, there are concerns that the election process was seemingly politicised and threatened to divide a nation, rather than stabilise it. And I agree with the Prime Minister that the process and the elected position remains objective and non-political, supported by a capable and wise Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA).

The revision of the qualifying criteria by the Constitutional Commission is timely – it was 25 years ago since they were drawn in 1990 – as the complexity of safeguarding our state institutions and reserves has gone up in magnitude since then. For instance, in 1990, the Temasek Net Portfolio Value was S$10 billion. As of March last year, this amount has grown by more than 25 times to S$266 billion.

So, it is important that we find men or even women of calibre, of excellent standing who can represent us here and on the international stage. However, the weightage in qualifying criteria cannot just be heavily weighted on one's ability to manage high-value companies or based on the limited number of key public sector appointments. It is an important criterion as a proxy to one's ability to fulfil the role of Presidency, but we must also ensure that this does not reduce the number of potential candidates, especially those from the private sector.

Given the proposal to have the CPA's advice to the President to be given greater weight, it is therefore, just as important that the selection process and the merits of the selection of the CPA be made more transparent to the public. Also, if they had provided advice contrary to the President and a vote needed from Parliament, there must also be greater transparency on why this is so.

But, we also want Presidents who can represent the diversity of Singapore's society, especially when we want to project the accurate image of Singapore's meritocracy and multi-culturalism to the rest of the world. The announcement by Prime Minister is thus welcomed by the minority races as it will go a long way in strengthening multi-culturalism in Singapore.

In the early years, our nominated presidential system ensured we had minorities like Mr Yusof Ishak and Mr Benjamin Sheares. We were also fortunate to have Mr SR Nathan as an Elected President but his term came at a time when elections were uncontested.

Given the current climate and competitive nature of the last Presidential Election, I wonder when another minority can be expected to be elected to the office in the years to come. In fact, we have not had a Malay President in Singapore since Mr Ishak, in 1970, almost 46 years ago.

Here, I also note the concerns from the ground as to whether the intervention to ensure a minority President is elected then becomes a form of affirmative action and against the principles of a free election of the President. Personally, I do not believe that we should revert to the old system of the appointed President.

But as a guiding principle, any mechanism that is chosen, the minority candidate must first and foremost, meet the qualifying criteria of any Presidential candidate, so that the merit of his or her abilities and character will not come under question.

But perhaps, one proposal to catalyse a minority in the office of the Head of State is to consider the concept of a Vice President, where President and Vice President candidates are elected as a team and either one should be a minority. This may set the path for a minority Vice President to build his credentials and stand in good stead for the Presidency in subsequent elections in the event that we are unable to elect a minority President in the role directly.

While we keep a view on ensuring diversity, what is important, ultimately, is that merit is not compromised and that the quality of the representation is not compromised. We must find men and women of good standing to safeguard the nation's and people's interests.

On Prime Minister's announcement on tweaks to the NCMP scheme, I am supportive, in order to promote greater diversity in Parliament in terms of voices. Many I spoke to were surprised that after winning a strong mandate from the people of Singapore last year, the PAP Government could have easily kept the status quo, ensuring that Singaporeans can afford to continue to vote a PAP Government and yet have diversity in Parliament through the existing NCMP scheme.

But yet, it has opened the competition wider by expanding the NCMP scheme by as much as 25% in the spirit of having greater debate in Parliament. To the outside world, this may sound a bit strange as the PAP is seemingly diluting its hold in Parliament.

But I support this move, to increase the number of NCMPs and allow them equal voting rights with constituency Members of Parliament, to assure Singaporeans and Singapore that the Government respects the need for diversity, though it was not what the electorate expressed through the results of the last General Election.

Given the increased voting privileges to the NCMP, I would like to point out that the position is one that has been given more respect and dignity and not turned down so easily for replacement. Parties cannot also assume that just because one of its candidates turned down the offer of being an NCMP, that it is their entitlement to offer it to anyone of their other candidates.

As a constituency Member of Parliament, if elected, you are expected to serve the five-year term. Any Opposition candidate who stands for elections knows the system. Once you stand for elections, you must then be ready to serve if you are called upon as an NCMP. You cannot just have a myopic view of being "a duckweed in a pond that cannot sink roots" and not give the NCMP position any dignity and "suka-suka" swap candidates. This is a privilege enshrined in the Constitution.

We do not want political parties playing the system to provide parliamentary exposure to whoever they like. If we want to take the NCMP system seriously, we should treat it like any seat left vacant by a constituency Member of Parliament moving forward, any seat that is left vacant should only be considered for replacement should there be a by-election before the next General Elections.

Madam, moving on to my next topic, the challenges confronting Singapore becoming more complex. Increasingly, the Government will have to grapple with heightened terrorist activities and the rise of ISIS in Southeast Asia, as well as the possibility of Islamophobia and increased religious tensions.

All of these also mean that there is a new normal in governance and society in Singapore. That is, the increase of religiosity and issues concerning religion and how the Government will manage this going forward. There are many such examples in recent times. Like dealing with the sensitivities in the City Harvest case or the changes made to the rules for Thaipusam. Or even addressing issues on radicalisation or extremism and learning how we need to deal with the hijab. All of these things are fast becoming a norm and the Government has to understand and work out how it should manage this "new normal".

For one, the Government may need to review how it engages all the different racial and religious groups. For example, today, the Government uses a hub-and-spoke model, where it is at the epicentre governing the different groups. In doing so, sometimes, the Government gets caught in between and, thus, has to calibrate its intervention and relationships.

This model should change into a roundtable where each group is an equal partner and a stakeholder to the social harmony and stability. Such a model will also foster collaboration between the different groups and have more ground-up initiatives without the Government always having to play the role of catalyst.

Such a roundtable will also not just mean involving the leadership of all faiths but also to engage them at their congregation level and that will help to gather their views on tough questions affecting the community. This not only helps to promote greater understanding, it also allows us to reach a new calibration, that is, what we are each prepared to accommodate as Singaporeans in our respective common spaces. Otherwise, the Government may be behind on where this "new normal" of acceptance is.

Religious leaders may also try to second guess the Government in what it is prepared to accept. So, this roundtable multi-way dialogue should become an important feature of Singapore's future. In building this new construct, let us also not forget the atheists as I have also received feedback on whether they have a say and if policymakers understand their perspectives, too.

Hence, social cohesion today becomes more difficult as you try to figure out friend from foe. And I fear most when this manifests, where opportunities and progression become more limited due to fear in our workplaces, schools and social environment. We must thus safeguard against intolerance.

However, our policies and how we manage increased religiosity must also take into account the "new normal". So, Muslims here are not consciously distancing themselves from the mainstream. In fact, the majority of Muslims I spoke to recently do not take any issue in respecting other people's religions and practices as well, or in greeting them during their religious holidays. So, how the Government handles issues concerning Muslims and inter-faith must evolve, including the use of hijabs in civilian spaces. I understand the limitations of the uniformed services and schools, but the trends have also changed.

If you look the consumer groups today, hijab wear is big online. Even global brands, such as Dolce & Gabbana and H&M, which are mainstream brands, have shifted to embrace hijab fashion as the mainstream. So, I just picked up a few. I think you would probably have seen them, quite common, with many of the young ladies. Maybe, Madam, you also want to consider this. This is H&M, by the way. This is Dolce & Gabbana, by the way, with nice handbags and nice shoes. So, they are quite mainstream today. That is the "new normal", it is not just about religion but, really, how it has come to mainstream as a fashion statement and how people dress.

I agree that any threat from any religion that may threaten our social cohesion among the religious and race groups must be curtailed. We cannot accept intolerance. And for the Muslim community, the Muslim identity in Singapore must also be strengthened, due to the many interpretations and influences given our open borders and the age of the Internet. Given this "new normal", it may now be a good time to recalibrate and also sense where each of the other faiths are with all these difficult issues.

I would ask the Government to establish a task force, made up of members of diverse religious and racial groups, to study and recommend appropriate mechanisms to strengthen this inter-racial and inter-religious fabric, as well as discuss areas where we need to recalibrate our policies to accommodate new developments or requirements of different faiths, areas that other respective faiths are also prepared to accept. Simple things even, like altars, altar fixtures outside your HDB flats, for example. Today, these fixtures are illegal when these are installed at public spaces. How do we manage this? We look at some of our policies.

While religion and faith cannot be ignored in our policies to maintain religious harmony, to preserve our secular nature of politics, we also need to be vigilant that we do not go the way of other countries by having religious-based politics.

For instance, during the last General Elections, campaigning by certain candidates took a religious tone and I was surprised that the Elections Department did not intervene or come out with a warning sooner. This is probably because it did not lead to any open conflict, which the Parliamentary Election rules specify as a premise for intervention.

But when candidates start to campaign along religious lines, what does this indicate about our political landscape? It has been seen in many countries that religion and state can be hard to separate and once we go down that path, away from the open and secular spaces that we have built after decades of Independence, there may be a point of no return. So, we have to be careful.

Madam, our way forward, our social fabric is as important, if not even more important, than the hard economic policies that we are proud of. With wise, calibrated and relevant political reform, and with the Government reviewing terms to manage the "new normal" in handling religious harmony, our social fabric will be strengthened. I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mdm Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.20 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.00 pm until 4.20 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.20 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on the President's Address

Debate resumed.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Mdm Speaker, Members have spoken about the policies and the politics we need for a better Singapore. I appreciate the thoughtful points raised and congratulate the new Members on their maiden speeches. I encourage all Members, new and old, to continue to speak from the heart, as Mdm Speaker has advised, and I would add, with heart, on the things that matter to Singaporeans.

Members have spoken about the "whys", the "whats" and the "hows" of our way forward. The "why" is the world has changed and we ourselves have changed in the last 50 years. The "what" is the kind of good policies and good politics that we need to navigate this changed world. And the "how" is the way, throughout the changes to come, we remain as one dynamic, cohesive, caring people.

Today, I wish to speak about the "so what" and "what for".

Let me share a memory to explain why. This is the first Parliament without our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Throughout this week, his words have come up repeatedly in Members' speeches. In this time, one word of Mr Lee kept sounding in my head. You could say that was his favourite word. And the word was "So"? When I worked for Mr Lee; this is now more than 15 years ago. He liked to ask, "So?" Say, I would report some facts to him. He would say, "So?" I would talk about the implications of those facts and he would say again, "So?" And it would go on like that until we got to, "So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? So, what must we do differently to ensure the success of Singapore and Singaporeans?" All that, in one word: "So?"

Members spoke about profound changes taking place around us: in the global economy, in security, in society. And I asked myself, so what? So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? So, what must we do to ensure the success of Singapore and Singaporeans?

And I would like to suggest, the "so what" is this.

First, we need to continue creating value for the world and for ourselves, if we are to make a living and survive. We can continue to do this by staying open, innovative and adaptive to change.

Second, the value that we create, we must share, in a way that lets us continue to be our best. We must create value for the world and ourselves, so as to achieve a society based on justice and equality.

This is how we can enable every Singaporean to reach our dreams.

Singapore will have a place in the world, if we are of value to the world. Throughout our history, that was what we did, by being of use to the world. For hundreds of years, we were a key node on the Maritime Silk Route. We served as an emporium. We welcomed traders from all over the world. Just outside these Chambers, on the Singapore River, traders exchanged a wealth of not only goods, but also ideas, cultures, friendship. Our streets remember that trading emporium history today in name: Arab Street, Armenian Street, Muscat Street. Our spirit retains that same trading emporium history in our openness to the world.

In the last 50 years since Independence, we have found new ways to be of value to the world. During the wave of globalisation in the 1960s and 1970s, we welcomed MNCs, and differentiated ourselves as a first-world oasis in a third-world region. In the 1980s and 1990s, as the region grew, we regionalised and grew an external wing. In the 2000s, as the knowledge revolution took off, we made the shift to a knowledge-intensive economy.

The global economy goes through waves of changes. It has been one wave after another. Each time, we have been able to catch the wave, we have asked, "So, what does this coming wave mean?" And, each time, we unlock how we can be of value. We have been resourceful and resilient.

A new wave is coming. Some are calling it the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It will bring disruptive changes in connectivity and extreme automation. It will transform lives. Already, we are facing an explosion of data and information. Global digital data usage is doubling every two years. By 2020, the size of the digital universe will increase 50-fold from 2010. This is like each household in the world having around 300 iPhones! Each household in the world. We are more and more connected: humans to humans, machines to machines and humans to machines.

A more connected world can be a more dangerous world, as the recent well-orchestrated terrorist attacks show. Terrorists are using social media to radicalise and recruit new members.

But a more connected world is also a world of new possibilities. Alibaba and Amazon are more valued by some investors than Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has a more extensive physical infrastructure, has a longer history, but the e-commerce giants are better connected and more nimble.

So, what does this mean for Singapore and Singaporeans? We may be at the beginning of a major structural transformation. Disruptions are coming much faster. To succeed, we must remain at the forefront, not just of having new ideas but, more importantly, to have the capacity to turn ideas into useful products, services and business models. We must create value, by being a place where good ideas for the world can be realised; where people can come together to create value, to make an impact. If we can be a place to help solve a fraction of the world's challenges, we will create value, we will have our place in the world.

I am optimistic that we can be a place where good ideas for the world can be realised. Why am I optimistic? There are several reasons.

First, no choice. It is a question of necessity. We have to solve many of our own pressing challenges. We did not have enough water? We created the water technology to overcome this. We are ageing? We will find a way to make that a source of new life in our society. It is most striking that so many Members this week, when speaking on ageing, viewed it not as a problem, but as an opportunity. Dr Chia Shi-Lu said, "80 is the new 60 and 60 the new 40".

We want Singapore to be a place where we can age with opportunity, dignity and vitality. This will drive us to be innovative. Last year, the National Innovation Challenge on Ageing crowdsourced solutions in areas like better home-care, increasing healthy lifespans and creating ageless workplaces. We got over 100 good proposals and these have been evaluated and the good ideas will be put into action. In fact, we have heard many good ideas in this House just over the last few days.

The second reason I am optimistic? We have no lack of support. We have been investing in R&D, in knowledge creation, in connecting with the world. Just two weeks ago, I hosted 21 Nobel Laureates and eminent technologists from all over the world. Imagine 21 Nobel Laureates and the Millennium Prize winners, the Technology Prize winners, all congregating in Singapore. Why? They were inspired by what we are doing and they want to come here to inspire our young people in Singapore and the region so that they can go out and make an impact.

Last week, we saw the first-ever Southeast Asia Venture Capital Summit. There is a great deal of energy around how Singapore can serve as a base for good ideas from around the world and how we can deploy good ideas from Science, Tech, Engineering and Math (STEM) domains, especially in Asia, to uplift lives.

Third, there is no limit to our imagination. We may not realise this, but we are a people with a habit of innovation and a habit of applying innovation in every aspect of our life. Just earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke at length on the innovations in our political institutions over the years and the changes that the Prime Minister is proposing will serve Singapore well in the long run. Our social policy innovations in CPF, HDB, healthcare, social safety nets and the Pioneer Generation Package are studied by people around the world. In fact, some academics have said that our social policy innovations are most remarkable.

So, no choice but to innovate. No lack of support to innovate. No limit to our imagination to innovate. We have these three conditions. Of course we can be a place where good ideas for the world can be realised.

We also see innovation in many areas of life. One inspiring example which I learnt recently is our Chinatown library. It is a public library with no staff. It is manned entirely by a team of volunteers! Everyday Singaporeans who care about our libraries enough to make a difference. The readers return the books to the right shelves. Best of all, of all libraries in Singapore, it has one of the highest user satisfaction rates. It just shows how a simple idea of reshaping the relationship with library visitors not only saves manpower, but enhances their experiences.

Singaporeans have the attributes for innovation. We are a people who care to innovate and innovate to care better. We still have a long journey ahead, but I am confident that we will deepen our innovative instincts, that we will continue to see, in every constraint and every challenge, the possibility of solutions and opportunities, and we have the confidence and can-do spirit to figure things out.

In our early days, we were a trading emporium. We then became a First World oasis in this region. Let us strive to be an innovation lab for the world, where the best ideas from around the world for the world can be realised. Let us catch the next wave.

This is a subject that the Committee on our Future Economy will study in detail.

But so what? So what if we create value? Is that all we hope for? Is value creation alone all that we mean, when we think of the success of Singapore and Singaporeans? It cannot be. It cannot be just that.

Innovation, prosperity, progress, growth. These achieve their true value when they are shared. If we want to move forward together, we must share value, in a fair and inclusive way. That is how we bring out the best in one another, and help each of us to continue growing. Value created is measurable. Value shared is immeasurable.

I have been struck by how SG100 has entered our vocabulary. A week in politics is a long time, as they say in the West. For so many Members in this House to mention SG100 is really remarkable.

When I first mentioned SG100 to my residents, their initial reaction was: it is so far away! But I pointed out: our SG50 babies will be 50 years old in SG100; a Primary 1 student will be 57; a Secondary 4 student will be 66; a young adult who starts work at 25 will only be 75. And the parents saw that SG100 is about our children's future. Will the next 50 years be better than the last 50 that we had? And how do we make sure they will be the best years of their lives? How do we give them the best chance of success? What kind of society do we want them to grow up in?

A Singapore that is of value to the world must be of even deeper value and meaning to Singaporeans. I hope to see a Singapore that brings out the best in every Singaporean, and enables each of us to fulfil our potential and aspirations, and to lead a life of opportunities and purpose. It should be a society of opportunities for all, a society that is fair and inclusive.

Many societies, in wanting to be inclusive, start with redistributing wealth. Election becomes an auction. There is a Chinese saying, “坐食山崩”. Even if you have a pile of grain as large as a mountain, if you sit there and eat, it will run out one day.

In Singapore, we start with fostering the conditions for all of us to create opportunities for ourselves. While it is easy and tempting, to redistribute what we have today, it is much harder to think of how we can create opportunities, not only for today, but for the future, and for future generations. But this is critical if we want Singapore to succeed, beyond SG50 and even beyond SG100.

I recently met a professor who explained to me why his family and his relatives were all highly successful, through education. His parents were refugees who had to flee their homeland, losing all their possessions. No matter how little they had, they always made sure that they invested in his education and his siblings' education. And he told me, "Whatever the tumultuous changes outside, however you may be dispossessed, what matters most is what is in your head. No one can take that away from you. It stays with you for life."

Indeed, the best gift we can give to each child for the SG100 journey is the gift of education. This is what we have been doing since Independence. We must continue to share the value of education with all, so that every Singaporean, regardless of family background or starting point, is empowered to build a better life. We are continuing to make significant changes in our schools, so that our students can learn through multiple pathways, in multiple domains, to achieve multiple peaks of excellence. Applied learning, inquiry-based learning and the emphasis on empathy will sharpen the innovative instincts of our students, as they connect learning to real world needs.

One very significant innovation that we are embarking on is SkillsFuture, which will enable our people, regardless of age, regardless of professions, to continue learning all their life. The other significant area of work is in healthcare. The Pioneer Generation Package takes care of our pioneers, while MediShield Life provides for risk-pooling. The next major area in healthcare would be preventive and primary care, as set out in the MOH Addendum. And all these come on top of the commitment to enable Singaporeans to own a home.

Education, healthcare, housing are major ways that the Government is sharing the value of what we have created together. All three share one quality, one very important quality, that these are of value throughout one's life. Education to enable us to realise our potential and healthcare to keep us active and vigorous, in our lifetime; and housing to build our life and family.

Yesterday, Mr Low Thia Khiang said that for Singapore to shine, we must enable Singaporeans to shine. This, in fact, is what we have been doing all these years, and I am glad Mr Low agrees with this direction. SkillsFuture is another important step in this direction. Unfortunately, Mr Low made a convoluted link between SkillsFuture and politics. And Mr Low claimed that all our schools emphasised too much on cohesion. I was quite surprised that in a world where there are so many forces that can fragment a society, Mr Low thinks we could place too much emphasis on cohesion and that our education system does not appreciate the importance of diversity, differences and even dissent.

Mr Low is mistaken both in facts and in his reasoning. Valuing cohesion does not come at the expense of critical and creative thinking. So, let us be very clear-headed when we make education policies. Education policies must be made with serious intent, and not superficially, and certainly not for political purposes.

Having worked with our educators, I have every confidence that we have a strong team of professionals with the experience and insights to educate our students well and prepare them well for the future.

In fact, we must continue to value the unity and cohesion of our people so that our students learn from young to share the value of what we have created. And, in fact, sharing the value of what we have created makes us more cohesive and enables us to go on to create more. So, we must continue to make Character and Citizenship Education meaningful, as Mr Christopher de Souza stressed in moving this Motion and to empower our young to make a difference to others.

Sharing the value of what we have created, building an inclusive society, goes beyond policies. It is what each of us does, day-in, day-out. Members have shared many heart-warming stories; let me share one more.

In July last year, we had "Youth Celebrate!" A team of about 500 swimmers from all schools were seeking to break the record for the most number of laps swum in one hour. It was the students' gift to the nation. When I met the swimmers, they were so fired up. Among them is Lim Kah Yi, a Secondary 3 student from Pathlight School. Kah Yi's mother told us how happy she was that he took part in this event, to be part of the team.

Our students swam to a new record of 7,505 laps within one hour, almost double the old record set by adults. The swimmers included novices and experienced ones, from young ones in Primary 2 to tertiary students, and Kah Yi.

This, to me, symbolises how we are moving forward as a country. We move forward together and everyone has a place. Some may swim more laps and some fewer; some faster and some slower. But we do it together. We set a record together. Every person's contribution counts. Everyone is valued.

However many opportunities we create, there will still be people who are vulnerable, who need a helping hand. This is where the community plays such a critical role. It is most encouraging that many acts of giving are underway. Acts of kindness big and small.

When we were planning SG50, we sought to rally Singaporeans to share. I am delighted that over 200,000 volunteers came onboard our SG50 Care and Share movement. Mr Philip Tan, who chairs the SG50 Care and Share movement, regularly updates me on the progress of the fund raising effort. Each email he sends me speaks of his passion and joy in helping others. I am happy to say that with Government's matching grant, Community Chest and the 240 VWOs under the movement expect to raise more than half a billion dollars by March this year. More than half a billion. This will give the social service sector a big boost and support good work that cannot be measured in dollars.

I support Ms Denise Phua's call on Government to work closely together with VWOs, because together, we can achieve more than what each of us alone can accomplish.

These are the foundations of a society where people care for and lift one another up. There is a richness in our relationships, reflected in the way we lead our daily lives, as peers and equals, regardless of class, status, age, race, or religion. The quality of these relationships cannot be measured by metrics like GDP. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members have debated about the good politics and good policies we need over the past few days in Parliament. Ultimately, why must we make these changes? Our objective is very clear: to keep Singapore prosperous and stable, and improve the lives of succeeding generations of Singaporeans. In order to achieve our objective, we must create value together, shape our future together and share value amongst Singaporeans.

Throughout our history, we have found new ways to create value to the world and for ourselves in different areas. Singapore is now at a critical juncture. Our development has taken off; it is difficult to draw from the experience of other countries. We face many uncertainties, both internally and externally. Therefore, we must constantly innovate and adapt our political, economic and social systems. In order to create value successfully in the future, we need to go beyond the development of hardware. More importantly, we need Singaporeans who are innovative. We also need to continue to keep an international outlook, have the ability to bridge cultural differences and seek new business opportunities. In this way, we can better attract talents and pool resources together to become a global innovation centre, continually create new value and more opportunities for Singaporeans.

Even as we create value, we must also think deeply about how to share value amongst Singaporeans. This is not just about wealth re-distribution. We must be people-centric and foster the conditions for Singaporeans to pursue their dreams. Education is the best gift that we can give to each child. This is because we can bring out their potential through education. Every child, regardless of family background, should have a chance to succeed. At the same time, we must share value in a fair and inclusive way if we want to move forward together.

Last year, I attended "Youth Celebrate!". Seeing how children from different backgrounds worked hard and performed together, I was very much moved. In 50 years, these children would only be in their 50s or 60s. This reminds us that SG100 is not so far away. What we do now will determine whether our children will have opportunities to showcase their talents and realise their dreams, just as we now have. We owe the success we enjoy today to the hard work and sacrifice of our Pioneers who continually sought to create value. It is now our responsibility to continue this mission, to create value together, share value with every Singaporean and build a better future that belongs to us all.

(In English): I believe Singapore can succeed in our journey to SG100. We can create value for the world, and for ourselves, if we rely on our people, remain outward looking and possess the guts and gumption that our Pioneers had, to adapt and turn constraints into strengths.

To share value, we must preserve our sense of togetherness, see value in every individual and help them flourish. We believe that individuals thrive when others thrive too, when our community is harmonious. We are a society that moves forward together, because we believe we are part of something larger than ourselves.

When we look at the sum of all that has brought us to where we are today, the changes and challenges we face today and our hopes for our shared future, this is the "so what", we must keep creating value for the world and for ourselves. And we must share the value we create in a fair and inclusive way.

Which brings me to "what for?" I learnt to ask and to answer, "so what?" from Mr Lee. But I also learnt the "what for?" from him. Mr Lee was always focused on outcomes and purpose. What are we doing all this for?

The "so what" changes all the time. With every new circumstance, every new challenge, we need to examine anew, so what does this mean? So, what do we do? But the "what for" is evergreen, be it 1965, 2015 or 2065. The "what for" is this: to build a Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams.

A Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams is a Singapore where our people are fully aware of, but are not one bit afraid of, our challenges. It is a Singapore where our people can reach high in our lives no matter what background we come from and where our people can hold our heads high no matter where in the world we go. It is a Singapore where our people never fear, never give up, never leave anyone behind.

It is a Singapore where we are confident that we can each be at our best and are caring enough to support and cheer one another on to each be at our best. This is a Singapore where every Singaporean can reach our dreams. This is our "what for".

Many good ideas were raised in this Chamber over the past few days. Now, all of us, together, need to put words into action, turn our aspirations into reality. As representatives elected by the people, we share a collective responsibility to bring Singaporeans together, listen with humility and find the best solutions for Singapore. As we start towards SG100, as we weather the challenges ahead and forge our future together, I encourage every Member of this House: always ask, "So what?", and always remember, "What for." Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

4.54 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): "You must first be honest. You must next have idealism. You must have convictions. Finally, you must organise to bring home your convictions to the people." Relevant today as when these words were first spoken by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in the Legislative Assembly in 1957. It reminds us that our positions in this House must be motivated by honesty, integrity and conviction.

Mdm Speaker, 62 Members have spoken in support of the Motion, including the Prime Minister. New Members made their maiden speeches, and returning Members brought to the debate their vision for Singapore based on the political experiences they have accumulated so far. It has been, as the Prime Minister aims it to be, a serious forum. I hope to be able to do justice to all fellow Members and thank you, Madam, for allowing me to round up the debate.

Madam, during his Address, the President highlighted five key aims that the Government hopes to fulfil. I propose to categorise the speeches that we have heard into these five areas.

First, building a safe and secure Singapore. Given the current geo-political climate, it is no surprise that many Members echoed the President's reminder of the importance of safeguarding our sovereignty. Mr Vikram Nair highlighted how the threat of terrorism, especially from non-state actors like ISIS, is real.

Just in the last few months alone, Jakarta, Paris, Istanbul and Beirut were hit by terrorism. The recent arrest of 27 radicalised individuals right here in Singapore is a sobering reminder of this new reality.

Terrorism is no longer fought using conventional means. Dr Mohamad Maliki accurately noted that the far reach of social media has allowed radical ideologies supporting terrorism to invade the thoughts of our people. Mr Png Eng Huat noted that self-radicalisation is almost impossible to prevent. This makes the threat of terrorism even more insidious than other more conventional threats.

However, a "safe and secure" Singapore does not just refer to safeguarding Singapore and Singaporeans from physical harm; but should also encompass creating a strong and united Singapore that is able to overcome adversity should a threat materialise.

As Mr Amrin Amin rightly pointed out, in order to achieve this, "legislation, policies and even weapons alone are not enough". We need to win hearts and minds of all Singaporeans, and when the time comes, we have to stand as one united people. This was echoed by Ms Joan Pereira.

And as both Mr Ng Chee Meng and Dr Janil Puthcheary shared, our National Anthem, Majulah Singapura, is itself a source and symbol of unity and strength, to re-energise us to soar to even greater heights as a nation.

Madam, since Independence, Singapore has overcome adversity, through the leadership of effective Government and a united people. It is a good partnership and we must do our best to preserve it.

Second, economy. Calls to renew and restructure our economy were heard from several Members of the House. Big developing economies are showing signs of distress as Mr Sitoh Yih Pin pointed out.

But in order to overcome this period of economic uncertainty, we cannot afford to be stagnant; it is imperative that we adapt and face the threats of the new economy head on, as highlighted by Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Yee Chia Hsing. And this is a challenge that I am confident Singapore is ready to face, because Singaporeans have proven time and time again, that we have the will, not only the will, but the acumen to overcome obstacles put in our way.

The formation of the Committee on the Future Economy, helmed by our Finance Minister, Mr Heng Swee Keat whom we just listened to, shows the Government's emphasis in developing economic strategies that will position Singapore well for the future. This also emphasises the need for a whole-of-Government and whole-of-Singapore effort to renew our economy, points emphasised by Mr Heng in this House just moments ago.

With the SkillsFuture initiative, we should be ready for a future economy where workers are empowered to re-skill, up-skill, allowing us to develop a strong Singaporean Core in the workplace, issues raised by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr Heng Chee How. Mr Pritam Singh himself has suggested applying SkillsFuture ideology in Parliament.

Another key component to overcoming this economic uncertainty is for the tripartite partners to innovate and reinvent our economic landscape. We must not be afraid to adopt new policies and ideas and to discard or reinvent outdated ones. Perhaps as Mr Zainal Sapari suggested, the tripartite partners can champion new approaches to improve productivity in our economy by reinventing business processes and rethinking creative use of robots and machines in the workplace. As Mr Patrick Tay stated, we should not forget to care for our Singapore PMEs in the process.

At the same time, as new technologies develop and we continue to restructure our economy, there will be a need for us to optimise our workforce for the future. Some industries will need more manpower, some require manpower in new skills, others may need to shed manpower through automation. This was highlighted by Mr Melvin Yong, Mr Cedric Foo, Mr Saktiandi Supaat and Ms Jessica Tan. But as Minister Yaacob Ibrahim noted, all these efforts will only succeed if Singaporeans step forward with a desire to learn and equip themselves with new skills, and if companies actively support and invest in developing their workforce. This might even mean Singaporeans taking on a different role like that of a freelancer, as Mr Ang Hin Kee shared.

There were also calls to continue supporting SMEs and entrepreneurs to inculcate a vibrant start-up ecosystem in Singapore. Dr Koh Poh Koon, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Leon Perera pointed that SMEs and startups, especially those with high growth potential, are an important source of innovation in our economy. They will help to rejuvenate our business landscape and therefore should be supported. As Mr Liang Eng Hwa highlighted, we need to continue staying open and plug into the global network so that we can give our local entrepreneurs and local innovators access to more opportunities and enhance our chances of succeeding as a value creating economy.

Essentially, Madam, we need to overcome challenges innovatively. If I may borrow the analogy that Mr Alex Yam used on the first day of the debate, we all know that Singapore's economy stars have not always aligned. Drawing from Mr Yam's own words, "On paper, Singapore was never meant to be the successful economically. A country with no land or natural resources. But as a nation, we stand here today as a testament to the importance of hard work, carefully forward planning and team spirit." I think we can all align to such thinking. And as an aside, Madam and Members, at present for Mr Yam, his stars have all aligned again. He became a father for the second time, to a second baby, on the second day of this debate. Two-two-two! [Applause.]

Not to be outdone, Mr Louis Ng has passionately volunteered to keep this going and had declared yesterday in this House that he will help to increase our TFR by having at least one more baby soon. Good luck!

Next, fostering a more caring and compassionate society in Singapore. This is a topic that is very close to my heart and, if I may say so, Madam, your heart, too. So, it was heartening to hear many Members of this House highlight the importance of creating a more compassionate society in Singapore. For our seniors, innovative ideas like co-locating senior care centres at community clubs and planning for active ageing hubs in new HDB developments as well as the planning for multi-generational neighbourhoods were mooted by Dr Amy Khor and Miss Cheng Li Hui respectively. And more than just having community spaces and activities to keep our seniors active, there is also a need for us to encourage engaged lifestyles to keep our elderly engaged, happy and mobile. We need to build a strong social network for them, as were importantly raised by Ms Tin Pei Ling and Dr Chia Shi-Lu. A key component of a caring and compassionate Singapore is the role active citizenry takes and the growth of an altruistic spirit.

Mr Louis Ng shared his daring vision to set up ACRES and spoke with passion to help us ensure our policies relating to animals are humane. They too share this home with us. Ultimately, bolder steps need to be taken to entrench this value of care into our system, as Ms Denise Phua stated. This compassion should even extend to ensuring that people have access to justice, as Ms Indranee Rajah explained. As Members of this House, an important role that we play is to give a voice to the voiceless, and those who are marginalised in society. If we do not include their voices in law making, who will?

And as Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Dennis Tan and Mr Muhd Faisal Manap shared, we must care for the less well-off, the less fortunate. Ms Low Yen Ling reminded us that the values of our pledge should be upheld for all of society, a theme echoed by Mr Darryl David.

The creation of a Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social policies, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman, reflects the Government's emphasis on aligning our social policies with those of our economic policies, for our economic policies must meet our social needs. This helps us in our vision that no Singaporean is left behind. A vision shared by Mr Chong Kee Hiong, Mr David Ong and Ms Rahayu Mahzam.

Next, transforming our urban landscape. As highlighted by several Members including Dr Teo Ho Pin, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, Mr Ang Wei Neng and Mr Ong Teng Koon, this transformation should involve building better and more affordable public housing, creating more green spaces within our communities, embarking in long-term infrastructural plans to support a changing population, and harnessing technology and its potential benefits. To achieve this transformation, we need to put in foundations now, so that our children and our grandchildren will be able to benefit when these plans come to fruition in the future. As clearly put by Mr Henry Kwek, we should prepare our citizens so that they can go beyond Singapore, but let us build a home so that they would want to stay.

On the fifth theme, there has been strong support by fellow Members for the call by the President to engage and partner Singaporeans. The Government's emphasis on active citizenship engagement saw Our Singapore Conversation in 2012. Moving forward, the President has highlighted two national platforms, namely the SGfuture dialogues and the Committee on the Future Economy. That will be used to engage Singaporeans on creating a common future together. The keen value of these face-to-face interactions was brought to bear by Mr Baey Yam Keng. As Dr Tan Wu Meng highlighted, we each have a role to play – Government, politics, citizens – all together. No part operating in silo. This was echoed by Miss Cheryl Chan who noted that, as Singaporeans, we can and should aspire to be part of nation building. In shaping the future of our economy, as Mr Seah Kian Peng shared, we must embrace what it means to be Singaporean. Our future, and that of our children and grandchildren, lie in our hands as a community, society, a multi-racial nation. As Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef pointed out, the only upper limit for our future is the one that we set in our own mindsets.

Together we must strive to improve ourselves as a nation, and to quote Mr Ong Ye Kung, "to develop faster legs, stronger hearts, wiser minds". I trust Mr Ong has all three.

There has been a call to renew or resolve to march towards our common destiny. And as Mr Chee Hong Tat passionately proclaimed, "We are the descendants of lion-hearted Pioneers who built this country. Stay united, work hard and embrace the pioneering spirit of our forefathers."

The vehicle to which these five aims will be delivered is a decisive, stable and reliable Government, one that is effective and leads by example, and that introduces well-crafted and effective initiatives. Ms Sylvia Lim had rightly stated that Singaporeans want a strong Government, she went on to say with checks and balances. In my view, an increase in the seats of NCMPs to 12 and equipping them with constitutional voting rights, provide assurance of more voices in Parliament, more diverse views and, consequently, a greater need to persuade, placed on the Government's shoulders. I should say as with any checks or balance or insurance, as Mr Low Thia Khiang calls it, much depends on the quality and credibility of such insurance. But I believe Ms Sylvia Lim's premise remains that Singaporeans have a desire for a strong Government and that Singaporeans must feel they can make a difference.

Over the past five years, we have heard various views about the need for the renewal of the political institutions and for political change. Many Members, like Mr Edwin Tong, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Zaqy Mohamad just recently spoke passionately about how they envision our political landscape moving forward and how policies should be tweaked for better and more effective results.

The Prime Minister outlined how the Government will be making the necessary refinements to the current system to make our political system more robust and responsive to the changing political landscape. To many of these proposals, I am in agreement, but one caveat. I would like to say that any change needs to be closely accompanied by a deliberate retention of the existing culture of mentorship and the passing down of experiences. That should not change.

Let me share why it is important. Starting politics at a young age, I had to learn humbly and fast, and more than anything, it taught me the importance and value of mentorship. Therefore, while we tweaked and refined the system, let us not throw out the continuity of mentorship, especially in the ecosystem of politics. The value of mentorship from more experienced Ministers, Members, senior leaders, the imparting of values, and the training of reflex actions to make important decisions in crisis situations must never be sidelined. This is especially important for a young nation who is storing up its own precedence of experiences to learn from and to rely on in future.

I hope there will continue to be a long path for senior leaders to impart lessons on how to tackle difficult situations and most importantly, values even after they leave day-to-day leadership roles. In the same way, it is valuable for a young nation like Singapore, such mentorship and teaching is valuable to younger office-bearers and elected Members of Parliament alike.

Madam, please allow me to share real examples: Emeritus Senior Minister Goh. He led Singapore as our Prime Minister and still continues to serve his constituency and our nation as a Member of Parliament with loyalty. To have him as an elected Member, still imparting lessons, is a treasure. Even more encouraging was watching news clips of Emeritus Senior Minister Goh walking under the blazing hot sun from home to home in areas within his constituency like Frankel Estate, where he encouraged Singaporeans to consider carefully their vote and what it would mean for Singapore. It encouraged me and I am sure many of us here, to dedicate ourselves to the constituencies we serve.

Similarly, Mr Lim Swee Say and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, my senior in Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, impressed the importance of constituency work, being resolutely focused on residents and ensuring changes are made in Parliament if one believes hard enough in the causes one holds. Mentorship is very important. Without it, we will be adrift at sea.

Another example: President S R Nathan continued to mentor well into his 80s and still does. I remembered I accompanied Mr Nathan on a state visit to Istanbul. It was quite a long flight. So, Singapore Airlines dimmed the cabin lights after the meal was cleared. During the flight, I remembered going through in my mind the briefs MFA had issued us on Singapore's purpose and objectives for the trip. And all of the sudden, I found Mr Nathan seating on my seat's arm rest in the plane. He had walked over from his seat. I stood up immediately and anticipating he would ask me questions on the briefs. He did not. Instead, he spoke with me about Singapore, "Never let our guard down, stay driven, stay focused". He then talked with sincerity and insight about the Singapore-Eurasian community and asked after it. He was mentoring there, at 33,000 feet, when the rest of the cabin was asleep.

He left a deep impression on me. I thought how fortunate we are to have such a man as our Head of State and that he was our President, makes all races, majority and minority all very proud.

The value of mentorship is in ensuring that values continue. These can only be passed down by human beings. Not an SOP, not an Instruction Manual. Mr S Dhanabalan himself, an exceptional person, recounted the value, talked of the value of being mentored by Mr Lee Kuan Yew in his eulogy at Minister Mentor's funeral. The returning Members, both PAP and Opposition, would remember what Minister Mentor said to all of us after cutting his 90th birthday cake, just there, in the Members' Room. "Keep it clean. Keep it honest," was what Minister Mentor said.

How much richer we are as a nation that we have men with deep reservoirs of personal experience who are able to impart life lessons and leadership long after they step down from day-to-day leadership positions. This must continue.

I was in the region on travel recently. A trusted friend many years my senior said Singapore had got it right. Former leaders helped. They do not ambush. In 2012, when the Minister Mentor was accepting less public engagements, I wrote him a note expressing thanks for his mentorship. He wrote back within a day; the letter stated "I'm glad you found our conversations over the years of value. When meeting people, you need EQ. You need IQ because the margin of error for Singapore is very small." The need to ensure continuity of mentorship.

Madam, one final example on this point. The Prime Minister has regular lunches with two or three Members of Parliament at a time. Sometimes, we have no idea what we will be quizzed about. It is always a healthy lunch which almost always ends with fresh fruits. Like the meal, the discussion is healthy. The content invariably revolves around four areas: one, how can we better the lives of Singaporeans; two, how we should never be afraid of breaking out of outdated mind sets; three, how we each play a part in advancing Singapore; and four, very importantly, how are our constituents? Are they well? Are the children advancing? Are they happy? Do they have opportunities?

A 360-degree conversation on Singapore and Singaporeans. Living, thinking Singapore.

The store of experience in the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues is immense. While we tweak and refine the political institutions and the landscape, I ask because I believe this to be important, that we preserve the model of having long paths for senior leaders to impart values and lessons even after they decide to leave apex or active leadership positions. There is much value for Singapore to reap, provided Singaporeans and their advancement always remain the focus of political energy.

In conclusion, two weeks ago, Madam, you reminded us that as Members of this House, we must speak honestly, sincerely and from the heart, for the good of our residents, for our communities and for all Singaporeans. Let us respect the precious trust that has been placed in our hands by the constituents we serve. Let us build on foundations past and deploy ourselves, our whole selves, for our country's future. [Applause.]

I now call upon all the Members of this House to join me in thanking the President for his Address.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

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