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.

2.30 pm

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I am glad that the President spoke about renewing our economy in his address. I would like to voice my support.

We owe it to our children to keep the country strong and our economy vibrant so that they can also chase the rainbows and fulfil aspirations. Social well-being for our people can only be enhanced and sustained if we have a growing economy that generates the financial resources to pay for the needed expenditures, which include security which the House talked about last two days, as well as to provide good job opportunities for our citizen workforce. That includes the tens of thousands fresh graduates that join the workforce each year.

In the last 50 years, we earned our prosperity largely by value adding and we are pretty good at that. Not just because we do it cheaper than others but rather, we were able to create our own competitive advantages. We engineered strong growth in manufacturing and services by way of a whole-of-Government approach – building the necessary infrastructure ahead of demand – ports, airport, industrial spaces – continually developing international linkages and connectivity to facilitate trade and investments, free trade agreements (FTAs), multinational corporations (MNCs) with their international links, instituting pro-business policies, among others, our low tax regime, and ensuring that there are sufficient manpower resources for businesses, both local sourced and foreign sourced. This strategy has enabled companies large and small to ride on the global economic cycles and thrive.

Continuing this way of growing our economy is still a viable option, particularly in areas of high value adding, and it remains a policy option. However, given the inherent constraints in our capacity, that would mean we have to settle for a much lower growth range going forward and are destined to always compete with the next cheaper player. We will also be at the mercy of the volatile global demand cycles, which tends to impact us more as a small and open economy. So, just adding value and competing on prices has become less of a value proposition for us, especially so as our economy matures and that we are near the limits in terms of manpower growth and land spaces.

Enter the value creating and innovative economy, a term that we have be hearing a lot in the last few months since the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) was set up. It is the next logical step, and it is also time that we make bold moves to open up new growth frontiers and expand possibilities.

Any restructuring and any major re-positioning of the economy of this magnitude comes with its challenges and risks. There will be disruptions to existing businesses and jobs, and the outcomes are by no means guaranteed.

Fortunately for Singapore, we are in a position of strength. Our strong economic fundamentals, our solid financials and the adaptable workforce can help us weather the risks and to tackle the multiple challenges ahead.

Our hard-earned political and social stability also give us the scope to think and act in the long-term interest of the country – in contrast with many of our regional competitors who are bogged down with their domestic political impasses or social disharmony.

For a small country with unchangeable physical constraints, further advances in digitisation and easier access to the global knowledge pool actually works better for Singapore. With smarter resource optimisation, greater technological adoption and enhanced global linkages, our smallness as a country can be less of a disadvantage. In the future landscape, it may well be the case where the big no longer beats the small. It is the fast that beats the slow and the imaginative that will eat the lunches of the uninspired. But we need to be among the early movers and trendsetters, and to exploit the fast-expanding networked world to our advantage.

The key is how we identify the future opportunities and how we could transform ourselves to seize those opportunities. The CFE has that difficult task on their plate. The Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Finance, Trade and Industry looks forward to participating in discussions and engaging the CFE on the various suggestions and recommendations in the months ahead.

In this era of fast-paced technological changes and, as a result, shortened obsolescence cycle, it is increasingly very difficult to predict future product trends. We may be none the wiser about what the next "Big Thing" would be – more than ever before. So, building hard infrastructure ahead of demand, something that the Government is very good at, may not be as straightforward in the future world.

Hence, the road ahead towards a value creating economy is more about developing soft infrastructures to become an innovative and entrepreneurial society – and thereby be able take advantage on a range of possible scenarios that comes our way.

Singapore has been consistently recognised for its business-friendly environment and producing graduates excelling in mathematics and science. We also have among the best legal framework for intellectual property (IP) protection rights in the world as well as the high availability of venture capital and research and development (R&D) funding. These are necessary conditions for a vibrant start-up scene.

However, while Singapore ranks high in world rankings in terms innovation inputs, such as infrastructural support and business sophistication, the innovation output has not been as encouraging; and it is mostly in the area of wholesale trade and financial services.

Indeed, it was not the lack of support schemes for the businesses or the regulatory frameworks being less or not innovation-friendly enough, that is the impediment.

The smart and hardworking officers of the various economic agencies are always on top of this and will continue to add new schemes, finesse existing schemes as well as to keep up with the best practices around the world. I think we only need to look at the SPRING Singapore website to see the range of schemes available to help the start-ups. I am sure the CFE will further add more new ideas and new approaches in developing innovative capabilities for companies and to expand our market linkages. We can debate that at a later date, while the new approaches that we should explore.

But what I think we need do more, and what we are talking more about today, is the human dimension of innovation and entrepreneurship. The human factor is the spirit and purpose of innovation. Successful innovation rests on the foundation of education, skills and, more importantly, the passion and risk attitudes of individuals.

I echo calls by many Members in this House for the Ministry of Education (MOE) to do more to diffuse the high stress and high stakes situation of our education system, from the primary school to tertiary level.

In the economy of the future, having good subject-based knowledge is important but not good enough on its own. We need to foster critical and creative thinking as well as develop behavioural and social skills. Our education system cannot be narrowly focused on examination-based academic performance. It just stresses out everyone – the students, parents and teachers and even the Members of Parliament, when the parents come to see us to appeal for the scores and to get into the schools. So, it stresses out everybody with very little gain in return besides generating the national examinations scores to help us do the school postings. Instead, it risks producing an education system that dampens the innovative and entrepreneur spirit. Students may score well in exams for those subjects, but they may have little passion or interest in that subject matter, which some recent international studies have shown. So, we need to distinguish the truth from the facts.

Also, schools should avoid crowding out less easily assessed curriculum such arts, sports and aesthetic subjects as these activities stimulate a wide range of social, thinking and behavioural skills. Rather, the weightage of these subjects should be increased so that learning in school can be fun and can be enriching. So, when I heard that in some schools, co-curricular activities (CCA) were stopped for students in the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) year or the "O" Level year, just so that the students can focus on their major examinations, it disturbed me quite a fair bit. How does stopping CCA during the PSLE year or O-level year help in developing the students that we want? It is just going to increase the tension and add more stress. We need to develop students to be self-assured, confident and, for that matter, to be able to multi-task.

I agree with Minister Ong Ye Kung that we should not be too obsessed with numbers. Often, when I attend schools' annual award ceremonies, the Principal's speech and presentations sometimes really sound like a shareholder's Annual General Meeting (AGM). There will be a lot of performance indicators being shown. So, I do not think numbers are that important. The speech should be about motivating the students and motivating the parents as well.

I do believe that there exists a distribution of strengths and abilities for each cohort of students. There will be some who may appear to do less well in a whole bell curve, but who, nevertheless, have the inclination to think out-of-the-box, and are perhaps less "conventional" than others in their learning attitude. Perhaps, they have more of the "maverick-like" thinking.

These are the people who may have street savviness to be entrepreneurial and to venture into uncharted waters. These may those who may not do well in schools, very much like Jack Ma, Steve Jobs or George Quek of "BreadTalk". In the early years, they tend to daydream a lot – I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam that some of it is good. In fact, we should not dampen their natural curiosity, especially during their early formative years. Help them, open up to them and give them second chances and if not, third chances even if they have not done well academically in their early years. Keep them in the system so that they can learn on and gain knowledge.

I am glad that the two Ministers at MOE have reiterated in their Ministry's Addendum that MOE will reduce the over-emphasis on academic results and make learning more enjoyable. And that the learning institutions will help Singaporeans discover their strengths and interests and thereby cultivate passions and fulfil aspirations. I have lifted this from the Addendum. I am sure this is music to our ears. These are all necessary moves to become an innovative and entrepreneurial society. We must not just say it or signal it, but also do it in every sense and every aspect.

Another human aspect that is essential for a flourishing innovative and entrepreneurial scene is the existence of lively communities of innovators and the related stakeholders. These are very much informal social structures that may involve the university alumni support groups, networks of overseas Singaporeans, mentors or serial entrepreneurs, among others, to create buzz, facilitate sharing and mentoring, and also to foster collaborations and partnerships. We need to place-make of some sort to get the entrepreneurs and innovators to come together to participate in lively forums and to leverage on the value of interdependencies. Universities and polytechnics are among the suitable convenors for such social groups and should be encouraged to initiate such communities to form.

Mdm Speaker, the third human factor I would like to touch on is life-long learning. Continual learning and seeking new knowledge are the best response to the rapidly changing technological landscape and also equally fast changing business models. We must keep up and not be on the wrong part of the skills mismatch curve as the landscape changes.

Coupled with the emergence of the so-called "gig economy" – something that Mr Ang Hin Kee has talked about with the freelancers – the concept of full-time employment or permanent employment may well be under threat. We have already seen how Uber has disrupted the traditional taxi business and the livelihood of taxi drivers, or how waves of digitisations by fintech companies are threatening traditional bank financing and bank intermediation.

We are not alone in this challenge. A recent study in the United States (US) estimated that 47% of the total US employment is at risk of being computerised or digitised. Hence, we have to make learning continual, whether it is by seeking new knowledge or learning new skills a way of life and actually enjoy and be motivated by it.

SkillsFuture could be the mindset game changer and especially with the SkillsFuture's credit of $500 that will certainly help ease the costs barriers. What I like about SkillsFuture is that it enables individuals to take ownership of their own learning journey and hopefully inculcate the attitude to always seek new knowledge and to improve skills as part of their lifestyle routine.

However, we should also be mindful about whether the training and courses under SkillsFuture would have sufficient depth and focus and whether it would help improve individual employability and skills mastery.

Also, continuous learning should be made more accessible to all in ITEs, polytechnics and universities. There should be no age barrier. There should be no paper barrier. We can calibrate the right fee structure, but we should make it accessible to all. We should also ensure that it will not be at the expense of places set aside for each cohort of new undergraduates. Over time, we need to blur the lines between learning in schools and training during employment, and it should be a continuous journey.

Mdm Speaker, for entrepreneurship and innovative culture to permeate across the society, we need individuals who are willing to try and willing to explore to step out of their comfort zones. Going forward, we literally have to think like a start-up in the way we respond to opportunities. It is not just the businesses and individuals but the entire ecosystem including the educational institutions, social stakeholders, business associations and, crucially, the Government and regulators.

Our laws, our rules as well as our Instruction Manuals (IMs) in the Government are written quite some time ago and may need to be updated to cater for a more entrepreneurial society.

Mdm Speaker, to conclude, as we venture into the value-creating world and to become an innovative economy, we have to remain open to all talents and ideas. That is very much part of the interdependencies needed for the ecosystem to flourish. Having a diverse range of talents will strengthen our position as an innovation hub. By all means, manage and calibrate our overall foreign manpower supply in accordance to our physical and social constraints like what many international centres, such as New York and London, have done. But we must remain open and not be averse to an innovator or entrepreneur from a foreign land coming here to innovate and venture. It is all a necessary part of the buzz and vibrancy.

Staying open and staying plugged to the global network has strengthened our position as a key economic hub in the past. We need to continue to stay open, to stay connected and to stay open to changes, and that way, we will give our local entrepreneurs and local innovators access to more opportunities, and it enhances our chances of succeeding as a value creating economy. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

2.47 pm

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mdm Speaker, the President ended his Address two Fridays ago with a call for Singaporeans to write the next chapter of our future together. The next chapter, in the words of President Tony Tan, will "see Singapore progress as an exceptional nation with a thriving economy and a caring an inclusive society".

It is apt that the President has called on Singaporeans to renew our pledge at the half-century mark of our nationhood to build a better Singapore as one people, regardless of race, language or religion. But our pledge goes beyond calling on Singaporeans to merely unite as one people to build a better Singapore. The frameworks of our pledge support good politics and espouse the values of justice and equality to be the foundation of our democracy so that our people as a nation can achieve happiness, prosperity and progress.

Although the President did not talk about justice and equality when he spoke on good politics, these values are non-negotiable if we want to get our politics right in the next chapter. The President has reminded us that as Members of Parliament, we all have a responsibility to do our best for our people, regardless of our party affiliation.

About 18 months into my first term as Member of Parliament for Hougang, a resident asked me if his child would be given the Edusave Bursary, will the child receive the award from me? I believe all of you know the answer so I will dispense with that. Nevertheless, I thank the President for the reminder, and I can assure the President that the Workers' Party (WP) will do its best for the people while we wait with bated breath the impending improvement to our political system, as mentioned in his Address.

Mdm Speaker, the President talked about the need to keep our nation safe and secure right at the beginning of his speech for good reason. The ASEAN region has taken a dangerous turn with the terrorist attacks in Bangkok in 2015 and in Jakarta a fortnight ago. ISIS has successfully taken its terror and fight right to our doorstep. Our way of life as we know and enjoy is now under threat. These are indeed dangerous and uncertain times we are living in. A terrorist attack in Singapore is no longer a remote possibility.

Thus, I fully support the President's call for Singaporeans to remain steadfast and united under these trying times, when misguided extremists are trying to tear this world apart through violence and fear.

While it is reassuring that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will strengthen our border security and tap into technology to help fight criminals and terrorist threats, it is my hope that this Government will also put effort in countering the spread of radical ideologies online.

The war on terrorism at our homefront is psychological as well. We cannot influence the people beyond our shores, but we can surely remind our own to value and preserve the peace and harmony we have here.

The walk with terrorism probably begins with some form of self-radicalisation, and such activities are impossible to prevent and they usually go under the radar. Self-radicalised individuals will probably pose one of the biggest threats to our security and the preservation of our social fabric.

Madam, Singapore has a lot to show the world on what it means to live in racial and religious harmony. Our cultural and religious diversity is a testament to that. Our work at achieving our unique interfaith, interracial and intersectoral harmony should be told to each successive generation to counter those dangerous and destructive ideologies propagated by radicals with misguided and violent intent.

I share Senior Minister of State Ong Ye Kung's observation that it is a sight to behold to see religious symbols of different faiths side by side and opposite each other in our HDB estates. But behind the cold existence of these religious artefacts lie a whole lot of effort in exercising tolerance, consideration and good neighbourliness. These stories must be passed down from generation to generation in all forms and means. We have to start young to sow the seeds of religious and racial tolerance in our classrooms, and hope for the best that our children will be able to discern dangerous ideologies online and reject them outright. We all have a part to play in this – this Ministry, the schools and most important of all, the parents – to make Singapore safe and secure.

Finally, the next chapter in education is critical because it is going to churn out the talents and the workforce that will take Singapore to SG100 and beyond. Madam, education is one of the key building blocks of Singapore. The Government has made many changes to our education system over the years, in search of a balanced approach to prep our young for a world that is constantly evolving. The change the educator intends to make in the next chapter must stand the test of time because lives are at stake. It must result in fostering a generation of thinking, self-motivated and innovative, and confident students.

We have to invest heavily in our human capital because it is our only hope at becoming an exceptional nation. The Prime Minister has shared that his biggest achievement as Head of Government was the emphasis he had placed on education when he first assumed office. In his first National Day Rally, the Prime Minister talked briefly about the "Teach Less, Learn More" concept of getting the maximum benefit out of educating our students through quality teaching.

The "Teach Less, Learn More" model has found its way into schools in the past decade. Can our educators say for sure that this model really works because our students continue to do well in high-stake examinations, despite being taught less in school? Has the shift to focus on quality teaching instead of quantity teaching resulted in better desired outcomes of education? Or has it merely shifted more of the learning from the classroom to the private tutors?

I am sure MOE would like to know the effectiveness of the "Teach Less, Learn More" model, but without a corresponding study into the tuition culture here, nothing can be conclusive. I do urge MOE to commission a study into the tuition culture because it will help our educators to formulate better policy decisions in the next chapter.

Moving away from basic education, how far are we prepared to inspire our young to shoot for the stars in the pursuit of their interests at the tertiary level? Is the Government pull out all the stops to attract a Nobel Laureate to take up a research or teaching chair at one of the local universities so that the Laureate can inspire a student to dream big?

We need role models in life to inspire ourselves to greater heights. This Government has gone to great lengths to pursue an Olympic medal using foreign talents in the hope that the move will bring glory to the nation and the imported Olympians could be role models for our young athletes.

In the next chapter, it is my hope that Singapore will produce a Nobel Laureate of our own. Almost 900 Nobel Laureates have been recognised since 1901. Countries such as Azerbaijan, Cypress, Algeria, Guatemala, St Lucia, and Madagascar, to name a few, have all produced a Laureate or two each. Is this Government prepared likewise with the same vigour in our human capital outside of sports? A Nobel Laureate is recognised by his or her own country of birth, so we cannot engineer that by import.

Mdm Speaker, in the next chapter in education, I do hope to see a deeper engagement between our institutes of higher learning and local small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and government-linked corporations (GLCs) in the area of R&D.

Many American universities were intricately involved in the US Space programme from Project Mercury to Project Apollo and to the Space Shuttle programme. The benefits that such deep collaboration brings to the schools, the students and the community at large are immeasurable. I am heartened to read in the papers that six students from Singapore polytechnics have had their invention patented by Boeing and their names listed as co-inventors of the patent recently. Such news is inspiring. I wish our young inventors well and hope that their inventions will go into commercial production someday.

The R&D Framework under the National Research Foundation cuts across many Ministries. I am unable to determine who gets the lion share of the R&D budget, but I do hope that our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) will be given ample opportunities to nurture our young Singaporeans into exceptional scientists and inventors if the future.

In conclusion, I agree with the President that the political system here needs to be refreshed. We all want a clean, effective and accountable Government, but not at the expense of less democracy, justice and equality. I am also quietly confident that Singaporeans of all faiths will stand united to reject terrorism and attempts by misguided extremists to sow seeds of discord among the diverse and peace-loving people of Singapore.

And finally, Madam, we all know education is not all about classroom and examination. It is a never-ending journey. The Chinese has a saying “活到老，学到老”. The SkillsFuture initiative announced last year is certainly a step in the right direction. However, the values we impart to our young must stand the test of time. Each successive cohort that leaves our classroom must be resilient and, most important of all, must have a sense of belonging, without which we can never have an exceptional nation. I certainly believe that when we get our education right, we will get our security right, we will get our economy right, we will also get our society right, we will get our living environment right and most important of all, we will get our nation building right. We will be an exceptional nation.

2.57 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar):Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion of Thanks for the President's Address. I fully agree with the five key priorities of the Government as outlined by the President. The devil, of course, is in the details.

Madam, the world confronting us and those who come after us will be different. Our society is ageing rapidly. Every job task that can be replicated can be replaced by a machine. Citizens who cannot add value enough are at risk of being left behind. Income gaps widen between those whose skills are in demand and those who cannot catch up. In the words of Albert Einstein, "The significant problems we face today cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when the problems were first created."

Madam, let me first share a simple poem that shows the different levels that we can view and address the challenges we face in life.

This poem by a Ms Portia Nelson is entitled "Autobiography in 5 Short Chapters".

Chapter I

I walk down the street.

There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.

I fall in.

I am lost ... I am helpless.

Is it my fault?

It takes me forever to find a way out.

Chapter II

I walk down the same street.

There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.

I pretend I don't see it.

I fall in again.

I can't believe I am in the same place.

But it isn't my fault.

It still takes a long time to get out.

Chapter III

I walk down the same street.

There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.

I see it is there.

I still fall in ... it's a habit.

My eyes are open.

I know where I am.

It is my fault.

I get out immediately.

Chapter IV

I walk down the same street.

There is a deep hole in the sidewalk.

I walk around it.

Chapter V

I walk down another street.

Madam, the new world is full of deep holes. Sometimes, we patch up the holes. Often, when it involves entrenched mindsets and structures, it will take more than patching up or just walking around them. We may have to walk down another street or make U-turns.

Let me share some observations and suggestions on two areas that I think will require more than patching. First, in the space of Learning; next, in Caring and Doing.

On Learning – the future of learning will be far from the teacher-directed, traditional classroom settings we are used to. In the future, learning can take place anytime, anywhere; not constrained by time or the physical dimensions of a school. We can choose from a quiver of tools, devices and learning solutions that can be face-to-face, online or blended. If SkillsFuture were to succeed, then learners will come in all ages with all backgrounds. They will have to be self-driven lifelong learners – a habit that is not yet pervasive today.

Many positive changes have taken place in the education landscape in Singapore in the last decades – learning support; online learning resources; special education; teacher recruitment and compensation; and, most recently, to me, a brilliant move of having MOE actively take on the SkillsFuture portfolio in Continual Education and Training (CET) for adult learners.

As a GPC member for Education for the last 10 years, I have met many authentic, diligent and professional educators who want the best for our young.

However, Madam, our education system is one that is pimpled by three unhealthy "P"s: one, a pre-occupation with academic scores; two, parentocracy; and three, physical segregation of our students.

One, on our pre-occupation. Our pre-occupation with academic scores is an outcome of years of conditioning, a choice borne out of a perceived lack of other better avenues of social mobility.

Academic rigour is a good thing, but it becomes an impairment when even academically stronger students start seeking extra help through tuition. It is an impairment when the posting criteria to popular schools is based on cut-off points of high-stake examinations at the age of 12. It is an impairment when teachers teach to test, and parents feed the $1-bilion tuition industry in order to ace examinations and increase one's options.

It is hard to cultivate or inculcate a love for learning when all that matters to the majority is the score from a series of high-stake examinations. When the curiosity and love for learning is snuffed out when one is young, it will be hard to re-ignite it after one's formal school years when he leaves the school gate.

On parentocracy. The second unhealthy "P" of our education landscape is parentocracy. It is commonly described as a phenomenon in which a child's education is shaped according to the wishes and opportunities that can be afforded by his parents. As the stakes of academic scores become higher, parentocracy will further rear its ugly head. Parentocracy restricts social mobility and can unfairly deprive those with lesser resources and networks, undermining the development of their potential.

In the case of the Direct School Admissions (DSA) programme, for example, it is an open secret that children from more affluent backgrounds stand a higher chance of benefitting from it since they could be nurtured from young in the arts or even sports. In the case of overseas exchange programmes or internships, the more affluent parents will be better able to put their children through. We need to level the playing field as much as possible.

The third "P", physical segregation of our young during their school years especially. Madam, we have acquired the habit of feeding the sacred cow practice of physically segregating students into different geographic settings whenever they are assessed to be different, or they learn differently.

We tend to promote a system where those who excel in the academics are placed in the top academic schools, those who excel in arts in School for the Arts (SOTA); those good at sports to the Singapore Sports School, and so on – a very efficient system that sorts and places our students in geographically different location, meeting occasionally at school-driven projects or events.

But, Madam, one of the most effective ways of keeping our country safe, secure and empathic is to forge relationships of acceptance and trust among citizens of different abilities, faiths, and socioeconomic status, during one's growing-up years, in natural settings. Trust and empathy cannot be built deeply when Singaporeans are physically segregated from young. Madam, this is a sacred cow that ought to be examined closely and slaughtered if need be.

Suggestions on Learning. I would like to make four suggestions today, to address the unhealthy three "P"s − a pre-occupation with academic scores for high-stake examinations, the risk of parentocracy and physical segregation.

At times, it would take walking another path or making a U-turn, when tweaking and patching will not work.

Suggestion one is to create an open architecture and invest in e-learning developers and curators to accelerate the sharing of best learning materials including lectures and self-driven learning modules. This is especially urgent across some 400 primary, secondary and special schools in order to level the playing field and empower more teachers, students and families.

Invest at the national level for learning management systems like Canvas or the like. Make templates on these platforms available for easy development and sharing. Reward those who share materials and pedagogy of good standard, lesson plans as well. Create 21st century jobs of Curators and Coaches who can help sieve through the submissions and advise on usage. Take reference from the smartphone apps platform where both developers and users can interact actively and put the power of learning content development into the hands of those beyond the Ministry as well.

Suggestion two is to remove the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) without compromising academic rigour and pilot a 10-year through-train school model. This is not the first time that I and other Members of the House have raised this.

Seriously, walk another path − remove one high-stake examination, the PSLE! Even educators, I understand, call for this. At the age of 12, it is too early to sort. Tweaking the assessment grading system will not remove the deeply entrenched mindsets of chasing the scores. The problem is unlikely to disappear even if we replace PSLE T-scores with Banding – students will start scoring four "A"s, five "A"s and so forth. We are back to square one.

Suggestion three is to re-dream and slay the sacred cow of physically segregating people who learn differently. Re-think the concept of the School of the Arts, the Singapore Sports School, Normal (Technical) schools, the Special Assistance Plans (SAP) schools, and the Special schools. Think programmes, yes, even programmes for the gifted, and make these programmes available across more physical school campuses – so that students of different abilities and talents can grow up together under one roof.

Suggestion four is to pilot inclusive education villages across Singapore to house students of different abilities and backgrounds. There is no better way to learn inclusion except to play, eat, interact and learn with others who are unlike yourself. Let those who are academically stronger learn via subject-banded classes, but design school campuses that allow diversity and vibrant social interactions for all groups.

Better still, make full use of these Education Villages to allow SkillsFuture learnings for adults to take place there too. There is no better time to consider taking another path in this aspect especially when enrolments are falling, and some physical capacity can be found.

Next, on Caring and Doing. Madam, there will be those who are at risk of being left behind in the new economy we are heading towards. I am most concerned with the elderly, especially those who are lower skilled and those with special needs and disabilities. Building a caring society is an aspiration expressed not only in the President's Address; it is the desire of many Singaporeans who participated in the "Our Singapore Conversations" led by Minister Heng Swee Keat.

The Government has made some excellent moves in ensuring the essentials of healthcare, housing and transport for the vulnerable amongst us. It is time for us to consider taking bolder steps to entrench this value of Care into our system.

Can the Government exercise the moral authority to commit schools and corporations, including Government agencies to adopt, on a regular and longer-term basis, vulnerable groups, especially the low-skilled elderly and those with special needs and/or disabilities? Do we have the courage to legislate the protection of their rights and welfare into our way of life? We should.

The women have the Women's Charter; abandoned parents have the Maintenance of Parents Act; those who are mentally incapacitated have the Mental Capacity Act; even the animals have the Animals and Birds Act to protect their welfare. We should do the same for the education, employment and care support for the elderly and the disabled.

Should we aim for a way by which Civil Society and the Government can work more collaboratively to achieve their mission and shared values? We should.

In this matter, I beg to differ from the WP's desire to have the Government out of the way as much as possible. At times, getting the Government out of the way may not work when it is in the interest of the target community or the cause to have more of Government engagement and involvement.

Two experiences come to mind.

One is my journey as an advocate for the special needs community and the second, that of Member of Parliament Mr Louis Ng, an animal rights advocate. We were both not Members of this House when we first began our work in the two causes. Separately, we decided at some stage, that the confrontational "name and shame" way of advocacy could only go that far. We learnt that if we truly have the interest of the communities we care for at heart, then we need to be part of the solution, to persuade, to coax, to explain and dirty our hands, where necessary, and to engage those, including the Government, who can help us as partners.

We do not all need to end up as parliamentarians, but we can lead, sponsor and/or run initiatives that can advance those whom we care for. Sweep and clean up the school compound or the animal habitat, if necessary. We learnt that we need to move beyond criticising, and initiate or join others and get involved in Care Projects ourselves.

That is the purpose of the next series of citizen engagement in the form of the SG50 discussions, and the mission of agencies such as the Community Development Councils (CDCs). There is still much more to be done for the vulnerable in our midst, but they will not get any better unless we collaborate with, instead of simply naming and shaming or pushing away, those who could make a difference with us.

In conclusion, Madam, I believe the "Future of Us" is only as strong as our humility and boldness in taking another path or making the U-turn when we confront the deep holes or even craters in our pathways. The "Future of Us" is only as strong as our determination to stick our necks out for what we instinctively know is right and humane. The "Future of Us" is only as strong as our willingness to be part of the solution and dirty our hands if we need to, and our ability to genuinely collaborate – giving credit when credit is due; refraining from naming, shaming and posturing to score points for oneself or for one's political party.

Someone once said in a political satire that politicians will lose votes when they advocate something controversial, but they will lose an election if they choose to be too bold or courageous.

But for the deep holes that confront our nation, I urge us all to be bold and walk another path if need be; for not doing so, may not only cost us an election but cost us our beloved country. Madam, I support the Motion. [Applause].

3.13 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Health and the Environment and Water Resources (Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan): Mdm Speaker, the President highlighted that one of the challenges we face is a rapidly ageing population. By any definition – statutory, scientific, common sense – I am or will soon be in the "aged" category. That I suppose qualifies me to speak on this subject.

This is not a new subject, but one that has exercised the minds and skills of policymakers for many years now. We need to plan far ahead to adequately meet this challenge.

Hence, the Ministerial Committee on Ageing announced last year an Action Plan for Successful Ageing. It is a collaborative effort among Government agencies, Voluntary Welfare and Non-profit organisations, business and community organisations as well as union leaders, and reflects the aspirations and ideas of more than 4,000 Singaporeans from all walks of life who were widely consulted over a period of close to one year.

The Action Plan offers more than 60 initiatives in 12 areas such as health and wellness, employment, volunteerism and retirement adequacy. And we welcome ground up innovative ideas including those suggested by Members Miss Cheryl Chan and Ms Joan Pereira yesterday.

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has plans to co-locate Senior Care Centres (SCCs) at Community Clubs and town hubs such as at the Bedok Integrated Complex.

The first such SCC, co-located with Ci Yuan Community Club, will be welcoming its first clients in the coming months. The SCC will also provide home care services to surrounding residents.

We are also planning for Active Ageing hubs in new HDB developments with both aged care and active ageing programmes together. We hope to work with more grassroots organisations to develop a range of active ageing and aged care programmes, using existing CCs and Residents’ Committees (RCs) as platforms.

Let me clarify, just in case they are misconstrued or misrepresented. SCCs, nursing homes, and other forms of long-term care facilities would be provided in places where we assessed that there are needs from the residents. Just like Edusave awards which are awarded based on eligibility criteria, they will be awarded to students who qualify regardless of which constituency they stay in. I think these are very fair and objective assessments based on needs and merits.

Indeed, we should not be consumed by what we see on one side of the coin – the fear of a silver tsunami, with all of its attendant problems. If we do, we are shortchanging ourselves.

The other side of the coin is longevity, with the immense opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans that come with a population living longer. I would urge all Singaporeans to be bold and positive about our ageing population, and not just look at the challenges this brings.

Just as we have turned our water insecurity into path-breaking water technology solutions highly sought after even by other countries, we need to reframe our ageing problem as a platform for us to innovate and create new opportunities. We need a new "philosophy of ageing" to guide our national narrative on ageing at the individual, community and national levels. So, how can ageing be re-framed?

For individuals, ageing can be a positive force. Longer life spans could open up new life choices, new learning, new careers and new experiences. To allow this to happen, we will need to provide the platform for seniors to keep their minds active and their spirits fulfilled by working for as long as feasible and providing them with opportunities to learn new skills and develop new interests.

For the community, ageing can become a powerful, unifying cause that rallies residents, students, community organisations, and grassroots organisations to create new programmes and develop new social networks to embrace our senior population as active and participating members of an inclusive Singapore society.

One aspect of this is promoting senior volunteerism. We can help them start the journey by matching volunteering opportunities to seniors with the appropriate backgrounds, and by providing the necessary tools to equip them to function more effectively as volunteers. This will be the proof of concept for an inter-generational volunteer movement to help and be helped by seniors in our community.

At the national level, ageing can be an opportunity for businesses to create new products and services to tap the silver market, in the same way that millennials constitute a distinct market segment for smart phones, tablets, social media marketing and the like. Whether it is gym facilities for those over 65 only or anti-ageing products – if you swear by them – or holiday packages for retirees, the opportunities are limited only by our imagination.

Likewise, rather than fret over a declining workforce, or dependency ratios in some cases, we should instead seek to harness the productive and creative energies of more mature workers, many of whom bring a steady hand to help and guide the younger ones.

Beyond the mere economics of a longer stream of income, productive work has many benefits such as bestowing on the elderly a sense of fulfilment and keeping their minds alert.

Mdm Speaker, population ageing will be a part of the Future of Us. Minister Heng's Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) will also need to blend in the demographic inevitability of an ageing population into its deliberations and recommendations. Our seniors should not be taken out of the equation in the future of our economy. Based on our current demographic trends, they are part of the future of our economy.

So, instead of being overwhelmed by the prospect of a silver tsunami, let us ride on longevity to create a distinctive Nation for All Ages.

However, this is a future that can only be created by all of us working together as partners – Government, Community, Businesses, Grassroots organisations and individuals.

And this is my three-fold appeal. I appeal first to families. We must have strong families that provide emotional support and are willing to love and care for older members.

Some frail and older people can be forgetful and walk very slowly. They can become quite grouchy and difficult to get along, like Carl Fredrickson, the elderly widower in the 2013 Disney Pixar movie "Up". But they are still family members with whom we have long ties of kinship and bonds of love.

Though still a minority, it is painful to read about cases of cheating, abuse or even neglect of elderly parents. It was recently reported that social workers are seeing more senior citizens who have been cheated or financially abused by their children. I myself have also recently seen a few such instances of financial abuse at my Meet-the-People Sessions. In one tragic case, an elderly parent was convinced to sell her home to live with her son who purchased another house with her money, only to be asked to find a home of her own when the relationship with the son's family turned sour.

While we strengthen legislation to protect the vulnerable elderly, what is key is that every Singaporean parent must help to inculcate the right values of filial piety and care for our seniors in their own children.

Our young Singaporeans should not only learn about such values in schools. Most importantly, they need to see how their own parents live out these values in caring for and loving their grandparents, in word and deed. They will do the same when it is their turn to look after their parents.

Secondly, I appeal to businesses. Businesses can unlock productivity and innovation in longevity for their own companies and for our economy as a whole. But they can only do so if they see older workers as assets, and if they can create ageless workplaces to enable older workers not only to continue to work but also to thrive in their jobs.

Take, for example, Virtual HR. This human resource solutions specialist has tailor-made its working and remuneration arrangements to enable older workers to take on payroll processing and other jobs in the company. As a result, it has seen mature workers in the company bring in more revenue per dollar of salary than some of the younger staff.

This need not be a rare exception and indeed it is not. We can find other examples of such age-friendly companies but there can be many more. In fact, I believe it can be the norm if business leaders apply their minds and hearts to it.

The Government will continue to help both employers and workers to transit more seamlessly into this new regime. However, employers as well as HR and line managers must take ownership of this challenge to avoid unconscious ageist employment attitudes.

Much work has been done over the years to encourage employers to hire older workers. According to the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP), complaints against workplace ageism have been falling, but TAFEP also noted at a seminar last year that some employers here still lack a sense of urgency when it comes to employing older workers.

As one The Straits Times reader, Loke Soo Heng, puts it in a Forum article dated 19 November 2015, re-employment legislation caters to older workers who are already recognised for their value in their current companies. But older workers who leave their jobs due to restructuring may be perceived differently when they apply for jobs.

The Government will do its part to encourage and engender an ageless workplace. But ultimately, the business community must be convinced of the benefits of being age-blind and to hire purely on merit.

Thirdly, I appeal to our communities. We need neighbours and residents living within each community to look out for older residents among them and lend a hand in supporting them to age well in place. This is even more pertinent as families are getting smaller and there is also increasing incidence of singlehood.

More fundamentally, we want to provide an environment where the elderly can age with dignity and be supported by family, friends and the community. But the ecosystem for this to take place is multi-layered. Because of the immense strain that caregivers bear, they themselves also need support.

We have all read about the tragedy of caregivers in Japan going down a slippery slope after they quit their jobs to look after the elderly, only to find themselves unemployable after their loved ones pass away. We ourselves may also know of friends and family who are triply strained by the stress of their day jobs, the pressure from looking after young children and caring for their ailing elderly parents.

We need therefore to refresh and strengthen the support environment for caring for the elderly so that they can age in place in their own homes, in the community, among people who know and care for them. This will also help to strengthen family ties and the community spirit so essential to a cohesive society.

How can this work in practice? An example is the befriending programme that has sprouted in different communities. Various community organisations have taken the lead to recruit, train and deploy befrienders to visit and help frail seniors living in the neighbourhood.

In Marine Parade, the local senior activity centre Goodlife! started a community kitchen in the precinct called "Goodlife Makan", after they noticed that there were many stay-alone elderly in Marine Terrace. So, there is now a kitchen in the void deck, where stay-alone seniors can come down, cook together, eat together and clean together. I am told that even the gentlemen themselves are learning to cook. We hope to nurture and grow more of such movements.

Mdm Speaker, the vision of a distinctive Nation for All Ages I have sketched may sound impossibly hard to achieve because it means changing thought patterns, and ingrained practices. But challenges have never deterred us as Singaporeans from striving to build an exceptional nation. We can apply that to population ageing too.

With the same shared vision, many determined hands and many strong hearts, we can chart a positive path ahead for population ageing, one that will inspire not only Singaporeans, but hopefully even other ageing cities.

But a key ingredient to creating such a Nation for All Ages as in tackling other national challenges is leadership and good politics. President Tony Tan has also raised this subject in his address.

How do we further strengthen the political system such that the right leaders – honest, selfless, capable, and committed – can surface? How do we sustain a robust political system that does not paralyse Government unnecessarily, but also does not stifle well-reasoned, cogently argued dissent? How can we assure alternative and minority voices a platform to be heard at the national stage?

Singapore has implemented various political innovations over the past few Parliaments. One such innovation is the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP). The NCMP scheme presently allows for nine highest scoring Opposition members to enter Parliament.

The NCMP scheme was introduced some 32 years ago to allow for alternative party views to be aired in Parliament. This was in recognition of Singaporeans' desire for alternative views and the value of contest of ideas and robust debates to sharpen policy making.

But while the People’s Action Party (PAP) has won a strong mandate from Singaporeans in the recent General Elections, the desire for alternative voices has not waned. In fact, I believe that with greater diversity of our population, as well as rising political interest and awareness among a better educated population, such a desire would grow.

I would thus support further expansion of the NCMP scheme, say to 12 or even beyond, recognising the value of having issues dissected from various perspectives that can sharpen and refine policy formulation. This is especially relevant as the challenges we face becomes even more complex and unpredictable. In fact, this would also affirm our desire to build a more inclusive society.

The number of Parliamentary seats has also increased since the last election in 2011 from 87 to 89 in 2015, and it is envisaged that this number could continue to rise given the rising population. Hence, it would be sensible to increase the number of NCMPs in this House.

But, regardless of the number of NCMPs admitted, what is most important, to ensure that our Parliament continues to have robust, well-informed and quality debate that will help shape and sharpen policies, is for Singaporeans to judge and scrutinise every Parliamentarian with the same lens and apply the same set of standards – whether it be of conduct or the substance of the argument.

Another political innovation has been the Elected Presidency (EP). The EP is the custodian of our financial reserves against pilferage by irresponsible government. He also safeguards the integrity of our public service. The EP is therefore to be above party politics and should play a unifying role.

The issue of the EP has drawn vigorous debate in the media recently. One key issue is how to depoliticise the EP scheme, such that it is not an alternate power centre that keeps "checking" on the government of the day or offer presidential endorsement of everything the Government does. Both actions would be contrary to the EP's role and lead to either policy paralysis or cause divisions in our society.

The last presidential election was widely perceived as a kind of proxy contest between the PAP and the Opposition. Some commentators have suggested that we do away with elections for the Presidency by the People. However, an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) survey after the 2011 Presidential Elections suggests that a majority of Singaporeans wish to choose their President through an election.

As the 24 January 2016 Sunday Times lengthy feature on impending political changes has suggested, the qualifying criteria for candidates, which has remained unchanged for the last 25 years, should be raised to ensure that the candidate is up to the task given the greater complexity and demands of the EP's custodial roles in today's environment.

For instance, the minimum paid up capital of the private or public company that a candidate leads as CEO or chairman of the board of directors should be raised significantly from the current $100 million. I would also support more public education so that Singaporeans have greater clarity on the role of the EP.

Mdm Speaker, in many ways, getting our politics right is a pre-condition to Singapore's survival over the next 50 years as we cast our eyes toward SG100.

Way before then, quite a number of us in this House, myself included will be in the aged or very aged category. Hopefully, by then, through the inventions of science, and our efforts in living a healthy lifestyle, we will have many more years to life. But I also hope that our Nation for All Ages will be a shining reality, and that it will also add life to our years. Madam, I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.35 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join the Members of this House in expressing my support for the motion of thanks to the President for his Address.

The President had spoken passionately about the importance of building a caring society. And as the hon Member Dr Amy Khor had mentioned earlier, a key characteristic of this society of ours is that an increasing proportion of it will comprise the elderly. So, for this speech, I will be focusing on strengthening the care of our seniors.

The numbers are familiar to all of us. Just five years ago, under 10% of our population was aged 65 and above. In 2013, that number had crossed the 10% mark, and by 2030, this would increase to 24%. Our old age support ratio would drop from today's 1:5.2 to 1:2.3 in 2030.

While these statistics may sound alarming but, in fact, getting old is not necessarily bad news. What we need do is to focus on functional age, not chronological age.

Healthy lifestyles and preventive health measures play a big part in ensuring that an older person remains as functional as possible, enabling him/her to lead an active and fulfilling life in his/her golden years. Socially and economically active seniors will lessen concerns about the support or dependency ratios – 60 will be the new 40; 80 the new 60, and so on.

In the Ministry of Health's (MOH) Addendum, one of its priorities is to intensify efforts to keep Singaporeans healthy, such as through plans to reduce obesity and smoking. As a society, we must work together to make ageing a positive experience for all. And in my opinion, there are three important criteria for positive ageing.

First, one must be healthy and stay connected to the community. Second, in the event that one falls ill, I am glad to note that help for our elders has been significantly expanded. Third, when the elderly need to be looked after, they should have a range of options to choose from.

Keeping healthy and connected. Health is the foundation for positive ageing. This does not mean taking more medicine or going to see the doctor more often. In fact, over-medication or treatments could do more harm than good and is costly for both the patient and the country. Recent studies suggest that reducing medication, a process that has been termed "de-intensification", has significant benefits in terms of both morbidity and mortality.

The other day, I wished a sprightly octogenarian lady the best of health, and she brightly replied that she was indeed in the pink of health, and whereupon to emphasise this point, she proceeded to show me a fistful of pills that she takes every day. This led me to ask her, "Since you are so healthy, why is there a need to take so many pills?" She just smiled wistfully but did not have a reply.

Singaporeans should take preventive measures, such as eating healthy and exercising regularly to slow biological ageing.

I am very happy to see the many efforts in our community for our elderly to keep healthy. There are wellness programmes in all 87 constituencies in Singapore. In addition, we are embarking on community-wide longitudinal health screening in some parts of Singapore, more recently in the Mei Ling and Stirling estates in Queenstown.

Workplace health has also not been neglected. We have health programmes that are customised for mature workers in workplaces. For example, some 3,000 taxi drivers have had health screening and follow-up consultations and since last June, about 400 bus drivers had gone through a customised programme that includes chronic disease management, eyesight monitoring, ergonomics and hydration.

Keeping healthy is not just a matter of exercise but feeling involved and connected. Many elderly want to continue to lead active lives. I know of examples of many nurses and other healthcare workers whom I work with, who continue employment way past the official retirement age and still continue to contribute significantly to the care of our sick and elderly.

The role of family and friends is very important. Our seniors should be able to live in a familiar environment surrounded by loved ones, friends and neighbours, not segregated from the rest of the community. Ageing-in-place is a principle that should be robustly defended.

In a recent survey by the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), about 80% of household heads aged 65 or above prefer to age-in-place at their existing flats. Many of the elderly I spoke to speak of the joys of remaining part of the community, living in their own homes. For those living with family members, they benefit from the inter-generational bonds.

For those who are living on their own, ties with long-time neighbours and even shopkeepers keep them integrated within their communities. I was delighted when the Ministry for National Development (MND) supported a programme to allow up to six neighbours to select their replacement flats together, as part of the en-bloc redevelopment of the historic precinct of Tanglin Halt.

This social glue is important. We want to see as many Singaporeans grow old with dignity within the community where they have spent the better part of their lives.

Second, support for the elderly. I believe that this is one area in which this Government has done a lot, and I am sure that our seniors can be assured that the Government has invested significantly in building up capacity across the healthcare system.

In addition, medical bills have become more affordable through higher subsidies for Specialist Outpatient Care (SOC) and outpatient drugs, Flexi-Medisave, the Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life and Medifund has also been strengthened. Our elderly will get the care that they need, without unduly worrying about healthcare costs.

Outside of healthcare, our elderly will get help with their daily living expenses through a variety of programmes such as CPF LIFE, the Silver Support Scheme, Enhanced and Additional GST Vouchers. And they also receive assistance with housing matters through, for example, the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) scheme which helps to put age-friendly improvements in the homes of seniors, studio apartments, the Lease Buyback Scheme, the Silver Housing Bonus, priority schemes and/or additional grants for children and parents to live close to one another, such as the recently announced Proximity Housing Grant.

Housing estates are also undergoing continuous improvements to make them as senior-friendly as possible, and even our traffic system and road networks are making the transition, for instance, outdoor lifts in housing estates and for overhead bridges, and the Silver Zone programme which has a suite of age-friendly traffic safety enhancements, the latest example of which was inaugurated in Lengkok Bahru just last weekend.

Moving on to long-term care needs, I think this is one area where we still face many challenges. About 3% of residents aged 55 years and above are non-ambulant and require physical assistance. Long-term care needs can last for several years if disability strikes. This group of elderly require a lot more support from their families to care for them and their daily needs. Many prefer to age-in-place, but strong family support is needed to make this happen. They also need the support from services in the community, for example, like home nursing care.

I applaud MOH's efforts in expanding long-term care capacity, including nursing homes as well as home and centre-based senior care services, to ensure that the disabled elderly have access to the care that they need. Since 2011, nursing homes beds has increased by 1,000, home care places by 2,700 and centre-based care by another 1,000 places. I am glad to note that the Government is committed to increasing nursing home beds to 17,000, home care places to 10,000 and centre-based care to 6,200 places, by the year 2020.

MOH has also worked on enhancing the quality of aged care services by introducing new licensing standards for nursing homes and new guidelines for home and community care services.

The Government has been increasing support for long-term care and more Medifund assistance has been made available. Patients can receive subsidies of up to 100% in some cases, and that eligibility has broadened from half to two-thirds of households by the year 2012.

Other measures include the Enhanced Interim Disability Assistance Programme for the Elderly, the Senior Mobility and Enabling Fund, ElderShield and the Pioneer Generation Disability Assistance Scheme.

So, it is evident that much has been done, and yet it is timely to ask if we should consider other ideas to address nagging concerns among some Singaporeans. One of these is the uncertainty over long-term care costs. Many Singaporeans believe this to be large and required for an extended period. They also worry that nursing homes may be their only option, when they prefer to age at home. Quite a number of families are willing to have grandpa or grandma or their parents at home, if they have access to quality home care services.

Another worry they have is being a burden to their families – financially, physically and emotionally – should they lose their independence with severe disability. Naturally, they are apprehensive about long-term suffering if they were bedridden and needs various aids to survive. I have some suggestions for the Ministry's consideration.

First, we should have a comprehensive action plan to help our seniors remain healthy and connected. We have to accelerate the development of more alternatives to nursing homes. Our seniors want to be with their families even when they become frail. Family members want to be assured that they can rely on skilled help and nursing support when their parents or grandparents require it. And for seniors without family, or when their families can no longer look after them, new models of care such as assisted living centres should be explored.

The level of care delivered by a traditional nursing home may be excessive for some residents. Studies have shown that restoring the autonomy of nursing home residents, while theoretically putting them at higher risk of accidents, may actually have many positive effects on their well-being that more than offsets the potential risks.

My medical colleagues have recently called upon the MOH to reconsider building subsidised single and twin rooms in nursing homes, as research has shown that residents with dementia in nursing homes with individual rooms have less anxiety, irritability and aggression, and also sleep better. And so, they have called for a move towards providing more individualised care for the elderly in nursing homes and also to allow them to retain some degree of independence. Not only is this good for the elderly, but it may also reduce the need for manpower in the long run, as earlier stated. And so, perhaps a mix of both single and multiple bed setups can be considered for future subsidised nursing homes, so that we can explore both paradigms.

Second, we should have an ongoing public education campaign to sensitise our young and middle-aged to the need to plan ahead. This means putting aside some savings for old age, not to over-commit in terms of property purchase and not to opt-out of ElderShield. And if they do buy a larger flat, to consider downgrading after their children move out, for ease of upkeep and to release cash for post-retirement needs. I have seen the recent advertisements on our television channels highlighting this issue, and I think this is a good start.

Third, we can consider a bigger role for insurance in long-term care financing, just as we enhanced MediShield. As there are plans to review ElderShield, I urge MOH to be comprehensive in this exercise and address the most important elements – the role of individuals in saving, the role of the family in supporting them and the role of the community and Government in sharing of the risks.

Lastly, in line with our aim to be a Smart Nation, I hope that the Government will increase funding for the research and development of health and mobility aids and monitoring devices such as variables and robotics and even drones to help out our elderly. To accelerate our development in this area, we should look into partnering foreign leading firms and institutions in this industry. Japan is one of the leaders in this field and exoskeletons like those developed by Cyberdyne and interactive personal robots, such as Pepper, which was launched by SoftBank recently, provide us with an endearing view of the future.

Much has been said about the future of us but literally, the future of us is ourselves in old age. And to answer this call, I would ask that we, all of us, work together to help our senior citizens remain healthy and socially connected within the community, to give them and their family better assurances in their golden years and provide options for them to age within the community.

Debate resumed.

4.11 pm

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

The President and many Members of this House have spoken about the bracing challenges that we face in the future – terrorism, our economy, maintaining our social cohesion, among other things. Indeed, it is a daunting list. But as Members have emphasised, we have every reason to be confident that we can overcome them – one by one, together.

The question is: how do we do that? How can we build a stronger Singapore? How can we progress together? For Singapore to succeed, what must we do? One fundamental requirement, beyond individual policies, was what the President said at the end of his speech – we need good policies, but we also need good politics.

Members would have read the Addenda to the President's Address. These comprehensive documents lay out the agenda for this term of Government. The business of Government is to govern. Voters elect us to develop policies, to implement them, and to make things happen.

They want policies which respond to people's needs, like enhancing social safety nets, making housing more affordable and accessible, improving public transport, and managing the growth of foreign workers. They want to see policies that will enable our people to achieve their aspirations, for themselves and for their children: investing in education at all levels, for example, the SkillsFuture; implementing major projects which transform Singapore, like Changi Airport – building T4, putting up Project Jewel, planning for T5 – or Jurong Lake District or the Southern Waterfront City. One by one, brick by brick, building a better Singapore.

That is what this Government has done for many years. And this is what my Government will do in this term. We will fulfil our promises. But in order to have these good policies done, we also must have good politics, because the two go hand-in-hand. Good politics make sure that we will elect governments who will develop good policies, who will expand our common space and strengthen our society for the future. If we have good politics, then we have the best chance of having our system continuing to work for us, instead of against us, over the long haul.

If we are only concerned over the next five or 10 years, we do not have to make any changes in terms of politics because the system is working now and will continue to do so for the next 10 years, maybe a bit longer. The actors are in place. We are familiar with one another. We know where the leaders are, we know the response function – you press this button, this will happen; you pull that lever, something else happens. We know how to make it work today.

But if we are thinking beyond this term and this team, about a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet, and a new population, different electorate, then we will need to keep Singapore able to work well with them in charge and with them being the team that leads Singapore. Then, it is prudent for us to consider what possible adjustments may become necessary now, in good time.

It is not an urgent task that you must do today instead of tomorrow. But it is this generation's responsibility to make sure that our political institutions and system continue to work well, well beyond the term of this team, and work well for future generations.

In theory, to get your politics right should not be such a very difficult problem for most countries because there is some sense of identity and unity, and leaders and your followers of different political persuasions should be able to come together and work for the common good. It makes sense to work together; it is a lot of trouble if you are at odds with one another. But if we look around the world, in fact, it is not such a simple matter.

There are some countries which face division and gridlock, and the government is paralysed, like the US. The executive and the legislative branches are controlled by different parties. The government is stalemated on issues ranging from gun control to trade policy. Democrats run the Administration; the President is Democrat. Congress is led by Republicans. The two do not see eye-to-eye and are unable to compromise. Three years ago in 2013, the Federal Government had to shut down for 16 days because Republicans and Democrats in Congress could not agree to pass a Budget. And last year they nearly had to shut down again.

In President Obama's recent State of the Union address, this was the theme he took up right at the end of his speech – the most important thing which he felt he had not been able to achieve – to get American politics to work. He described how the founding fathers of the US – Washington, Jefferson, Madison – had distributed power between states and the branches of government. That means between the federal government and the different states; between the executive and the legislature and the judiciary; checks and balances. And they expected people to argue over matters as they themselves did, but eventually to find common ground and be able to work something out. But now, the basic bonds of trust between the major parties, between the Democrats and the Republicans, have totally broken down. There is rancour and suspicion, no willingness to compromise. The system desperately needs to be fixed but no Congressman, no Senator, not even the President, is able on their own, to put it right. That is the US, the most powerful country in the world.

Other countries too have seen their national consensus fray. Many European countries were governed by stable, centralist coalitions. Sometimes, you have a centre-right coalition that will govern for a time. The mood changes, the country's priorities shift, a different balance emerges, and you have a centre-left coalition, perhaps even some of the same parties continue in the new coalition. You shift from one to the other within limits, never out of control. But now, the economy has broken, the immigration and refugee crisis is presenting them with an insoluble problem and deep disenchantment has set in. Extreme left and right groups are gaining ground. In every country, the regular political parties are losing support, never mind whether you are left-wing or right-wing. It is the extreme parties, the ones who just say, "To hell with it. I am unhappy with the world. Vote for me and I will show two fingers to the world." They are the ones who are getting support.

In Greece, it is called Syriza. They are now in government and having to make decisions which their supporters do not like at all. In Spain, they have Podemos. They have just had elections and Podemos won a significant number of seats. Now they are having a lot of difficulty forming a new government – in Germany, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), an anti-immigration party; in France, the National Front; in Britain, UKIP – pushing anti-immigrant, anti-EU, anti-globalisation platforms. Just expressing angst and anger, not propounding compromises and solutions. They are reflecting public unhappiness, but they are also riling up the public, offering no coherent policies of viable alternatives.

In many Asian countries, whom you vote for depends on your race, depends on your religion. In some countries, it depends on what caste you belong to. It is not policies; it is not integrity but "Is he my guy? Does he have the same caste name as me? Then, I know whether I can trust whether he will look after me." These are fundamental divides, divides which countries have tried to close but which remain deep and have sometimes even deepened decades after independence.

You may say, "Well, that is the problem of democracy", but even countries which do not have elections also have not such an easy time. You take China. It is a major challenge for the Chinese government, for President Xi Jinping, to keep his system clean, to keep his officials accountable and to keep his government with authority and legitimacy. Chinese officials visit Singapore. Invariably, they ask to see our Meet-the-People Sessions. They come, they sit in, they watch our Members of Parliaments and Ministers take cases and they are deeply impressed at how the system works. They go back and try to do the same. It is not the same. What is the fundamental difference?

In Singapore, Members and Ministers are taking cases for their voters. The person sitting in front of you votes for or against you come election time. In China, the officials may have a good heart and want to do good for their population, but they do not owe their positions to the votes of the people they are in charge of.

The moral of the story is there is no perfect model anywhere in the world, much less one in which we can import wholesale and apply in Singapore. If we look at other people's political problems, we do not feel any "schadenfreude", any sense of superiority or rejoicing. In fact, we say, "There but for the grace of God go I", because what happens elsewhere can easily happen in Singapore too, if either we blindly copy other people's practices which do not work here, or we find our own way but take a wrong turn. We can end up in such a situation also.

It does not mean we do nothing. It does not mean we learn nothing. It means we have to keep evolving our system carefully, step by step, making sure that our Government works and the politics in Singapore serve our people's interests. We have to find our own way forward.

What kind of political system do we want in Singapore? I would list five "desiderata", desirable things.

First, it must enable us to have a high-quality government – accountable, honest, competent, and effective. You have to be responsive to the people, able to look beyond the short term and keep us safe and successful. Because as a small country with no luxury of resources, with no domestic hinterland, excellence and integrity have been and always must be a crucial competitive advantage for Singapore. An excellent, honest government. It is something which we have, which we can do, which others can see; not so easy for others to duplicate.

I will put this quite bluntly; if we had not had a first-class government in Singapore, led by exceptional leaders who are able to foresee problems, head them off, seize opportunities, reap dividends for Singapore and mobilise people to work with them and to support policies – sometimes tough ones – we would not have Singapore today. So, we cannot ever afford to be paralysed, gridlocked or become dysfunctional like some other countries. For America, you can live with it. You go down, you go up. It is an aircraft carrier. For Singapore, you go down, you are finished. You do not come back up again.

Secondly, the political system has to be open and contestable. What do I mean? There has to be free and fair elections, and it must not be forbiddingly expensive for people to stand and contest elections. In fact, that is one of the greatest things we have done to keep our system open, to make sure that we keep money out of politics, and it does not cost a lot of money to contest elections.

So, if you take last year's General Elections. All of the parties together, added up, during the national General Elections, they spent all of $7 million, less than $3 per voter. The Straits Times calculated it at $2.89. You compare that with the cost of the US elections. In 2012, when they last had their Presidential election together with Congressional elections, it cost them US$7 billion. Not cost the government to run it; cost the candidates to raise it and to spend it; US$7 billion divided by about 350 million Americans. That is US$20 per American. That you may say is American-class, one of its own. But look at the money politics that you see in many countries, including in our region. The sums which are spoken about, which are necessary for elections, openly, not a secret, not even illegal or embarrassing. But it is a reality. It is an insoluble problem and ours must never become like that.

Thirdly, our political system must foster accountability so that the government is always kept on its toes and will always be motivated to look after the interests of Singaporeans. Parliament here must be a serious forum where big issues are discussed and decided – defence, economy, choices to tax and spend, and plans for the future. The Government's actions have to be scrutinised and debated in Parliament. If a Member of Parliament – whether it is an Opposition Member or a Government Member – argues a case against the Government's proposal, then either the Government has to be able to rebut it and explain convincingly what it is doing and why, or if the Member makes a good case, then you have to acknowledge that, and policies have to be changed. That is what Members have seen happen in this House, not just with Opposition Members but with Government Members or Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs) as well.

On the other side, if a Member makes a good proposal and advocates convincingly for it and persuades the Government, then I think the Government should support it, back it with resources and help to make it happen – as also has happened with PAP Members and Nominated Members, who have, from time to time, moved private Member's Bills and other times, have persuaded the Government that the bee in the bonnet is a justified bee in the bonnet and we should do what they are buzzing us loudly to carry out.

Every government must take Parliament seriously. And I think we take Parliament seriously in Singapore on both sides of the House. It is a place where you have debates, where big issues have to come to be decided. You can agree or disagree, and vigorously; and you ought to disagree, if you have strong views. But you must take it seriously; it is not a place where you throw chairs, swing handbags or pour water on one another; or a place where you exchange clever put-downs but really avoid the serious issues concerning the Government and the future of the country.

So, our Parliament may not be as entertaining on television as many other parliaments which you watch on the news at night, but I think, in terms of quality and seriousness of purpose, we have it and we should keep it.

Ultimately, of course, the Government is accountable not just to Parliament, but also to the electorate. If it performs well, then it gets the support of voters again, and it can continue in office. If it performs poorly, there is an electoral price to pay. Then, either the Government mends its ways and regains its support, or the electorate can vote it out and another party, another team, will have to take its place and try to do better. So, we must have a system where the Government does not, over time, become complacent, go soft or even worse, become corrupt.

Fourthly, our political system must uphold a multiracial society. Multiracialism is fundamental to our identity as a nation because we have three major races in Singapore, we have all the world's major religions in Singapore. Race and religion will always be fundamental tectonic fault lines for us. If we ever split along one of these fault lines, that would be the end of us.

Therefore, our political system must encourage multiracial and secular politics, not racial or religious politics. It has got to encourage political parties to seek broad-based, multiracial consensus and pursue moderate policies in the interests of all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. It has to discourage parties from forming along racial or religious lines or championing the interests of one race or religion over others, whether it be a majority or minority group in our society. Minority Singaporeans must have the confidence that they will not ever be marginalised, or shut out, or discriminated against. Every Singaporean must have the confidence that he has a place in Singapore.

Fifth, our system needs to incorporate stabilisers. The Government has to be responsive to the will of the people, but at the same time, we also have to have safeguards, in case the country is swept off course by a transient public mood, or an erratic government, which can happen. By the time you change your mind and realise it is unwise, it is too late to come back. So, you need stabilisers to make sure that you respond to the mood, but you do not get carried too far and capsize the boat.

Most political systems have such stabilisers built in. They have an Upper House like the Senate in the US, the House of Lords in the UK, or especially in big countries, you have a division of powers between the city and regional governments and a national federal government on the other. So, no single point can cause the whole system to fail. You clear the Lower House, you must go pass the Upper House. Elections may be different times, may have different rules. You persuade one region to do something, but it is a big country and other regions have to go along. You have to get the consensus, take some time, sleep it over, think carefully and perhaps think the better of it.

We are too small to have either an Upper House or to have a regional set of governments. The most we can do are Town Councils. Useful, but not really a regional government. We have overlaid on top of them Mayors. We call them Mayors, but actually if you compare them with the Mayor of London or the Mayor of New York, it is what they call, 小巫见大巫. It is a small personality, same title, but is quite a different entity indeed.

We may be small but we still need stabilisers, and we especially need stabilisers in two areas: (a) protecting our reserves and (b) safeguarding the integrity of the public service. Why do I say this? Because these are two critical elements that give us safety, security, assurance and resources for the future.

It has taken us decades to build up our foreign Reserves. They are our oil in the ground. If we do not have a second key, and you happen to have a generous or profligate government, then one government can spend it all and bring you back to zero. Elections will become auctions, where the parties compete to be more generous than the other, offering what it can do to voters by raiding the bank.

This happens in countries much richer than us. Look at Australia. Ten years ago, under a basically conservative government, they built up significant amounts of reserves or surpluses. They set up a pension fund for the future and said, "This is our sovereign wealth fund and this is to make sure that in future, you will be provided for with state pensions" and so on. But then came elections and both parties, whether in government or out of government, because of the dynamics of the situation, they have no choice. One side offers something, the other side offers more, and back and forth. It is an auction. Today, the funds for the future have disappeared. The country is in deficit. The commodities boom is over. The budget cannot be settled. They have to cut back spending. It is extremely contentious. They are back where they were. All within 10 years. It can happen to Australia with all that wealth and resources. Think what can happen if it is Singapore.

That is money. What about people? The whole of our excellence in Government, the competence and the performance of the country depends on the integrity and the ability of the individuals in the key posts in the public service – judges, central bankers, the Accountant-General, the Commissioner of Police, the people who head our Statutory Boards, who sit on our key Statutory Boards, the people who manage our Reserves.

Once corrupt persons get into key positions, it will be the end. It is not only the end because they take money and help themselves because we can stop that and put them in jail. It is the end because they subvert and corrupt the system and make it impossible to root out the cancer which then becomes entrenched throughout the system. The system is permanently broken.

Look at other countries. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia used to lament publicly about the problem he had with what he called the "judicial mafia". He does not mean the mafia on the streets. He means judges whom he could not trust for their integrity because they had become corrupt and had become part of the problem. If you look at other countries where the police are in cahoots with the crooks, and if you have a problem, you are not sure whether you should go to the police station or run away from the police station. Or you look at countries where those responsible for safeguarding state assets instead raid the bank. As the Malay proverb goes, "Pagar makan padi". You are the hedge but you are eating the rice which you are supposed to protect.

To prevent this, or at least to make this harder, this system needs a second key. The challenge for us is how to ensure this second key strengthens and stabilises our system of Government.

We have evolved our system of politics over the years and it has served us well. Our political and constitutional history is quite different from that of most other newly-independent countries, countries which were colonies and became independent after the war, in Asia, Africa and particularly in Southeast Asia. Most newly-independent countries start life anew, with a brand new fresh-minted Constitution. But when we became independent, we did not do that. We decided to retain and tweak our existing Constitutional arrangements that had worked for Singapore when we were part of Malaysia, and that had been working before that, when we were a self-governing state before we joined Malaysia. Mr Lee Kuan Yew felt that it was better for us to evolve our model gradually, learning from experience, rather than to strive for some unworkable perfection. Mr Lee said that his best teacher of the difference between political reality and constitutional theory was the Tunku. Once, he wrote, I think this is in his memoirs, Mr Lee was in the Tunku's office and admiring a beautiful leather-bound green-covered volume. It was the Pakistani Constitution and was presented to the Tunku by Ayub Khan, who was at one time President of Pakistan. Mr Lee admired the book and the Tunku told him, "You know, Kuan Yew, they make very good constitutions. They have many brilliant lawyers. With every leader, they have to make a new one."

When we became independent, we cobbled together the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which is what we have today. Where did it come from? Part of the provisions from Singapore's State Constitution, part of the provisions from Malaysia's Federal Constitution which we adopted and incorporated, plus amendments which we made after Separation, for example, amendments to safeguard our sovereignty and to ensure that any decision to give up our sovereignty would have to be put to a referendum of all the voters in Singapore and not decided by the Legislature.

It is "rojak". It is a messy document and such a messy document that in 1970, Mr Lee asked the British High Commissioner to get British Constitutional law experts to polish it up. And it came back polished and shiny. Mr Lee thought that the British experts had done a first-rate job. The idea was you look at the American Constitution. It has lasted 200 something years and over these 200 something years, it has only had 20 plus amendments. So, you worship it. You get it precisely right, beautiful form of words, every school child knows it and that is what is going to guide the country for the next several hundred years.

But, in the end, Mr Lee decided not to take that approach. He did not take in the brand-new versions drafted by the British experts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) because he concluded that the experts had not understood the context, nor why we had made certain basic decisions. He explained this to the House in 1984, when he moved the Constitutional Amendments to create the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme. He used Thomas Jefferson's analogy of a suit. He said, "From my experience, Constitutions have to be custom-made, tailored to suit the peculiarities of the person wearing the suit". He changes the metaphor here but I think you will forgive him this mixed metaphor. He said "Perhaps, like shoes, the older they are, the better they fit. Stretch them, soften them, resole them, repair them. They are always better than a brand new pair of shoes".

He said, "Our people have got used to and understand the present system. It takes a long time. Any fundamental change takes a long time. But most important of all, the Constitution works. Many countries have tried and gone through several Constitutions since Independence. They have not brought stability or legitimacy. I believe it is better to stretch and ease an old shoe when we know that the different shape and fit of a younger generation requires a change."

Like many of Mr Lee's speeches, this speech made in 1984 in the old Parliament House is still worth reading more than 30 years later. The Sunday Times published an excerpt. I encourage you to read it, and I urge Members to read the full version in the Hansard. Apart from talking about Singapore politics, he gave a tour of the horizon of how historically other countries – Britain, France, America – have each got their own histories and how the system evolved for them and how difficult it was.

He talked about France, and how as a young man in 1956, after attending a constitution conference in London, he took a side trip to Paris on the way home, and the taxi driver took him around, showed him the sights and brought him to the National Assembly. This was 1956, it was a democracy and the politicians could not agree. The taxi driver pointed at the National Assembly and said to him, "wala, wala, wala" [the hon Member pointed a finger to his head and made circles with his finger], and he said that was an education for a young politician to the reality of politics.

Unfortunately, Hansard did not quite catch the nuance of this expression and the Hansard, I just recently noticed, transcribed it as "voilà" three times, and as a result of which, it makes no sense. You will therefore not find this in The Sunday Times because The Sunday Times could not make sense of it and edited it out. But it is a most vivid example of how things can go wrong in politics. It was a highly civilised nation, but the system did not work. In the end, General de Gaulle had to come back out of retirement and changed the rules. He took very stern measures and created the Fifth Republic. But even de Gaulle must die and till today, the French, they also, like other countries, have political problems. Today, in the newspapers, if you read The Straits Times, Paris is in upheaval, because there are strikes. Who is on strike? Taxi drivers, air traffic controllers and for good measure, civil servants are on strike.

I think we have to understand the difference between the theory and the practice, and what looks good on paper and what we need really, truly in real life to do. This is not "masak-masak".

The approach which we have taken has been to evolve our political system as we go along. Mr Lee did this and we continue to do this. Learning from experience, stretching and easing the old shoe, and adapting it to our needs and dealing with problems as new problems emerge, as we understand the difficulties and weaknesses. For example, we inherited the first-past-the-post parliamentary system, modelled on the British House of Commons in Westminster. We have kept the first-past-the-post system. That is why here we sit opposite one another – the Government and, in principle, the Opposition on the other side. We do not sit in a semi-circle, the way the Americans sit in a semi-circle, or the way the European legislatures sit in a semi-circle. It is a parliamentary system, first-past-the-post. You are in opposition to each other. We kept that system but subsequently, we introduced new institutions – Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament, Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) and the institution of an Elected President. Each institution with a purpose, each one in line with our principles. Let me say something about them.

The first-past-the-post parliamentary system tends to produce clear election outcomes. You either win decisively or lose decisively, and especially in Singapore where every constituency is more or less the same composition and the same mood as every other constituency, all the more you tend to have a national swing and it goes across the board and so you end up with a clear majority in the House.

After Independence, after Separation, the Barisan Sosialis Opposition walked out of Parliament in 1965. From then, Parliament was composed entirely of PAP Members. In the next four General Elections, the PAP won all the seats and as well as all the by-elections in between, the PAP won all of them. This enabled the Government to govern decisively and effectively in the vital first years of our nationhood. It lasted from 1965 until 1981 when the first Opposition Member, J B Jeyaretnam, was elected to Parliament. It had been, by then, 16 years since Separation. A new generation of voters was coming of age. A new team of Members of Parliament and Ministers was preparing to take over. Mr Lee and his senior colleagues watched what happened in the House after Mr Jeyaretnam came in. After some time, they concluded, to their surprise, that despite all the to-ing and fro-ing and unpleasantness, it was good for the Government and good for the Singapore system that we have Opposition voices in Parliament because the Opposition could express opposing views, could question and criticise the Government and could make Ministers justify their actions. The Opposition provided Mr Lee and his team the "foil" or a backdrop against which they could set out their ideas more clearly, in contrast to what was being presented on the other side. Right against wrong, good ideas against better ones. Through the debate in Parliament, helped Mr Lee and his team get their message across and aid public understanding.

So, Mr Lee proposed the NCMP scheme in 1984. The NCMP scheme made sure that whatever the election outcome, there would always be a certain minimum number at least, of Opposition Members in Parliament. At first, this minimum was three Opposition Members – either elected or not elected NCMPs, or some combination. Over time, we gradually increased it and we have brought it now to nine.

The design of the NCMP scheme is unique but the concept of a parliament with members who have been elected in different ways is not at all unusual. Many countries do that. Look at New Zealand, look at Taiwan. They have Mixed Member Proportional Representation systems.

Some Members are elected from constituencies; others are chosen from party lists – in other words, the proportional representation system. How many you take off the party lists depends on the proportion of the total vote that your party got.

One reason that New Zealanders do this is because they want to ensure that there is Maori representation in parliament. Such a system, where you top up beyond what the first-past-the-post system gives you, will help to moderate the extreme outcomes of a first-past-the-post system. And that is why we did the NCMP system.

We did not do the proportional representation way because we felt that it would be bad for Singapore. It would result in political parties that are based on race or religion. It would encourage political leaders to champion the demands of their particular segment against the broader interests of Singapore. It would divide us, rather than bring us together, because to win in a proportional representation system, you have got to have your base. What is your base? It can be Christians, it can be Buddhists, it can be Muslims, it can be Indians. It can be a special interest group, maybe on gender issues. What is your interest? Your interest will consolidate that base, take a hard position, demand as much as you can for your group. Then, you increase the percentage. You do not have to win seats, you just get a higher percentage, and you will get seats in Parliament. You do not have to win constituencies. I think if you do that, you end up split, polarised and severely weakened.

Instead, we created the NCMP scheme. NCMPs are Opposition candidates who had the best results but did not quite win their seats. In fact, some NCMPs have higher percentage, if you look at it on a personal basis, than other people, Members elected in GRCs. If you just count their chunk of the GRC and how many votes they got and the percentage, the NCMP may have got more than the person from a GRC. But the point is, he did well, he is one of the best losers and they come in, ensuring that Opposition voices are always represented in Parliament.

They have at least as much right to be in Parliament as Members who are elected on a party list under a proportional representation system. In fact, arguably more, because on a party list under a proportional representation, no voter specifically chose you. Your party boss puts you on the list in position number two or three or 20 and there is a cut-off, and you happen to make the cut.

Here, to be an NCMP, the voters in a constituency in which you contested have to have a sufficiently high regard of you to give you one of the highest votes amongst all losing candidates before you can come in. So, you have got people who are really, truly, personally voting for you. I think that gives legitimacy as well as objectivity to the system. It depends on electoral contest and not just on the say-so of the party they belong to or the party bosses of the party they belong to.

We introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984. In 1990, we introduced the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme to bring into Parliament diverse voices from civil society. So, now if you take elected Opposition Members, NCMPs plus NMPs, altogether about 20% of Members in the House will, at all times, not be Government Members. So, there is diversity, there is debate, and I think there is value.

The NCMP scheme is a good one which has achieved its purpose. In the last 30 years, other than the very first time in 1984 when there were special circumstances, Opposition parties have always taken up the NCMP seats offered to them. For example, Ms Sylvia Lim was first elected as an NCMP in 2006 and she acquitted herself in Parliament, impressed voters and became a Member of Parliament elected in Aljunied GRC in 2011.

In the last term, we had three NCMPs: Mrs Lina Chiam, Mr Yee Jenn Jong and Mr Gerald Giam. They all took up their seats and participated actively in Parliamentary debates. This term, the WP's NCMPs have also taken up their seats. We have Mr Leon Perera, we have Mr Dennis Tan – they made their maiden speeches this week – except for Ms Lee Li Lian who has said that she will not take up her NCMP seat. She is not taking it up not out of any objections of principle but to give it to another WP candidate. Whether that is in the spirit of the scheme, we can debate but we will wait for the Motion which I believe Mr Low will move to discuss the matter further.

The Opposition, of course, would like to have it both ways – take up NCMP seats when they win them, but also protest that an NCMP is a second-class Member of Parliament, in order to persuade voters to cast their votes for them and make them constituency Members of Parliament. In fact, in reality, NCMPs have exactly the same opportunities to question, speak and debate in Parliament that constituency Members have. They can file Parliamentary Questions (PQs), move Motions, speak in all debates, and they can show voters – past and future – what they can do.

There is just one distinction between an NCMP and a constituency Member today. Unlike constituency Members, NCMPs are restricted in what they can vote on in Parliament. There are a few matters which they cannot vote on: constitutional changes, supply bills, money bills, votes of no confidence, and also removing a President from office.

This was how the scheme was designed by Mr Lee Kuan Yew back in 1984, and he had his reasons which he explained in an exchange, because Mr Jeyaretnam was in Parliament and challenged him on this. I suppose this is an example of how Mr Jeyaretnam as the Opposition played a constructive role. Mr Lee was particularly concerned with one scenario: a split in the ruling party leading to a motion of no confidence in the House. He felt that in such a situation, NCMPs should not have a say in determining the Government.

There is a context to this. In 1984, Mr Lee would still have fresh in his mind, the memory of what had happened in 1961, when the extreme left-wing split off from the PAP and formed the Barisan Sosialis, and the PAP hung on in the Legislative Assembly with a one-seat majority. And then one Member of Parliament died and it was levelled – no seat majority. I think Mr Lee must also have been conscious that even in 1984, within the PAP, there was opposition to the pace of leadership renewal, which could have led to a leadership challenge.

The amendments were moved around August 1984. The general election was upcoming and took place in December 1984. It was a crucial General Election because many of the third-generation leaders entered politics in that election – Wong Kan Seng, Yeo Cheow Tong, Mah Bow Tan, Abdullah Tarmugi and myself. There were very strong different views within the PAP on whether this was going too fast, and it was not to be ruled out that there could have been a challenge. Mr Lee felt, in that situation, NCMPs should not have a say.

But after 30 years, in a different phase of our political development, we should re-examine this. I am not saying that we can now rule out the possibility of leadership challenge within the ruling party. We can never rule that out. I have a cohesive team but as Mr Lee said, "It is a real distinct possibility because strong men have strong views and they can collide."

In other countries, it happens regularly. In Australia, in the UK, it is marvellous theatre! Suddenly, you hear news there is going to be a spill. The Australians call it a "spill". A "spill" means somebody has mounted a challenge. The leader then has to call his members in Parliament together to vote. It happens within 24 hours. Ministers take positions, Members of Parliament take positions, furious to-ing and fro-ing. Next thing you know, there is a new Prime Minister, and I am writing a new letter of congratulations. It has happened three or four times within the last five years in Australia. And in Britain, leadership challenges are also dramatic events. Mrs Thatcher was challenged and deposed. Mr Tony Blair left because he knew if he did not leave, somebody would challenge him, and he would be pushed out. So, we cannot rule out it happening in Singapore.

But if we accept that NCMPs have as much of a mandate from voters to be in the House as constituency Members of Parliament and more mandate in the House than party list Members of Parliament would in a proportional representation system, then, even in the case of a vote of no confidence and the other restricted matters which NCMPs are presently not allowed to vote on, I think we can make a case and I will make the case that they should not only be allowed to speak, but to vote.

Therefore, I intend to amend the Constitution during this term to give NCMPs the same voting rights as constituency Members of Parliament. NCMPs should therefore be able to vote even in the case of confidence motions, and all the other presently restricted matters. They will be equal in powers, although not in responsibility and scope, to constituency Members of Parliament because they are non-constituency and they do not have specific voters to look after. But there is no reason at all to perceive NCMPs as second-class.

I will also increase the minimum number of Opposition Members of Parliament, including NCMPs, in this House, from the next General Election. I will increase the number from nine to 12. Given that in any election, at least 30% of voters will vote against the Government, ensuring a minimum of 12 Opposition Members of Parliament in the House of about 100 Members, I feel it is reasonable.

The Opposition often claims that they are unable to put up a stronger showing in Parliament because they have too few Members of Parliament. I think this is an excuse because the Opposition's impact depends on the quality of Opposition Members of Parliament and arguments, far more than on their number. But having more NCMPs will give the Opposition more opportunity to show what they can do. And if, in fact, the NCMPs are capable and effective, the exposure will win them recognition and help them win a constituency the next time.

We will also continue with the NMP scheme. So, together with the NCMPs, 12 plus 9, we will now have at least 21 non-ruling Members of Parliament in the House.

In making these changes, I am by no means presuming that the Government will always have a strong majority in the House, although this has been the case for the last 50 years. Nor do I assume that the PAP will always form the Government. That will depend on the performance of the PAP and the verdict of Singapore voters. But regardless of election outcomes, the NCMP scheme ensures a stronger Opposition presence in Parliament, so that if the Government wins overwhelming, nationwide support, it will still have to argue for and defend its policies robustly.

In effect we will be aiding the Opposition, giving their best losers more exposure, very possibly building them up for the next General Election. But I believe that in this phase of our political development, this is good for the Government and good for Singapore. No ruling party or Government should ever be afraid of open argument. The PAP never has been and ultimately, Singapore will benefit from a contest of ideas in the House.

Next, let me talk about Group Representation Constituency (GRCs). We introduced the GRC scheme in 1988 to ensure that we will always have a minimum number of minority race Members in Parliament. This would also encourage all political parties to pursue multiracial politics rather than sectarian politics. Unlike a proportional representation system, which would also have led to minority Members in Parliament, but via racial political parties. With the GRC system, parties and Members of Parliament have to give weight to the interests of minorities. The GRCs have pushed parties to become more multiracial in their approach.

Opposition parties know that they have to win support from the minorities and that they have to field credible Malay and Indian candidates in their teams. They make quite a big effort to go and do that. It puts pressure on us in the PAP, but I think it is the right system. The Opposition parties have to make that effort in order to put up a credible team. They also know that if they play racial politics during elections, then whatever votes they may win from one group will be at the expense of votes which they will lose from the other groups, because in the multiracial team, with a multiracial electorate, you have always to strike that balance and internalise that balance within your team and amongst your voters.

Of course, this has not stopped candidates from being naughty from time to time. In the 1997 General Election, you will remember Tang Liang Hong in Cheng San GRC. He made provocative, chauvinist speeches to appeal to the Chinese majority vote – outrageous statements, but powerful. The PAP exposed him, and the minorities swung solidly against Tang Liang Hong and his WP teammates. They lost.

In the last elections, some Opposition candidates tried the opposite; tried to exploit Islam to collect Malay votes. Some ostentatiously performed prayers in public before election rallies and posted photos of themselves doing so on the social media. But beyond a point, they would have hurt their non-Malay fellow candidates in the GRC teams, and it would have cost them non-Malay votes. In the end, their tactic failed and their teams lost. So, GRCs have kept our politics multiracial.

The GRC scheme also has one bonus, which I think is important and that is, it works together with our system of Town Councils. The constituency Members of Parliament have to run the Town Council. They have to manage Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) collections. They have to receive, spend and account for Government subsidies. They have to maintain the estates to a proper standard. They have to administer rules and fines, and look after substantial sinking funds.

This makes sure that any party which aspires to form the Government of Singapore, first has a chance to demonstrate in a Town Council what it can or cannot do. And if it can do, that is a base from which it can build and persuade Singaporeans. If it cannot do, it is as well that Singaporeans know this early and everybody is under no illusions.

The GRC system is a good one, and I think we should keep it. But there is a question of balance. How many big ones should we have, versus small ones? How many GRCs should we have, versus Single Member Constituencies (SMCs)?

There are pluses and minuses both ways. A bigger GRC benefits from having an anchor Minister take care of their affairs and also benefits from having better economies of scale in running GRC-wide programmes and activities, and in running the Town Council.

But smaller GRCs create a closer connection between Members of Parliament and their residents. On the other hand, SMCs have their place in our system too, because they are not just easier to contest, but also give a Member of Parliament direct responsibility for everything that happens in his constituency.

So, we have to strike the right balance between GRCs, big and small, and between GRCs and SMCs. In the last two elections, we have created smaller GRCs and more SMCs. I think the results have been good. The next General Election is a long way off. I do not want to raise excitement prematurely but I will say now that in due course, when I appoint the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee, I will instruct it to reduce the average size of GRCs further, and to create more SMCs.

Let me talk about the institution of the Elected President. In 1990, we passed legislation to make the President an elected office, so that he could act as a stabiliser in our political system. The President would exercise custodial powers over the spending of past Reserves and key appointments in the public service – the two vital areas which I talked about earlier. He would be directly elected by the people in a national election, so as to have the mandate and moral authority to say "no" to the Government, should this become necessary.

We also created a Council of Presidential Advisors (CPA) to assist and advise the President in carrying out his duties and exercising his powers. The Elected Presidency as an institution was a major innovation, again with no precedent anywhere else. So, we spent a long time designing it. We published one White Paper. We debated it. We published a second White Paper. After extensive debate, we legislated it, operated it and have amended it over the years.

In addition to exercising custodial powers, the President would also continue to be the Head of State. He has to be above politics. He represents all Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. He is a symbol of our sovereignty and of our nation. By design, the President has no executive, policymaking role and this remains the prerogative of the elected Government commanding the majority in Parliament.

But in the last Presidential Election, many people did not understand this. I suspect even now, quite a number of people still do not understand this. Regrettably, during the last Presidential Election, those who did not understand it included some candidates. They campaigned for President as if they were going to form an alternate Government. But the President is neither the Government nor is he the Opposition. He is a custodian, a goalkeeper. The Constitution gives him power to block certain actions of the Government, in areas which are specifically carved out for him. But it does not give him the power to initiate policies or generally to champion policies.

So, it is a very delicate balance. He is elected for a specific purpose. The purpose is specified in the Constitution, and we have to operate by the Constitution, both to be complying with the law and to make sure the system works. For the system to work, both candidates and voters have to understand this. Otherwise, if you have a President who thinks that he is the Government, competing with the Government, you have two power centres in the system. At the very least, you have confusion, you could have an impasse between the two and the democratically elected Government will be undermined. As the Chinese phrase says: 天无二日,国无二君, which means that you have no two suns in the sky, you have no two governments in a country. There are one or two countries which have had two Prime Ministers simultaneously, and it was not a happy experiment.

In the last 25 years, we have accumulated experience operating the institution of an Elected President. We have improved and updated it over time. We have refined how the financial safeguards operate. The details are complex, and we could only get them more correct after operating them and getting experience operating them. We created a Constitutional Tribunal to which the President can refer Constitutional questions which arise for an opinion, especially if there is a disagreement between him and the Government.

We introduced the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) framework, a new spending rule to enable the Government to tap a stable and sustainable income from our Reserves. In the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, we exercised and put to the test the President's custodial power over Reserves. It was a worldwide crisis. We ourselves watched the indicators with great alarm. We needed to act expeditiously. We needed to make sure we threw all that we had at the problem.

The Government, therefore, sought the President's permission to use past Reserves to fund the Jobs Credit scheme and the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative. It cost $4.9 billion. We briefed the then-President, President S R Nathan. He consulted the CPA; the CPA supported him and he gave approval.

It was a critical decision, instrumental in saving jobs and enabling us to bounce back quickly from a deep recession. If we had not done that, if we did not have the mechanism, both to lock up the money for ordinary times and to unlock the money during extraordinary times, we could have not have reacted. If we had not locked it up in ordinary times, and we had just helped ourselves from time to time from it for some good purpose or other, come a crisis, you would not have had the kitty. If we had not been able to unlock the kitty in a crisis and spend it when we needed it, we would not have come through the crisis the way we did so smoothly that many people did not even realise that we had gone through a near-death experience. But the system worked.

As Mr Lee Kuan Yew would have said, this is now a shoe that we have worn for 25 years. I hesitate to call it an old shoe, but it is 25 years. We have mended and adjusted it from time to time and, generally, it has fitted well. Yet, we need to continue to review and adjust the scheme regularly to keep it functional and in good repair.

The President must remain an elected office. If the President is not elected, he will lack the mandate to wield his custodial powers. I have read various op-eds in the newspapers which say we can go back to the old system; just do away with the Elected President and have Parliament elect the President, do not have a national election.

I think the WP has sometimes espoused this view, too. I think it is most unwise. The President has a role. It is a difficult system to get right, but we have to adjust it and try and get it more right than wrong over a period of time, and not abandon the project altogether and leave ourselves naked and defenceless against all the difficulties which the Elected President enables us to avoid.

But I think it is timely for us to review specific aspects of the Elected President system, and I would like to set out three areas which merit further consideration. Before I do that, I would like to state upfront that the Government has a very good and constructive working relationship with this President, President Tony Tan. We are not proposing this review because of any dissatisfaction with the present working arrangements or any difference of views between the Government and the President. But we are doing this because any adjustments that may be necessary for the future should be made in good time, in order to give us time to think it over in a thoughtful, mature and unpressured way and in order to keep the Presidency a robust and effective institution in our political system. I have shared the Government's thinking with President Tan so he knows what I am going to say today. He has noted it and, in due course, he will formally express his views when we have more definite proposals.

What are the three things which I think we should consider? First, we should review the qualifying criteria for the Elected President. The Elected President is elected to fulfil specific constitutional duties. And to be capable and qualified in carrying out those duties, he needs to have that experience to be able to judge and to make decisions. So, there are qualifying criteria spelt out in the Constitution.

The concept was to peg it at people with senior management competence and experience, because they have to assess and decide on financial proposals which will involve billions of dollars, and they must judge and decide to approve or reject appointments of people into posts which will involve running big organisations, making decisions, investing, managing and spending billions of dollars. The person who is making those decisions must understand what those decisions are, what is involved in that job before he can decide whether a person is fit to do that job or not, and before he decides whether a spending proposal is right or wrong, justified or otherwise.

Therefore, the candidates are required, under the Constitution, to have held key appointments themselves, like Speaker, the Chief Justice, Judges, Ministers, or Permanent Secretaries. That is in the public service. Or, in the private sector, to have held Chairman or CEO posts running large and complex companies, like Singtel, or, at that time, we said, the Public Utilities Board (PUB), because PUB was one entity before we had broken it up.

The principle remains valid, but I think the details may need to be brought up to date. Just based on inflation alone, $100 million in 1990 would be equivalent to $158 million today. But it is much more than inflation, which is at issue, because over 25 years, our economy has grown, Government spending has gone up, Government Reserves have accumulated, the size and the complexity of the organisations which are subject to the second key of the President have grown many-fold.

Apart from the key appointments in the Government, the President also has a second key on organisations like the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Temasek Holdings, GIC, the Housing and Development Board (HDB), and JTC. These are big organisations and they have grown much bigger over the last 25 years. I have prepared a table which shows this. Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the table to Members?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [Copies of handout was distributed to hon Members].

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: The table shows a list of items with their values in 1990 and their values today. The first row shows the Consumer Price Index. If we take 1990 as 100, today it is 158, which is what I have told the House. If we look at our nominal GDP, in 1990, it was S$72 billion. Today, it is nearly S$400 billion.

Our Government spending, the Government Budget, has gone up from S$11 billion in 1990 to S$68 billion in 2015 − six times. CPF balances, members' money − S$41 billion to S$275 billion. MAS' Official Foreign Reserves − this is in US$ because these are foreign Reserves and we are holding them overseas − US$28 billion increased to US$248 billion.

Temasek, which is one of the companies on the Fifth Schedule protected by the President, in 1990, they were worth about S$10 billion. Today, the Net Porfolio Value is about S$266 billion.

I also put in Singtel − which is one of the jobs which you would consider comparable and suitable as experience to become the President − I do not have the figure in 1990 because they had not yet been corporatised and listed. In 1993, it was S$500 million of paid-up capital. Today, it is S$2.6 billion. If you look at their Net Tangible Assets, it has gone from S$2.5 billion to S$25 billion.

The amount and complexity have gone up. On the other hand, if you look at the qualifying criteria and how many companies qualify, that is, S$100 million paid-up capital − I do not have the 1990 number, but in 1993, it was 158. Back in 2010, it was 1,200. Today, it is 2,100-plus. More and more people, on paper, are qualified to do this job.

During the Presidential Election, there is the Presidential Elections Committee which vets candidates to make sure they are qualified, and it is chaired by the Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and in the last election, the Chairman was Mr Eddie Teo. After the last election, he sent me a report and I quote from the report, paragraph 6.1 in the conclusion:

"In the course of its work, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) noted that there were about 1,200 registered companies with a paid-up capital of $100 million or more in 2010." As I pointed out today, it is 2,100. It has gone up further. "The criterion of $100 million in paid-up capital in Article 19(g)(2)(iii) of the Constitution was set more than 20 years ago. It is therefore unclear whether or not, with inflation, the threshold continues to reflect the original intent of the requirement. The PEC noted that in the Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No 3) Bill, the examples of PUB and Telecoms…", presumably the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore, "…were cited as benchmarks against which organisations should be compared to for size and complexity. However, the smallest companies in Singapore with a paid-up capital of $100 million today would fall well short in both size and complexity. This is an issue that the Government may wish to review."

I agree with Mr Eddie Teo that we should review the qualifying criteria for candidates to be President.

The second aspect of the Presidency that we should review is examining how we can build up the Council of Presidential Advisers (CPA) further. The CPA is an integral part of the two-key mechanism. The Council assists and advises the President in exercising his powers, so that the system does not solely rely on the judgement of a single person acting alone but, rather, on a President well advised by a team of wise and experienced men and women.

As Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong once described it, together, the President and the CPA would play the role of "a goalkeeper together with a team of defenders".

Over time, as the new institutions of the President and the CPA established themselves, we should consider if the CPA's advice should come to count for more in the decisions made by the President, so as to make our governance system more stable. We have to strike a delicate balance because the President must have the right to exercise his veto powers, even against the advice of the CPA. He has thought about it. He believes that he should say "no". He should have the right to say "no".

But a veto which is supported by the CPA should carry more weight than a veto which the CPA disagrees with. Let me say that again. Whether or not the CPA agrees that something should be vetoed, the President should have the discretion to say, "I believe it is right, I want to veto". But if the President says, "Veto", and the CPA says, "Yes, I agree", that is a heavy veto. If the CPA says, "No, let it through", and the President says, "Regardless, I want to veto", the President's view must carry weight. But the weight in this instance will be less than if the CPA had agreed with him. I think it makes sense.

In fact, some parts of the Constitution are drafted like that today. For example, decisions on supply bills or key appointments, the President has to consult the CPA. The supply bill is the bill when we vote money for the Government to spend during the year. If the CPA concurs with the President's view, the veto is final, that is the end of the matter. The Government must redo its sums or put up a new candidate.

But, if the CPA disagrees with the President, then the President can still veto but Parliament, in this case, can override his veto with a two-thirds majority. So, if the veto is unilateral, the CPA thinks it is okay, the President says "no", the Government can come back to Parliament, make the argument, explain its position and try and get a two-thirds majority to pass it through. This applies to supply bills, it applies to key appointments, but this arrangement does not apply uniformly when the President exercises custodial powers in other areas. We should study if the CPA's views should be given greater weight in more areas and, if so, how this can be done.

The third aspect we should examine of the Elected President is how we can ensure that minorities will have a chance to be elected to the office of President. The President is the Head of State, he represents all Singaporeans in our multiracial society. I think it is important that minorities have a chance to be elected President, and that this happens regularly.

Since we introduced the Elected President system and brought it into effect in 1991, we have not had a Malay President. From 1999, we had an Indian President, Mr S R Nathan, who served for two terms with distinction. Mr Nathan was elected unopposed both times. But in future, when Presidential Elections are more likely to be contested, and even hotly contested, I believe it will become much harder for a minority President to get elected.

It is the same problem with Parliamentary Elections which led us to create GRCs to ensure a minimum representation of minority race Members in Parliament. I think we should consider a similar mechanism for Presidential Elections to ensure that minorities can be periodically elected if we have not had a particular minority as President for some time.

These are three broad areas to look into: (a) to bring the eligibility criteria up to date; (b) to strengthen the CPA; and (c) to ensure minority Presidents periodically.

I will appoint a Constitutional Commission to study these issues and make recommendations. It will be chaired by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and include distinguished jurists, academics and corporate executives. The Commission will look into each of these issues, take views from the public and, in due course, it will recommend how we can improve the system – I hope by the third quarter of this year. And then, depending on the Commission's recommendations and the Government's response to them, we will follow up to table any legislation which may be necessary within this year.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has had a good 50 years because we have had good policies and good politics, and because the Government has never shied away from doing the right thing and putting issues squarely to the people, persuading the people to come along and do things that ultimately benefited them and benefited Singapore.

Despite unpromising conditions at Separation, we have developed a political system that has worked well for us and we have evolved it carefully along the way to suit our changing needs and circumstances, in the light of our growing experience. But our responsibility is not only to keep our political system working today, but to make sure that it works for the longer term. Nobody can predict the future or tell how our needs will change. If our system is to serve future generations well, then it is our responsibility to keep it up to date – regularly recalibrated, adjusted and improved, while preserving the principles that it was built upon.

At the beginning of this term after SG50, I am raising this issue now because my aim is to strengthen the system to make it more open and contestable, to keep it accountable to the people, to go into the next 50 years with the best chance of making a success of Singapore. We have to have a system where all the political parties, and especially the PAP, have to fight hard, stay lean and responsive to the people, and win the right to govern afresh at each election. A system where Parliament will always be the place to debate and decide important policies, where alternative views always have a place, the Opposition will never be shut out, and the Government will be held to account, so that the Government of the day – whoever that may be – is always kept on its toes.

We must not assume that future governments, whether it is PAP or a different party forming the Government, will never falter. In fact, it is not possible for any political system to guarantee a country political stability and prosperity forever. But we can make such a happy outcome more likely if we design our system carefully and correctly around the core principles: ensure high-quality Government; keep our politics open and contestable; maintain accountability for the Government; uphold a multiracial society; and institute suitable stabilisers and checks-and-balances in the system.

In 50 years' time − SG100 − I think many of us will not be around. We do not know what Singapore will be like or whether the PAP will still be in Government. But whatever the shape of Singapore 50 years from now, today, we can and must help Singapore build a political system that will give us the best shot at prosperity and progress over the next 50 years. A system that is not set in stone, a system that is not fixed and unchangeable, but one that future generations can continue to improve and adapt in order to meet their future needs. That way, future Governments can work with future citizens of Singapore to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our people. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]

5.40 pm

The Minister of State for Communications and Information and Education (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join this Debate. I would like to tell you about the events I experienced one Saturday in July 2015, six months ago.

I was at the Padang as I had the privilege to be the reserve commander for the PCF Marching Contingent of the National Day Parade (NDP). On that particular day, Ms Ellen Lee, the contingent commander, was on the parade square. The parade had already started. It was one of our dress rehearsals and I was at the reserve form-up point with the other reserve commanders. The reserve form-up point was at the entrance to a tunnel through the stands. Above us were the seats with thousands of Singaporeans. Behind us were rows of portable toilets. Around me were the medical teams, stretcher bearers, and other members from the community contingent – what was called by one observer – the "Aunty-Uncle" contingent. A little bit further behind was a group of warrant officers, the Enciks who had trained the various groups out marching on parade. They were relaxed. This was something they had done many times before. Many of us were engrossed with our mobile phones.

Just in front of me, to my left, were three young men – soldiers, also on reserve duty, ready to go out on the parade square, if needed. Their uniforms were white and starched, their boots shined to a mirror finish – the brass all buffed and polished. I was reminded of my three sons, especially as those three in front of me were engaged in a very familiar mix of bravado, aggression and camaraderie that seems to strike any group of young men when they are away from the influence of their mothers, girlfriends and wives. They were joking and poking, pushing and shoving and enjoying each other's company.

Then, the music started. The first few bars of "Majulah Singapura", we all turned to face the flag that we could not see. Ahead and above, and around us were the stands full of people who could not see us. We began to sing. We began to sing as we had done many times before.

But something was different on that afternoon. Maybe it was the excitement of the dress rehearsal, or maybe it was just the sense of whimsy or foolishness on the part of one of those soldiers, but these three young soldiers on my left started to sing as loud as they could, pouring all their energy – not shouting – but putting every ounce of effort into singing, using every fibre of their being. You could hear all the passion and pride that they could muster. Maybe they were egging each other on. Maybe they thought they would try and drown out the thousands of spectators that they could not see. Whatever the reason, the aunties and uncles around me – I will include myself in that – would not be left behind. We also raised our voices louder and louder and louder. Although I could not turn around to check, in my mind's eye, the Enciks behind us were also singing louder, louder and louder. If you have ever sung in a choir, there is a special feel in the air when everyone gets it right, and the timing is just perfect with everybody in step.

It is the same feeling you get if you are rowing a boat, paddling for a dragon boat and, suddenly, all strokes fall into perfect time and the boat surges forward. The choir lifts their voices a little bit more, not because of any effort, but because everybody had fallen into step perfectly. The moment does not last long, but it feels special, almost magical. So, louder and louder we sang, until it was a roar – a roar full of pride and full of passion, unseen and, perhaps, unheard.

When the last notes faded away, we all fell silent. We looked around, smiled, acknowledged with the combination of joy and awkwardness that you get when you share a public experience with strangers. But we all agreed that we had felt something special that afternoon.

When I left the Padang later that evening, I had an extra spring in my step and a song in my heart. I was rushing back to my constituency to join the Punggol-Damai Residents' Committee for an SG50 celebration. They had worked very hard for many weeks, decorating their estate, building a little kampong, putting up flags everywhere, some big, some small. It was a great event, a huge event, with several hundred families having a great time.

As the night came to an end, we were in the multi-purpose hall in the HDB estate singing. I found myself standing on the floor in front of the stage. It was the last event, and the stage was filled with kids. The last song, of course, was going to be "Majulah Singapura". So, as the Committee was getting ready to play the music, I turned around and found a small boy, just on the stage behind me, with his head just behind my ear.

I said, "We're going to sing Majulah Singapura. Are you going to sing?" I asked him.

He said, "Yes, uncle! Yes, uncle."

"Do you know the words?" I said.

"Yes, yes, uncle, I know all the words!" he replied, full of excitement and energy.

We began to sing. He did not know the words, not at all. You could vaguely make out the tune, but that was about it. Even worse, he did not know the timing. So, as the first verse finished with "Berjaya Singapura", there is that pause into the short silence between the verses, you could hear this young voice with all his energy and gusto trying to sing, and trying loudly to sing but you could not really hear the words he was singing – completely out of time. And his parents from the front row of the seats facing me, they began to have a worried look on their faces, looking like they wanted to do something or fix something. I smiled at them and shrugged, it was okay, he was trying his best, he was doing his best, and everything was okay, a little child trying his best to sing our Majulah Singapura. We all smiled, we all sang and throughout this song, we heard his little voice trying harder and harder to get it right. Maybe he thought that if he sang a little bit louder, all the Aunties and Uncles would follow him. We also sang louder and louder. When we finished, we all laughed, we high-fived, we hugged.

On my way back home, I was thinking about the two versions of the song: one in perfect time, synchronicity; one completely out of time, chaotic. But all sung with passion and pride, celebrating our National Day.

I have told the story many times, to family, to friends, to my students, to my residents. And after a while, I began to think about how people would respond to the story, how they were responding to my story, as I watched them. Their expressions, their emotions, what they said and, in particular, I wondered about what questions might be asked when someone heard my story.

And there was one question that occurred to me. One particular question that would be very natural in many parts of the world, if you heard the story. Maybe it would have been natural to ask this question 50 years ago in Singapore, maybe 10 years ago, maybe five years ago. I began to look out for the story, telling the story deliberately waiting to see if someone was going to ask me, watching and waiting. I was never asked this question.

In the Singapore of today, and in the six months I have been telling the story and boring my grassroots leaders with it, I have never even once been asked about the race of these boys – the soldiers and the little boy. I have never been asked what race they were.

What does that say about the Singapore of today, that when I tell a story like this, it does not occur to anyone to ask, because it does not change the story – the story is about Singapore and Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion.

We have a unity of purpose to build the Singapore we imagine. Our country is not a utopia and I am under no illusions about the reality of race relations in our society. I am under no illusions. There are difficulties, there are frictions, there are tensions and there are troubles. There remains much work to be done, but we all recognise the need to do the work together. We all want the same thing and we will deal with the problems together.

This started as a simple but important story about our National Anthem, but by highlighting a question that was not asked, everything has changed. The words left unspoken have had a profound effect. You can listen to the story, imagine these young men singing the "Majulah Singapura", imagine their pride at being part of the NDP, imagine the excitement of the little boy on the stage.

They will be alive at SG100, the soldiers will be approaching 70, maybe thinking about the next generation. The little boy will be in his 50s, maybe thinking about his second career. Between them, they will build the next 50 years of our country. They are Singaporeans. Listening, you embrace them as Singaporeans through and through. We sing the same songs, we eat the same foods, wear the same uniforms, believe in the same values that drive our country.

We, together, will stand shoulder to the shoulder, face the future and all that the unknown may bring, regardless of race, language or religion. And listening to my story, you understand this, you believe this, you embrace this. But what if one of those boys is a new citizen? What if one of them is gay or an atheist? Or maybe he is someone who takes his religion very, very seriously? Maybe he embraces a different set of political views or is very conservative?

Does the story change? Is he less Singaporean? Listening to my story, are you still convinced that he will stand beside you as a comrade and as a brother? Will you stand beside him as a fellow citizen?

What does it mean "Regardless of race, language or religion"? In those few words, six words, are captured thousands of years – race, language or religion. Thousands of years of history, hundreds of wars, conflicts of blood shed between our races, of fights between other countries and religions, places we are not a part of. In those few words are described hundreds of millions of people outside our borders with whom we share history, heritage, ties of ethnicity and culture.

We do not ignore all of this, we do not pretend it does not exist. But we look through, we look ahead and imagine a future where we have unity regardless of our history. If we can do this for race, language and religion, why not for other fault lines, other divisions amongst us?

We will always have differences among us and between us. I will not suggest we can pretend otherwise, nor should we. Often, these things that I describe are facts that determine our personality, determine our world views. We need to embrace this, we need to work through this together.

Over the next 50 years, what will be the new fault lines? How will the old divisions of race, language and religion be interpreted? And potentially, how will these basic differences be exploited by those seeking to sow strife and divide us? How we deal with fault lines of division, depends less on the Constitution or our pledge and more on our deeds, our actions and our words – words that are said, words that are held back. For sometimes, the things that are not said have a deep impact.

To create a division, to create a proverbial line in the sand, is very easy, all it takes are a few words – them and us. It is easy to separate people, all it takes are a few words and that line in the sand is drawn. Sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately. And every line in the sand is a problem, every line in the sand can become a gulf too large to cross if given enough words, enough malice. A wall is created and before, there was just space. All it takes are a few more words and then there is no going back. It becomes impossible or difficult to forget and forgive.

But every line in the sand, every potential division, is also an opportunity and a chance – a chance to reach across and offer the hand of friendship and to face another across the line and speak words of unity. Every difference amongst us is an opportunity to show the world and each other that our diversity is our strength.

Fifty years ago, our nation was founded in troubled circumstances. Events that highlighted an important principle that the founding generation took to heart, and used to write our pledge and build Singapore. The idea that in our country, there would be no second-class citizens. We would all be equal. No child in Singapore should grow up believing that they are a second-class citizen. And that will take work to ensure that we get it right now and prevent it from ever happening. There must be no second-class citizens. Whatever the future, we must hold to that idea.

After a short 50 years, we are one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world, and our racial harmony and integration are celebrated and something to be rightly proud of.

Returning to my story, it began as a warm fuzzy tale about National Day and the Anthem and some very enthusiastic boys. Then, it became an example of the extent of our racial integration. I spoke only a few more words and it became a platform for some difficult and contentious questions. But I hope we can return to that first chapter, the initial frame that with the right circumstances, with the right drive and passion, we can roar "Majulah Singapura" and that we must do so as one united people. If we are to build a Singapore with a unity of purpose, a nation that sees our diversity as strength, then it is our deeds and our words, spoken and held back that will matter most.

There is still much to be done and many challenges ahead, but we are a forward-facing purposeful people. We are a people who want unity and harmony and are prepared to put in the hard work to make this happen. We are a people who understand that our diversity is our strength. Together, and only together, we will prevail. Madam, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

5.54 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for his address at the Opening of this 13th Parliament.

The President reminded us of the need to continue our hard work and commitment in making this nation succeed – be it in safety and security, renewing our economy, nurturing a caring and magnanimous society, rejuvenating our urban landscape, or strengthening our Government-and-people relations in nation-building.

In my speech, I would like to address two related areas – that of opportunities and that of inclusivity and social cohesion.

I am deeply heartened and grateful for the opportunities available to Singaporeans, particularly through the SkillsFuture initiatives. SkillsFuture will help to prepare us for the future economy through various skills, be it re-skilling, up-skilling, second-skilling, deep-skilling and even multi-skilling.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to deliver this part of my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am pleased to see more and more of our Malays who are now becoming entrepreneurs. This shows courage – in seeking opportunities and exploring uncharted territories.

Many are also displaying the "never say die" spirit. Although faced with failures, they kept trying, and improving themselves and their skills. I hope that many amongst us will draw lessons from the experiences of these entrepreneurs, not just from their courage in becoming entrepreneurs, but also their bravery and their willingness to never give up. I would like to encourage our entrepreneurs to share their experiences and knowledge, so that, together, we can enhance the abilities and potential of our community.

Presently, there are many assistance schemes for entrepreneurs by the Government, like the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC), iSTART Accelerate and Catalyse Entrepreneurship (iSTART: ACE), and Capability Development Grant (CDG), among others.

I hope that our community can seize this opportunity to know more about these schemes, and how their businesses and companies can be strengthened through these schemes.

At the same time, the SkillsFuture initiatve – for instance, the SkillsFuture Credit and the SkillsFuture Earn and Learn – can help to improve and sharpen our skills in entrepreneurship as well as in other careers, with the aim of enhancing the income and employment opportunities for Singaporeans.

Here, I would like to urge mothers, especially homemakers, to use their SkillsFuture Credits to gain new knowledge or skills, or to deepen them. These knowledge and skills may come in useful if our homemakers would like to go back to work, or in their efforts to enhance their family income.

Further details about SkillsFuture Credit can be found in this brochure, which is being sent to every Singaporean aged 25 years and above.

At the same time, I would like to suggest that organisations like Mendaki Sense and the Singapore Muslim Women's Association (PPIS) to lead a combined effort where skills upgrading programmes and courses using SkillsFuture Credit can be planned and implemented to help mothers, especially homemakers or single mothers, gain new or deeper knowledge and skills. With this, our mothers will not feel that they are alone in their efforts to enhance their knowledge and skills.

When we empower our mothers, we will secure the future of our community through our children. The hand that rocks the cradle can change the world.

(In English): With this, Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in English.

The main focus of SkillsFuture is to help Singaporeans obtain relevant skills and experience that will prepare them for the future workforce and economy.

I laud this move to look beyond paper qualifications and consider skills, experience and abilities other than the academics. However, at the same time, I am also concerned about one specific group of Singaporeans – our university undergraduates, particularly those in general degree programmes, who may not have industry-relevant training or skills.

I would urge the MOE to look at how students in such programmes can benefit from cross-discipline attachments or internships, and opportunities for multi-skilling or second-skilling during the course of their undergraduate studies, so that they are more employable in future.

There are increasingly many opportunities to recognise and reward diverse abilities. In our education system, there are multiple pathways that our children can explore and venture forth in. This is good but it will still take time before we are able to look beyond academic achievements and paper qualifications.

Here, I echo the Acting Minister Ong Ye Kung when he cautioned against excessively viewing ourselves in numerical terms – whether in scores or ranking. I would like to add on to Acting Minister Ong's words and urge us to not simply reduce individuals to numbers but also to mere categories – you are either young, middle-aged or old; you are either a university graduate or not; you are either in the Express or Normal stream in school.

Specifically, I would urge MOE to review the way we categorise our students in schools into academic streams – Express or Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical). Since we are already allowing lateral transfers and greater flexibility for students to take subjects at different levels of intensity or difficulty based on their abilities, we should extend that to remove the labelling of students altogether, according to academic streams. My concern is that pigeon-holing students into Express or Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) streams will create and entrench the self-limiting belief in each student that they are only as good as the academic stream they are in. Yes, it will be a lot messier not to have academic streams, but neatness or expedience cannot be the reason for creating a less than optimal environment – for abilities to flourish and full potential to be achieved without imposing artificial limits.

While the Government has taken the lead in recognising different peaks of excellence, as a society, we still have some way to go in accepting, recognising and rewarding different talents. Yet, sometimes, opportunities come not so much because of abilities or prior experience, but because of inherent factors – be it age, sex, or even race.

Age, sex, or race are characteristics that we cannot quite change, but which, to a certain extent, have influence on employment opportunities or job promotion. There are older Singaporeans who are worried about being retrenched because of their age or because of competition from younger co-workers. A resident I know, Joseph, was retrenched from his job as a C-suite executive as a result of budget cuts and job restructuring in the company. However, he was convinced it was because of his age. He was 58 years old when he lost his job.

In light of a slowing economy, these concerns are very real. In addition, I have met Indian and Malay Singaporeans who have expressed their worry that a slowing economy would mean either opportunities for employment or job promotion for members of our minority races, would be even more difficult. This may simply be a perception, but the perception that is observed or heard often enough becomes entrenched as a reality.

Although I have reassured them that our Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) will not allow such race-based discrimination from happening in the workplace, their worry still exists. There is always the worry that because of how different you look, you can be denied of opportunities. It is important for us to see beyond our physical differences and see the person within.

We need to recognise that our abilities and potential come from what is in our hearts and minds, and are not determined by our physical appearance, by the colour of our skin or by what is covering our heads. I have spoken about this before, but it is important enough for me to say it again. I hope that those in positions of influence or power can show that these worries and concerns will remain unfounded.

It is necessary for us to continue our efforts to enhance social cohesion and inclusivity in our common spaces, such as in the community, at our workplaces, and particularly in our education institutions and schools. In this, I have two suggestions.

First, in teaching Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) in schools, I propose that this be changed from being taught in Mother Tongue classes to common lessons or in the form classes at the primary school level. The rationale for teaching CCE in Mother Tongue classes may be to address racial issues or values more sensitively, but I believe that after 50 years of nation-building, our society is mature enough and sensible enough to discuss sensitive issues pertaining to character or citizenship openly and honestly, starting with our children who are even more race-blind. Let us be sensible and honest enough to discuss issues of discrimination, stereotypes, perceptions and social cohesion openly with our children.

Second, I would like to once again propose that our Special Assistance Plan (SAP) schools be opened up to admit students who do not take Chinese as a Mother Tongue language but who meet the school's cut-off point for the PSLE. I would propose that as a requirement of admission, these students will have to take Chinese as a third language from Secondary 1 to Secondary 4. This will enrich the racial make-up of students in the SAP schools and create more opportunities for multi-racial interactions and learning, making it more authentic and representative of society at large. As a parent and educator, I believe that taking Chinese as a third language and exposure to the Chinese culture for more of our children will help to prepare them to venture into a big market in China and other Chinese-speaking economies for employment and entrepreneurial opportunities in future.

I am not asking for the SAP schools to be abolished. Far from it. I am asking for the SAP schools to be enhanced and for its social environment to be enriched. I am asking for MOE to pilot this in one or two SAP schools to see how it works out. If it does not, then at least we have tried. There are no sacred cows in so far as enhancing our education system to benefit as many of our children as possible.

To me, this will be a significant move towards greater inclusivity in our schools and among our children as current strategies for social cohesion in SAP schools are, at best, intermittent and simulated.

In conclusion, there are still areas of sensitivities in our society that we need to address sensibly and tactfully. But we cannot continue to just be cautious or careful about these sensitivities at the expense of not making progress. The President's address reminded us of the opportunities and potential we have ahead of us, amidst existing vulnerabilities and sensitivities. Let us work harder and together to minimise our vulnerabilities and at the same time, strengthen the social fabric that binds us as we move ahead to many more years of nation-building. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

6.07 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. I support the President's call for all Singaporeans to work together to build a better Singapore. As we progress as a sovereign country comprising Singaporeans of different races and religions, we must stay united as one people and work towards improving the quality of life for all Singaporeans and future generations of Singaporeans.

Madam, Singapore is ageing rapidly. In the next 50 years, we must focus on making Singapore a holistic, healthy and happy city. We must introduce and encourage innovative technologies allowing Singaporeans to access information easily for lifelong learning of new skills. We must provide a safe living and working environment and protect the vulnerable, especially the elderly and children in our society. We must set up informative and alert systems that will further strengthen our emergency rescue and healthcare support services. In this way we will be able to provide Singaporeans a better environment for them to grow in and live in.

Madam, I propose five steps for the Government to consider towards building a holistic, healthy and happy Singapore.

First review the planning concepts and norms for land use. Madam, I understand that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has adopted the "live, work and play" concept in the development of our concept and master plans for land use in Singapore. However, many Singaporeans still have to travel long distances from their homes to their workplaces as well as for food and leisure.

To better fulfil the needs of our people, we need to review the planning concepts and norms so that residential areas, business clusters and leisure amenities can be planned and built at suitable locations. This may entail the following transformations to our urban landscape.

First, high-density residential clusters. We need to facilitate the change of land use and increase plot ratio for residential developments at key transport hubs. This involves redeveloping and upgrading of HDB towns into large high-rise and high-density residential clusters.

Second, future economy business clusters. We need to provide more incentives for businesses to move into future economy clusters. This involves relocating existing supporting businesses and building new business clusters for future economy industries including smart city technologies, medical and pharmaceutical manufacturing or finance and professional services.

Third, leisure amenities clusters. We can locate or relocate leisure amenities near MRT stations for better accessibility. For example, building mega hawker centres, sports complexes, shopping malls, seafood centres and parks near MRT stations.

Next, enhancing "live, work and play" in Singapore. Madam, we need to enhance the quality of life for Singaporeans to live, work and play in Singapore. First, we must build quality homes; second, we must provide good connectivity for Singaporeans to travel to work conveniently; and third, there must be accessible leisure facilities for Singaporeans and their families to enjoy.

Madam, I commend HDB for building quality flats for Singaporeans. With better designs for new flats and the upgrading of older flats, HDB has provided a high-quality living environment for Singaporeans. In addition, by building neighbourhood town centres which provide a wide range of services, HDB and neighbouring private estate residents enjoy affordable products and services at great convenience.

However, as HDB towns grow, more flats are built away from the neighbourhood centres. As a result, some neighbourhood centres have become less accessible to residents, especially the elderly who live further away. This problem will be exacerbated as our residents age – travelling the distance to town centres may be challenging to these seniors.

Madam, we need to enhance the infrastructure of our HDB towns to make our neighbourhood centres more accessible. To achieve this, we need to set up a planning unit to develop infrastructure connectivity master plans for all HDB towns.

Today, our road pavements are cluttered with road signage, electrical installations, dustbins, trees with roots uplifting pavements and many other installations that impede easy access for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair-bound users. Many of these installations built many to different Government agencies. We must align these agencies in order to build wider walkways and cycling paths promoting accessibility for all users.

Madam, we can also build more high-rise residential buildings and basement car parks. This will free up more surface land areas for gardens, paths, walkways and cycling paths. It will provide more green lungs within our towns and reduce the heat island effects – that is the warming of our built environment.

In this regard, the Ministry of National Development (MND) and the HDB can explore innovative solutions to build flats above 40 storeys and replace surface and multi-storey car parks with basement car parks. We must aim to make every HDB town into a town where people can live comfortably, access town amenities easily and have leisure facilities near their homes.

Madam, as part of increasing accessibility and connectivity, we should also review our public transport, infrastructure and services. I support the Ministry of Transport’s (MOT) proposal to build the North-South Expressway and provide dedicated lanes for buses, cyclists and pedestrians. We should also consider adding capacity to our existing expressways by building two-tier expressways. The upper tier can have dedicated lanes for express buses and cars while the lower tier expressways can have dedicated lanes for motorcycles and goods vehicles. This segregation will ease the flow of traffic and may help to reduce accidents.

Madam, we should also review our existing express bus or train services and consider increasing their capacities. Better connectivity of express buses and trains from residential clusters to business districts, shopping areas or the airport will encourage more people to take public transport.

We can also introduce weekend public transport day pass at an attractive price such as $2 for multiple trips. This will encourage more people to take public transport as they spend the day out with their families on the weekends.

Third, building a sustainable built environment. Madam, Singapore is a land-scarce country. We must implement the correct policies to build a sustainable environment. Climate change and environmental pollution will have adverse effects on our people and economy. We have to prepare and protect ourselves from such changes, in particular, flooding, global warming, haze, and air pollution.

As Singapore's economy moves up the value chain, there will be more people working in indoor air-conditioned work environments, such as offices and laboratories. This will increase the demand for energy. I propose that the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) step up the Green Mark Building Scheme and provide more incentives for all buildings to go green or become zero-energy buildings.

In addition, we should further encourage the use of solar energy in powering our building utilities. I understand that HDB has piloted the use of solar energy for HDB blocks. We should maximise the solar energy potential in Singapore and install more solar panels at our roofs. This will not only reduce heat transfer into our buildings but also promote the use of "green" energy and reduce our reliance on less sustainable energy sources.

Madam, as our society becomes more affluent, there will be higher demand for more electrical appliances in our homes. Many flat owners are installing larger capacity air-conditioning systems, larger capacity refrigerators, shower heaters, and home entertainment systems, increasing the demand for energy.

To be sustainable, we need to focus on promoting Green Homes among Singaporeans. BCA can consider setting up a Green Mark for homes and provide incentives for homeowners to make their homes eco-friendly and sustainable.

Fourth, building smart city and smart towns. Madam, we should aim towards building a holistic and smart city. New technology has been introduced to make cities smarter. These include sensors, CCTV, big data analytics and dashboard management systems. We must be careful and vigilant when adopting these technologies.

We must first understand the present and future needs of our people and ensure that Singaporeans are ready to adopt and benefit from these smart city initiatives. In order to implement Smart City systems in Singapore, we must first prioritise the needs of our people and businesses. I would urge the Government to focus on three key areas to apply smart city initiatives.

First, safety and security. Over the last few years, the town councils have been working closely with our Police to install CCTV at HDB void decks and common areas to enhance safety and security. To date, over 52,000 cameras have been installed in 8,600 HDB blocks. This has enhanced crime prevention efforts significantly. I wish to commend the Police for spearheading this project and their success in using the CCTV system to solve crimes.

In view of the ever-present threat of terrorism, I urge the Government to introduce this project to more areas, especially at high human traffic locations.

Second, healthcare services. Smart city systems can provide intelligent and alert systems and facilitate data collection to further strengthen our emergency and healthcare services. Big data analytics can provide real-time monitoring of trends. The information gathered will support preventive healthcare interventions and contribute towards developing response strategies in disease outbreak management.

Third, town and facilities management services. In the areas of town and facilities management, smart technologies can provide 24/7 monitoring of the functionality of buildings or facilities and send alerts for faster response by the maintenance team. For example, the lift telemonitoring system at HDB blocks allows our lift technicians to respond within 25 minutes to rescue trapped passengers in lifts.

Many Town Councils have also installed LED lightings with sensors to control lighting and save energy. I would urge the HDB to play a more proactive role in introducing more smart city applications in HDB towns.

Fourth, building future vertical cities. Madam, 25 years ago, I visited a building research centre of a Japanese construction firm in Japan. I was indeed very impressed by the innovations and futuristic thinking of the Japanese researchers. They were already exploring construction techniques and materials to build vertical cities then.

These vertical cities consist of skyscrapers towering 1,000 metres or 300 storeys. They house residential, commercial, office and recreational facilities within the same building, enabling users to live, work and play with convenience.

With limited land for development in Singapore, we should start to consider building a vertical city which will allow Singaporeans to live their lives with greatest enjoyment. Together, we can build a great future for Singapore and Singaporeans.

6.21 pm

Mr David Ong (Bukit Batok): Mdm Speaker, the President calls on us to write the next chapter of the Singapore story together. I fully support this call. As we are all aware, all grand narratives may include elements of hyperbole, and parts may require further interpretation. In the telling, we allow ourselves some artistic licence. Members who have spoken before me have painted vivid pictures of how we need to evolve, with "faster legs" and hearts of lions.

Even as we do so, we need to be careful of the myths that have been perpetuated as part of our national narrative. We need to look at the margins of this story, and see those who have not been included in our story so far.

Recently, I came across an academic paper and the title interests me – as a politician. The paper was called "Stupid Public Policies and Political Myths". The writer, David Shultz, a professor at an American university, claimed that such political myths often appear to "capture the imagination of political elites."

By "stupid public policies", he means policies that are repeatedly proposed, and which do not work, and which have been proven by social science research not to work. "Political myths", he said, are ideas which "seem to circulate everywhere, often repeated or held up as true," even though there is no hard evidence to support them.

One "stupid policy" he cited was the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which held the provision allowing states to deny higher benefits to recent migrants to their state. This was based on the idea that welfare recipients migrate to the state simply to seek higher benefits. In Minnesota, which is a high-benefit state, officials have claimed that "busloads of individuals in Chicago would travel monthly to their state, which is about 800 kilometres away, to collect their welfare checks, only to return for the duration of the month."

This picture appears probable. But the reality, however, is quite different. Research found that few recipients moved between states, and when they did do so, it was not a result of benefit levels. Poor people move, of course, but it is largely for the same reasons as rich people. They move for job opportunities, family reasons, or a fresh start in life.

The writer said: "Much of the myth of welfare migration is premised upon several questionable assumptions. First, it assumes that the poor are rational calculators who make cost/benefit lifestyle decisions. Second, it assumes they have knowledge about different welfare benefit levels. Third, the benefit differences are enough to outweigh the costs of travel." He lists other assumptions which are questionable. Overall, the reality of migration is that it is the more affluent who move and who are mobile.

Wrong assumptions are easy mistakes to make – it is wrong to assume that people would make socially deviant decisions once welfare benefits are made available to them.

These may be the same assumptions that may lead a policy of differential benefits for single mothers. For example, we could assume that single mothers are rational calculators who will compute the cost and benefits of a divorce. Calculations that, say, just because they are eligible for the Jubilee Marriage and Parenthood Package, these women will stay married. Second, some may assume that the single mothers have knowledge about these differences in welfare levels. And third, some may assume that the benefit differentials are enough to outweigh their desire to separate from their abusive husbands, husbands to-be, or to reconcile irreconcilable differences.

If we treat single mothers differently from divorced, widowed or married mothers, such a policy might be premised on the basis that the above assumptions were true. But social spending need not increase deviant behaviour. And we could, and should, treat single mothers as mothers, rather than singles.

If our assumptions are false, I call on the Minister to consider making available to all mothers the same benefit across the board. Unwed mothers have half the maternity leave entitlements, do not get perks such as the Baby Bonus cash gift and the Parenthood Tax Rebates. They cannot have access to BTO flats or the ASSIST housing scheme and must also wait until they are 35 years old to buy a flat under the singles scheme. They are currently marginalised under our schemes, and more could be done to assist them in their time of need, especially if there are little or no grounds to differentiate them from other mothers.

Madam, I would like to touch on our older workers. Our older workers are often perceived to be less productive, set in their ways, less healthy and cost more. Thus, we make them cheaper so that they can be more employable.

Senior workers who put in the same amount of effort and time at work as everyone else, generating similar output, but receive less in their employer's CPF contributions or have their benefits and wages reduced at the point of re-employment. Why should older workers be discriminated in terms of their age, and see them more as a cost and liability, instead of seeing them as assets with experience and loyalty?

We should do more to change the mindsets of employers and colleagues, and to enable and motivate companies to restructure their workplace to enhance the productivity of our senior workers. We can do more to entrench a fair and just re-employment framework, continue to narrow the gap of their employer's CPF contribution so as to enable them to embrace a productive and fulfilling ageing.

Another assumption relevant to our Singapore society is that if you supply the option for 18-year-olds to devote themselves to sports, and to defer their National Service, there will be a floodgate of higher physical adult young men clamouring for this privilege.

This assumption ignores the fact that these are young men who are willing to spend many hours a day training in their sports, enduring injuries and pain, and with that special talent, the necessary financial and mental resources to enable them to do this throughout their growing up years.

Madam, when I first raised a Parliamentary Question on this issue of deferment of National Service (NS) for male athletes in 2013, the Minister for Defence replied that deferment may be granted in exceptional circumstance to sportsmen who are assessed to be potential medal winners and bring national pride for our country. Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, the SNOC's President, has said he would wish to "push the boundaries" with MINDEF to see how they can collectively take a step towards including more promising athletes into the band for consideration.

How can we help spur more promising and deserving athletes to reach their full potential, to be considered? Right now, only two young men have obtained deferment – Joseph Schooling, at 21 this year, and probably in good stead for another two more Olympics; and Quah Ting Wen, at 19, is another.

We need to cast a wider net to find promising individuals and team sportsmen who can potentially win medals for Singapore, not just at the Olympics, but also the Asian Games. Can we have an NS Scheme for our elite sportsmen that allows these elite athletes in their prime to bring glory to Singapore on the world stage and serve their NS obligations later?

Mdm Speaker, thus far, I have spoken about exceptions. Whether you are termed as a single unwed mother or an Olympian athlete, you are exceptional to the policymaker because you do not fit policy rules.

Here is a third class of exceptions. Since I have been a Member, I have had a resident who has come to see me every week during my Meet-the-People Session. She is in her 40s and divorced. She looks perfectly well, but her family left her, she cannot hold a job, she cannot take care of herself, and yet, she has no one else.

She insists on seeing me first, even though there is a queue of people in front of her. When she does not get her way, she will throw a tantrum. Neighbours have problems with her too, contributing to both her and her neighbours' woes.

Madam, she has mental difficulties and I want to help her. As a fellow Singaporean, she deserves a place at the table too. Mental health as defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) refers to "a state of well-being" and "not just the absence of mental disorder".

It was previously estimated by WHO that about 450 million people have a mental problem. Madam, I will speak more about this during the Budget debate, but for now, I would like to focus on what the President has said of "fostering a caring society that is sustainable over the long term." Welfare spending will have to be judicious; it cannot be a blank cheque, nor a dishonoured one. But building a society for all is not the job of the Government – it is yours, and mine.

The President said, "Ours should be a society where the bonds of kinship run deep and people look out for one another. A society where we extend our concern for immediate families and friends to the broader community. A society consisting of generous hearts that treat one another with warmth and dignity." These are not matters of policy or of budget. These are moral choices we make as individuals. This is a choice especially true for the mentally ill. There are a few things we can and should do.

First, the mental health stigma remains strong in Singapore. We need to address this with more mental health awareness and understanding to build an emotionally resilient and supportive society. There is a need for increased resource allocation to continue the development of services and infrastructure to ensure that we have sufficient capacity and capability to cater to the increasing mental health needs in Singapore. This would also include better understanding the mental health needs of vulnerable populations as well, for those with disabilities, persons from disadvantaged backgrounds, and catering adequately for their unique needs.

Last, in terms of human resource, there needs to be a commitment to ensure there are sufficient psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who cater to persons with mental health problems.

Mdm Speaker, I am sure that there are other Members of Parliament on both sides of this House who have experienced what I have with regards to residents who are mentally ill. We want to help but a long-term sustained solution is needed, and if I may add, a professional one.

I am not a counsellor, and I do not know what a medical condition requires. For this particular resident of mine, I give her patience and a listening ear, keep working with the volunteer welfare organisation (VWO), the police and her neighbours. And over four years of trial and error, I have figured out a way to keep her steady – for another week. But Mdm Speaker, her life cannot be lived band-aided from week to week.

Mdm Speaker, I started my speech by pointing out that "stupid policies" are not the domain of any one particular country. The Singapore Story is one of continuous experimentation, to test what works and to look at data without an ideological lens. This is our national signature. The Singapore Story at its birth was one of uncertainty and grim determination, of tight belts and hungry bellies. Today, we write the Singapore Story from what appears to be a position of strength.

But we are a chain of people, as strong as the weakest among us. Even as we develop "faster legs and wiser minds", we are as weak as our fastest runner, as strong as the single mother, the mentally-ill.

Whether rich or poor, Singapore is strong only if we stand together, strong only when no one stands at the margins, when we leave no one behind. This is our new Singapore Story, one which all of us must be proud to write. Mdm Speaker, I support the motion.