Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [31 August 2020].

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

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan]

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sharael Taha.

1.01 pm

Mr Sharael Taha (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am privileged in my maiden speech to rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to Mdm President for her Address to this Parliament. Before I begin, I would like to mention that I am not part of the National Trade and Unions Congress (NTUC), but in support of the Labour Movement, I would like to thank our Labour Movement for all the efforts that it has done for the Self-employed Person Income Relief Scheme (SIRS). While there were some questions raised on SIRS yesterday, including conducting interviews for families to approve applications, I would like to remind everyone that in the past few months, the Labour Movement, in supporting Singaporeans through this crisis, assisted in processing 180,000 applications. Successful self-employed persons (SEPs) received up to $9,000 to tide their families through this challenging time.

I had the pleasure to work with some of the NTUC staff as they did their outreach, delivering over 30 to 40 Zoom sessions with different groups in different languages, and I saw their dedication in trying to process as many applications as they could, even till the wee hours of the morning, sacrificing their own family time. They tried their best to help the applicants get the support that they needed, from taxi drivers, wedding photographers, property agents, tuition teachers to asatizahs and many others.

These, together with many other fantastic activities that fellow Singaporeans have done – such as SG BukaPuasa who delivered 20,000 meals daily to needy families during the Ramadan month at the height of the circuit breaker and Engineering Good who provided refurbished laptops to kids from disadvantaged families – are just some examples of the Singaporean spirit. The spirit of togetherness that will get us through this difficult time.

This Parliament sits during our worst recession since Independence and in a world that is increasingly divided. Conditions that made us thrive – globalisation and stable, collaborative international order – has made way to a fragmented world with countries and economies closing, and tension between the major powers.

To quote Mdm President, “We must stand united. We must speak with one heart. We must move in one direction.” Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to thank Mdm President for setting the tone for us to navigate through this unprecedented storm. Only by staying united and working together can we emerge from this stronger.

I will touch on two key areas. Firstly, our ability to work effectively together to transform the economy will determine how we come out from this storm. Secondly, as we sail through these stormy seas, we must not leave anyone behind. Our transformation must be inclusive. Digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and COVID-19 have changed the world we live in. The way we work, interact and do business is now different and there is no turning back.

Some sectors such as aviation, aerospace, marine and offshore are gravely threatened. Having worked in these sectors, I am in support of the Ministry of Trade and Industry’s (MTI) efforts to continue to preserve the core capabilities which we have built over these years. For these sectors and others similarly affected by COVID-19 such as hospitality, meetings, incentives, conference and exhibitions (MICE) and retail, the Joint Wage Support Scheme has been integral in keeping businesses afloat and its workforce employed. These support measures have cushioned the impact of COVID-19, but some jobs will still be lost, and some roles will cease to exist.

However, there will be opportunities for growth in other sectors. New areas in digitalisation, Industry 4.0 and new business models will create new jobs and new ways of thinking. We need to stay positive and see these risks and challenges as opportunities to transform the way we do things.

In addition, Singapore must stand out in a changing world order to survive and thrive. To quote Mdm President, “We must do things that others cannot do, and do things that others can do, better.” One example is in the aerospace industry. Singapore has grown to be the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) hub for the aerospace. However, this position of dominance has increasingly been challenged by competitors in neighbouring countries. For Singapore to stay ahead, we cannot be solely competing for lowest cost as that means we may have suppressed wages too. Singapore must compete to be of best value.

For example, an MRO facility in Singapore cannot merely be doing repair and maintenance like any other facility in the world. We must embrace industry 4.0 and leverage on digital and data analytics in order to provide better value for our customers. We must transform from merely repairing the product, to understanding the product, providing insights that can deliver improvements in performance and move the value upstream.

It will take the effort of everyone working together to emerge from this storm stronger. Both within an organisation and beyond the organisation, between Government, businesses, individuals, unions, supporting associations and across industries, we must act collaboratively, for the sake of one another.

Equipping the workforce with the right skills and mindset is crucial in driving this transformation. SkillsFuture, especially the additional support for older workers to reskill, upskill and the focus on skills over paper qualifications at the workplace, is a step in the right direction for our society.

I am in support of the Government’s push for SkillsFuture and increasing internship opportunities. However, I must caution that the success of SkillsFuture should not be measured solely by attendance and course completion. Instead, success should also be measured by the ability to transform these learnings into actual improvements or output.

As we work together to transform our economy, transformation cannot happen at the expense of others. We must care for one another and not leave anyone behind. Businesses must do their part to provide fair opportunities for the workforce.

For displaced workers, I support the efforts in upskilling and providing job support through e2i, Workforce Singapore (WSG) and SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG). I am also in support of the Ministry of Manpower’s (MOM) incentives to encourage hiring local workforce. However, these efforts to support displaced workers must be matched with employers willing to change their approach and employees willing to try and make changes in a challenging job market. We must also, collectively as a society, work together to ensure that companies abide by fair hiring practices.

We all agree that we want to keep a strong Singaporean Core, provide equal opportunity to mid-career workers and seniors, provide jobs for persons with disabilities and have better work-life balance. During this transformation, we must embody and act on these beliefs that we are all in agreement of.

We must think hard to redesign jobs and provide fair opportunities to our local workforce while maintaining our competitiveness. As our demographics transit to a higher proportion of workforce above the age of 50, we must redesign jobs to best make use of their experience and abilities. We have all heard the same narratives from our senior residents seeking re-employment. Even with incentives for hiring, retrenched senior workers still struggle to seek re-employment and the majority are left presented with either employment in security or cleaning. Government, businesses and citizens must work together and expand opportunities for our senior workforce.

As we eagerly anticipate things returning to normal, let us pause and reflect on what we have achieved in the past five months. The past five months has been the biggest exercise in redesigning jobs and reassessing the way we do things.

When many of us were working from home, we took a while but managed to reach the new norm on work-life balance. Additionally, some were able to provision more time to exercise. In fact, a study by EngageRocket, in partnership with the Singapore Human Resource Institute and the Institute for Human Resource Professionals, revealed that nine of 10 employees shared that they would like to continue with some form of work from home as a new way of working.

What is also interesting about this new way of working was the fact that it did not matter whether the person working from home was a senior, someone in mid-life or a person with mobility challenges. Nor did it matter that they came in at 8.00 am and working every single minute, including extended hours. We found a way to remain equally productive in this new environment and maintain work-life balance.

To cite an example, one of my resident lives in a rental flat. He is a 45-year-old man, digitally literate, a father of two boys aged 12 and eight, and unemployed. He lost his foot to diabetes and hence, he is immobile. He goes for dialysis every other evening from 7.00 pm to 11.00 pm. He is alert and mentally capable. Working from home, in front of the computer, he can be as productive as anyone of us. And yet, he still finds it difficult to land a job.

We must learn from this recent experience during the pandemic. We must provide more equal employment opportunities for the seniors and less abled as well as caregivers seeking employment such that people like my resident would benefit from the inclusiveness of employment opportunities. We must not let the sacrifices we made during this crisis go to waste because within this crisis lies opportunities.

I am in support of the schemes from MOM to improve the employment and employability of mid-career professionals, seniors and persons with disability. However, efforts by Government agencies can only go so far without support from organisations who are willing to make the change. I believe that we should not come to a point where we must legislate minimum employment quotas for seniors and the less-able to move towards a more inclusive society. Government, businesses and citizens must work together to create equal opportunities for all.

But I would like to say a word of caution to this House. While the past five months have taught us how to relook at our jobs and work remotely, this also implies that our professionals, managers and executives (PMEs) will become more exposed to global competition as PMEs need not be in Singapore to compete with the jobs required here. For many of our PMEs, they have not stepped in office for the past five months. Yet, they remain equally productive.

Digitalisation and working from home have shown that for most of our PME jobs – my job, too, for that matter – can be done anywhere in the world. How do we deal with that then when quotas are no longer relevant to protect our local PMEs in the global market?

Yesterday, Mr Leong Mun Wai and Assoc Prof Jamus Lim questioned numbers and figures of Employment Pass issuance, possibly implying that the control of quotas may protect our PMEs, to which Deputy Speaker Ms Jessica Tan asked, "What is the alternative number?"

Coming from the industry and witnessing how the nature of PME jobs is rapidly evolving, I agree with the Deputy Speaker. I urge this Chamber to consider that this is not an issue of just numbers and quotas, but the right questions this House should be debating for the future of Singapore are: how do we prepare our PMEs to be competitive in a globalised PME local market? How do we prepare our PMEs for jobs not only in Singapore but a globalised firm beyond our shores? How do we remain relevant to this world? For we are a small red dot and can easily be forgotten. This House cannot be distracted and let that happen; for if we do, we have failed the people and we have failed Singapore.

Which then brings us back to my first point. We must work effectively together as one Singapore to transform the economy and define our value proposition for Singapore to secure good, irreplaceable jobs for Singaporeans. Together, a stronger Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to deliver the rest of my speech in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the whole world. We need to be prepared for a reality that, even with support such as the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), there are jobs that may be lost and there are workers who will lose their livelihood. Faced with such challenges, we must remain positive and see this challenge as an opportunity to change the way we approach jobs and life.

We must open our minds and willingly adapt to new norms, whether as individuals or as businesses. We should use this opportunity to leverage on digitalisation and be open to accept new challenges.

Some examples of this taking place are in the retail industry. During the circuit breaker, when access to customers is limited, enterprises with digital platforms are not only able to continue operations but also expand operations to new customers. We need to learn from this experience to adapt to new norms and change our expectations and ways of thinking.

Through digital platforms, small businesses can also rethink the way they do business. My favourite nasi rawon stall in Bedok now provides food delivery services to the whole of Singapore through third-party food delivery applications. Last month, my family and I were able to order the nasi rawon from my in-laws' house in Choa Chu Kang. The stall owner may not have been able to receive and fulfil orders from a location so far from his stall without a digital platform.

Regarding workers whose livelihood are affected, they can make use of the opportunity to undergo training, such as SkillsFuture courses, to enhance their skills and increase their capabilities, especially in the digital field.

However, I agree that this is not just the responsibility of workers. While workers retain and upgrade their skills, employers must also play their part. The Government and our people should continue to work hard and work with employers and businesses to create opportunities for displaced Singaporean workers.

For our youths, although these are challenging times, they must remain positive and stay focused on building the future, respond to this rapidly changing economic challenge and move forward to contribute to society and the nation. I would like to work with our youths to develop skills in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and prepare ourselves for the new digital economy.

By working together to transform our economy and taking care of each other to ensure inclusive transformation, we can build a more resilient society and create better jobs for our children in the future.

(In English): In summary, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government, businesses and citizens must work effectively together to transform the economy. And as we sail through these stormy seas, we must not leave anyone behind. On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

1.17 pm

The Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth and Trade and Industry (Mr Alvin Tan): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion to thank our President for her Address.

Last week, I was sworn in as a Member of Parliament at Old Parliament House. Standing in that Chamber, taking my Oath of Allegiance, a sense of history overwhelmed me. I could not help but wonder how our founding leaders – Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr S Rajaratnam and Dr Goh Keng Swee – must have felt in the Chamber, the fate of Singapore in their hands, facing a bleak and uncertain future. They must have been in their late 30s or 40s, around my generation. How did they feel inheriting a newly independent country facing a crisis of survival? What went through their minds as they wrestled with the exigencies of their time?

Were jobs the priority? Defence, the environment, social cohesion, race and religion; where did they start and how did they start? So, we stand here today as one House in this new Chamber, facing the proverbial crisis of our generation. And we are again faced with the questions that confronted our forefathers. Where do we find jobs? How do we build a cohesive Singapore? How do we protect our environment? Our founding leaders found opportunities and hope in crisis by finding new ways of doing business, making tough decisions about race and religion and building a clean and green city. They developed our industries, forged a new society and built a modern Singapore, handing it over to us in excellent order.

That Singapore is now in our hands and what we do in this crisis matters. This crisis is not a temporary deviation from our previous path but one that will permanently change our lives as we know it. As President Halimah Yacob said last week, there is no going back to the status quo ante and COVID-19 has indeed reshuffled the deck.

Mr Speaker, we are living through what has been termed as a great reset. While this poses many unprecedented challenges, it also provides us with an opportunity to do things differently, to re-imagine and rebuild on the strong foundations of our forefathers.

I will touch on three such opportunities – the opportunity to protect, the opportunity to create and opportunity to include.

To begin with, the opportunity to protect. COVID-19 forced the whole world to a pause. Unintentionally, this pause gives us a chance to take a step back, examine and be deliberate as we move forward. One of the first and possibly the only direct positive outcome of COVID-19 is its impact on the environment. The sound of planes was audibly replaced by the sounds of birds. Nature was recovering as humanity stayed at home. And now, as we slowly try to unpause, we have the opportunity to better balance the sounds we would like to hear, to better protect and steward the environment for our children as we rebuild our economy.

And now, we have an opportunity to do this, as Eli Sim of Palm View Primary School wrote in a published National Day essay. Eli wrote that he hopes that Singaporeans will "learn to protect the precious forests, beaches and reservoir parks. I hope everyone in Singapore will do his or her part to turn Singapore from a little Red Dot into a big Green Dot in future and be a role model for other countries."

Indeed, as Eli says, Singapore must be a big Green Dot in a rapidly warming world. Global warming has led to higher temperatures and rising sea levels. We have seen the effects of this in the past right in my constituency where our low-lying Pek Kio and Cambridge Road neighbourhood experienced floods. An old flood gauge still sits at the corner of Carlisle and Cambridge Road, reminding us of our vulnerabilities.

One of my first priorities as Member of Parliament of Moulmein-Cairnhill was also to do with the environment. I am sure many in this House also have been dealing with it – dengue. We have dengue clusters across our country and even in my constituency, and we have set up a Dengue Taskforce to deal with it decisively.

Locally, we have also set up "Our Green Pek Kio", a popular ground-up initiative to drive awareness and action against climate change. It is a popular initiative with our residents, very young residents devoting their energy to transform their communities and neighbourhood. Specific projects include climate change conversations, which speak about the impact of climate change or the relationship between climate change and our fragile environment. We have our "Bring Your Own Container" initiative which helps our residents reduce plastic waste. So, these are all ground-up initiatives we should encourage. But these are small steps which are slowly, certainly changing attitudes and practices on the ground, and we should do more of these.

Mr Speaker, environmental concerns can indeed be balanced against economic growth. This pandemic has given us the chance to restructure our economy towards sustainable and green solutions, while remaining economically competitive. As the Minister for Sustainability and the Environment mentioned last week, 55,000 new jobs will be created in the sustainability sector over the next decade in areas such as high-tech agriculture and aquaculture. This reflects the Government's commitment to foster a greener economy and we must press on with these efforts.

Protecting our environment is not just about protecting our lives but also securing our livelihoods, which brings me to my second opportunity, which is the opportunity to create.

Mr Sharael Taha had mentioned earlier the great reset has accelerated the process of digitalisation faster than any of us has expected. It has displaced jobs and many of our industries like aviation, tourism and construction have been significantly hit. It has affected how we consume and how and where we work. At this juncture, there are opportunities that we can create, find and must seize. We must be nimble and use it to our advantage for our country and our people.

First, our country. We must continue to strengthen Singapore's position regionally and globally, an oasis in a COVID-19 world – safe, stable, incorruptible and open to the world. These are traits that my former colleagues and I in the private sector, even pre-COVID-19, looked for when deciding where to situate billions of dollars of investments.

And make no mistake. When we draw up plans, our strategic investment plans, Singapore is but one of many countries we considered. If we and others decided to choose another investment destination, these jobs would have been situated elsewhere. And Singaporeans would certainly be poorer for it.

So, we must continue to enhance this reputation, as investors look for a place they can trust, unleash their ideas, talent and capital. The result is innovation, investments and opportunities for Singaporeans. Of course, as my colleagues have said, we must ensure that Singaporeans are treated fairly.

Investments and opportunities can choose us or choose others. I would much rather they choose us. And they will be choosing a steady ship that is sea-worthy in a storm. The hon Mr Leon Perera referred to our economy yesterday as a Titanic. I would like to suggest that this is a mis-characterisation.

Our economy has been going on for 55 years, not always smooth but always delivering opportunities for Singapore and Singaporeans. We have encountered many major problems and crises – the separation, the British withdrawal, the oil crisis, the 1985 recession, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) pandemic, the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Crisis. We have never encountered a problem we did not bounce back from stronger. This is the mettle of our country and our people. Why? Because we do not assume that we are invulnerable. We are always worried, in fact, about our vulnerability, almost to the point of paranoia, planning for contingencies, learning and adapting. We have been driving transformation and re-engineering our economy as we keep going. The Industry Transformation Maps are the latest version of a long line of efforts to ensure that we keep Singapore in the best possible condition, not just for now but also for the future.

During calmer waters, there were voices in this Chamber telling us not to worry, that we can risk our stability and our Reserves. Well, we have seen clearly why we have safeguarded our Reserves. We have now deployed them in this crisis to help our people to reinvent themselves and to create opportunities for us to keep on going into the future.

So, Mr Speaker, I would like to suggest that we are not quite the Titanic. I would like to suggest we are the Starship Enterprise, always exploring new frontiers and making friends with people from many different places. As my colleague, Dr Tan See Leng, had mentioned a couple of days ago, we will live long and prosper. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, preparing Singapore well for global competition also means preparing our firms well to seize global opportunities. Given the rapid global digitalisation, Singapore benefited from its early investment in digital transformation. We had a head start in the race and while we were preparing for a marathon, COVID-19 has forced us into a sprint. Coming from the private sector, I look forward to working closely with our industry partners, as we step up our digitalisation efforts, supporting businesses, including family-run small and medium enterprises (SMEs).

Second, our people. LinkedIn data shows that the most in-demand jobs globally are in sales, healthcare, software engineering and project management. Three out of these four jobs are also highest in demand for remote employment. This means that, as Mr Sharael Taha mentioned earlier, they can be performed anywhere in the world, regardless of their employer's location. Remote jobs are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it means anyone living outside of Singapore can get a job based in Singapore. But on the other hand, it also means Singaporeans can apply for a job overseas while living at home right here in Singapore.

Jobs are now increasingly not confined by geographical borders. We must prepare our people to compete on the global platform and take on these emerging jobs. But this is easier said than done. Advising a mid-career administrator to take on a software engineering role is tough and difficult. Upskilling through SkillsFuture can help but once you have acquired that skill, how do you then make that shift? This is a question I have heard many times on the ground from jobseekers and I am sure many in this House have also heard from your residents as well.

When I was at my previous company, my team and I partnered with the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) to help all of our ITE students showcase their skills on their digital resumes so that machine learning algorithms can help notify them of potential job matches in Singapore but also outside of Singapore, opening the market for our students. So, I look forward to working with SkillsFuture and MyCareersFuture teams to better prepare but also promote our people, so that they can better compete for jobs in Singapore and beyond.

For younger Singaporeans, the SGUnited Traineeships Programme is enhancing their competitiveness too, helping them get valuable on-the-job training. I remember taking on an unpaid internship when I was younger, and the experience and networks I gained stood me in good stead for the future jobs I would apply for and take on the future. So, we must continue to support Singaporeans young and old, transform themselves out of this crisis. The choice is clear. We either reinvent ourselves to meet the demands of the future or be relegated to the footnotes of the past.

This brings me to the third opportunity, that is, the opportunity to include and to be more accepting of people with different backgrounds and journeys. I will speak on including Singaporeans of different abilities and emphasise two aspects. The first is something close to my heart and it is related to the ability to succeed and the stigma of failure.

Mr Speaker, when Mdm President spoke about including people who have traverse different paths, it reminded me of my own journey, and I reflected on how far we have come and how much further we still have to go.

I had to repeat a year in junior college and even so, did not do well enough for my "A" level examinations to qualify for any local universities. I remember feeling dejected, uncertain about my future and dealing with the societal stigma. Even later on in my career, I faced other rejections, but along my journey, some took a chance on me, not really based on my grades but on my ability, reputation, values, work ethic and even volunteer experiences, and I will always be thankful for these chances.

But Mr Speaker, we cannot just rely on these second chances. We need to level the playing field with policies and norms that systematically empower people and give them the chance they need to prove themselves. To this end, the Government has rolled out measures in recent years to mitigate the lottery of birth. And yet too far, we often hear concerns that our system penalises people too heavily for the setbacks of their past – where grades from your "O" levels or "A" levels disproportionately dictate your career path; where we congratulate people for defying the odds without questioning why the odds were put there in the first place.

I remembered years ago, applying for a few mid-career jobs in Government and having to input my Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE), "O" level and "A" level grades and the recruiters not valuing my experience in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) or even volunteer work. Conversely, the private sector firms I interviewed with, did not require those grades and they valued my experience even in the SAF and volunteer work among others in their hiring decisions. It was an easy choice for me to choose which sector to join.

In my time interviewing and hiring people for our companies, I looked beyond traditional barometers of success, like grades and schools to skills and micro-credentials, which is what Ms Mariam Jaafar mentioned yesterday, the Google credentials. Work or volunteer experience and, most importantly, one's professional reputation. The needle is indeed beginning to shift, and we are now seeing some exceptions to the old narratives of success.

In her Address, Mdm President spoke about the work that schools and Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and the Public Service Commission, employers and even political parties are doing in this regard. This is good progress, but we must make these exceptions the norm. Failure will have consequences, but we must not and should not bind people to their past failures denying them the chance to learn from them and shape their futures differently. Embracing failure and giving second chances will help strengthen our social mobility and, at the same time, it will encourage people to be bold enough to try new things and potentially fail or innovate. Most importantly, it will make us an even more inclusive society.

Mr Speaker, the second aspect of inclusion is for us to better include those who are differently abled, physically and mentally. Globally, as we all know, COVID-19 has caused untold mental and emotional stress, and revealed underlying biases and stigma to those suffering silently. Singapore is no exception. Mental ailments affect us regardless of age, background and where we live in the world. We all know someone who struggles with mental ailments. I have friends and, indeed, immediate family members, struggling with the stigma brought about by schizophrenia, depression and other silent mental illness. In my constituency, we have had a number of suicides since COVID-19 started and I just visited the family of one of the seniors I knew, who sadly he took his own life.

When I worked on cyber safety in the tech sector, I also saw first-hand the impact of social media abuse on social, emotional and mental health all over the world. I remember dealing with "live" suicide cases around the world and working furiously with my team and our partners to intervene. Closer to home, I remember one of my residents refusing to call the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) careline because she felt it was shameful to do so.

We need inclusive policies and norms to ensure that people feel safe and unashamed to use Mental Health resources. When we fall down, we suffer physical injury. What about mental injury? How do we heal? If we can accept seeking help for our body, there is no reason why we cannot accept the same for our mind, and this is a point that my colleagues the hon Mr Don Wee and Mr Fahmi Aliman had mentioned in their own speeches.

Mr Speaker, Sir, while we need to do more to be inclusive of those struggling with mental ailments, we also have the opportunity to do more to include those who are differently abled, physically. I have a friend, her name is Hui Xin, she was born visually impaired but has yet —

Mr Speaker: Mr Alvin Tan, you need to wrap up.

Mr Alvin Tan: To her advantage. She texts me using text-to-speech recognition software and is now working in the communications team in a technology department of a multinational. She adapted using technology to augment her ability and benefited from having an inclusive employer who treasured for her abilities.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a young boy I read a JRR Tolkien's work and there was a Frodo Baggins, who was the main character who said this, "I wish it did not have happened in my time," said Frodo and Gandalf, the wise wizard responded, "And so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." Mr Speaker, we cannot choose the moments in time —

Mr Speaker: You do not have much time left.

Mr Alvin Tan: Just a second. "...we can choose how we define the moments of our time." Fifty-five years ago, our Pioneers found themselves in the moment of crisis, thrust into an independent nation, which was never expected to survive. Heroic as they have may have been too, it is okay to be worried.

Courage, Mr Speaker, the quality which our Pioneers exemplified is not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it. In our moment of crisis, we must meet this moment by overcoming our worries and seizing opportunities to build a better future, not clinging on to the shadows of a distant past, by working together in spite of our differences. Just as our forefathers did. Years from now, in this very House, our children and future generations will judge us by how we have met this moment. We hope they will judge us kindly, but that is for the future.

For today, as long as we do our best, as long as we stick together and stay nimble and courageous with Singaporeans at the heart of all we do, I believe we would have met this moment. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

1.40 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, with your indulgence, I wish to make some prefatory remarks before embarking on my speech. First, I wish to thank Bukit Batok Single Member Constituency (SMC) constituents for giving me the privilege of representing them once again as their Member of Parliament (MP). I will do my best in this role.

Second, I wish to place on record, my own thanks and best wishes to MPs who have served in the Thirteenth session of Parliament and have stepped down. I purposely did not use the word "retire" because I believe they will always continue to be involved in public service, in one way or another.

Last, I wish to congratulate the newly elected MPs from both sides of the House, the class of 2020, who just emerged from the political baptism of fire in the form of the General Elections. I look forward to engaging them on issues that concern Singapore and Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give two specific reasons for rising to speak in support of the Motion. First, I would like to thank the President for sharing with us some hard truths and for jolting us into a new age for policy-making.

The trajectory of the world has changed. The winds are no longer in Singapore's favour. A small city-state, reliant on global trade and openness, we are now confronted with closed borders, not just due to COVID-19 but to rising nationalism and populism. These are strong external forces over which we have no control.

A second change lies in our internal politics. In our country, there is a change towards a more contested and less conciliatory form of politics. And this can be to our good. As MPs, we must get used to the rough and tumble of politics, become resilient and engage in robust and searing debate. I, for one, have been drawn to the edge, and spoken out against what is acceptable and what is not. All of us in politics must grow the skin of a rhino as well as the heart of a lion. But no need for talons, please.

These forces within Singapore are those we can influence, debate and in the end, decide upon.

To help us in making this decision – on what kind of politics we want in Singapore – I thank the President for describing who we could be if we were to realise the best of ourselves. She calls us to find "common purpose" and to find strength in our diversity. This is the aspiration towards evolving our own model of democracy, where differences do not tear the social fabric or polarise and fragment. We have today before us, a chance to forge our own path but this will not be easy, as the hon Leader of the House cautioned us earlier this week, "Unity in diversity is not a given."

About 2,500 years ago, in another time, another place, Pericles, a leader of Athens, a small city state, urged his people to find their own way in an uncertain world. He said, "Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are a pattern to others rather than imitators ourselves. A community of people who follow not only a written law, but a social and moral code, which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace." How profound and relevant these words are to our circumstances, even after all these years!

Knowing these two truths, the large changes in the world and in Singapore, and an aspiration of what we could be, the question remains. How do we get there?

Katherine Graham, the former publisher of The Washington Post, said, "News is what someone wants suppressed. Everything else is advertising." Agreement, collegiality and friendliness, all these make poor headlines.

The truth is most of the time, all MPs in this House agree. This is an uncontroversial outcome. Most times, the Workers' Party (WP) agree with the Bills introduced. Such agreement is boring and almost never makes the news. Even on the relatively controversial issue of Ministerial pay, the WP agreed with the outcome although the process in arriving at the decisions – "top down" compared to "bottom up" – were different.

Consensus is as boring as contestation is exciting. But I see consensus as being perhaps the most important outcome of our work here. So, I do not think we should be perturbed if anyone were to say that Singapore’s parliamentary proceedings are boring. Consensus and the negotiation of shared interests are key aspirations of our democracy. But consensus is not a matter of sweeping hard truths under the carpet but a process of contestation, persuasion and resolution.

The outcome of this process – decisions and agreements – are sticky and legitimate. This would require MPs to have a deeper understanding of the policy considerations behind the Bill. To help them, the First Reading of any Bill, which is currently rather formulaic, can be put to better use by the Minister by giving Members a non-specialist understanding of the issues at play, how they impact the ordinary lives of Singaporeans and how the Bill proposes to address these concerns. This has already been done by the New Zealand Parliament and has much to commend for itself. In this way, MPs will be better prepared to debate the Bill during the Second Reading which happens on a separate occasion.

Today, the Second Reading of the Bill comprises largely Members of Parliament reading out their speeches when their turn comes. They have little time to react to what has been said by their fellow Parliamentarians. They obviously will not be able to consider what will be said later by other Parliamentarians.

I suggest that Parliament make available the option of lodging our speeches to be taken as read and made public to all. This also puts them up to public scrutiny while, at the same time, creating a more efficient process. Having done this, time in this House should be spent on genuine debate and points of clarification or disagreement. We will be able to avoid repetition of points that waste valuable time. The Minister should feel free to berate Members who try to debate without having read his speech.

Through this process, it would then be easier to assess the full diversity of views expressed by all Members, ascertain, as a matter of record, where the consensus lies and the points of disagreement, if any. This will also hold Members to account, and for our constituents to see if we do, indeed, put our time and attention to Parliamentary matters or whether we are simply going through the motion.

I would like Parliament to also invest in a new information technology (IT) system to make it easier for any member of the public to hold MPs to account – to check the attendance of any Member, to find the number of Parliamentary Questions (PQs) asked, the number of times spoken on Bills, Budgets, Committee of Supply debates, Motions and so on.

This information is already public and can be obtained today, but not without some effort, including manual counting. I urge such records to be made available more easily with an online search platform.

There should also be a Parliamentary record of the outcome of Members’ proposals which the Minister has agreed to study. The Hansard is replete with examples of frontbenchers providing holding replies without the ability to check whether there have been any updates. Members of the public reading the Hansard will not be able to tell whether the loop has been closed.

We should also entrench a practice of expressly acknowledging MPs should their proposals be accepted by the Government. This, too, should be accessible by members of the public.

Of course, it could take years for results to be seen. For example, my lobbying for a simplification of probate processes that leverage on technology, which, I am happy to note, found its way into the Addendum to the President’s Address issued by the Minister for Law, has taken three years. But I am sure I speak for many others when I say it is far better late than never!

Another call I would make in relation to accountability is for the Civil Service to publish and present in Parliament a paper regularly stating the number of letters it and Statutory Boards receive from MPs petitioning on behalf of their constituents on a per constituency basis. The paper should indicate the percentage of the substantive responses to the MPs which are made within the time period stipulated in the Government Instruction Manual. I do not think this is a laborious task as there exists technology that can be harnessed to generate such reports.

One may ask what has this got to do with Parliament? In response, let me highlight what the UK Cabinet said in a memo issued in March 2016: “The right of MPs to take up constituents’ cases and other issues directly with Government is an important part of the democratic process and underlines the accountability of Ministers to Parliament.”

Voters are maturing, more demanding, and very rightly so, in terms of what they can and should expect from all of us in this House. They are also discerning, attentive, rational and fair. They hold all of us up to high standards and see beyond political colours to the real impact we make on their lives. Not only that, the proposals that I have suggested will ensure that our constituents have access to such information to make informed political choices and decisions.

Pericles highlighted the importance of an informed citizenry in the same speech I quoted from. He said: “Here, each individual is interested not only in his own affairs but in the affairs of the state as well. Even those who are mostly occupied with their own business are extremely well-informed on general politics… We do not say that a man who takes no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say he has no business here at all”. That was 2,500 years ago and this passage has not lost its relevance.

How do we know if we have succeeded as a people? The key test is this: are we proud of ourselves as a people, or do we hold what we have in contempt? Do we want to build upon what we have done, or do we want to tear down our structures and start from scratch? These are not false choices. They are hard questions which we need to ask ourselves because they will define us, not just for this political term, but for the rest of our lifetime. If we succeed, we would have built a democracy strong and imperturbable.

Our politics may not be full of sound and fury. Chairs and fists may not fly in this Parliament – at least, I hope so – but our steady, even-keeled politics will ensure that we, as a nation, will be able to withstand fierce winds and firestorms and so secure our future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore today is at a place and time where there is wide agreement on many principles, but a great contestation in the application of these principles. For example, we value multiculturalism but the process of achieving it must no longer be a matter of quiet tolerance but of open debate.

This is not easy. There are many among us still not used to debate, let alone robust contest. There are many in the silent majority who have views not expressed on social media, but held no less strongly for that. There are those who prefer not to have to fight for our views but to hope that these views are self-evident. But I wonder whether this hope is in vain.

Often, we take to “the streets” online, by setting up petitions on causes and let brute numbers speak in place of reason with no chance of reaching consensus or – using the words of the hon Leader of the Opposition – engaging in "reasoned conversation". This is a poor shadow of democracy.

I think it is time that we – just like during Pericles' time – as a nation, set a social and moral code under which we should not flinch from actively defending our views and values and also understand an opposing point of view, and debate and discuss these views. We should do so respectfully with an open mind, always with the hope that the other side has something to teach us.

In the end, whether we succeed in persuading one another to a common view or not, we would have built a stronger shared understanding and promoted mutual respect. In the end, if we agree to something, it is an active, not a presumed, consent. It is a process that grants legitimacy to our actions and makes our decisions binding.

The President gave some valuable advice on how to live in what can appear to be very fraught times. She paints a new vision and exhorts us to a new mission: “The new generation of leaders and Singaporeans will have to form bonds and connections afresh…They have to continue to deliver effective and sound government, while accommodating the growing diversity of views. And they have to foster a more open spirit in our society, even as we strengthen the common cause holding us together as Singaporeans.”

I thank President Halimah for reminding us of who we really are and for writing the first page of our new term. The rest of the book, we must write together, all of us in this House, and everyone outside.

Once again, we, a people of many races, cultures and religions, all of us Singaporeans, must come together to find strength and common purpose. I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms He Ting Ru.

1.54 pm

Ms He Ting Ru (Sengkang): Mr Speaker, it has been more than seven weeks since Polling Day and over two months since the commencement of Phase Two of the circuit breaker. Like all Singaporeans, our team has been adjusting to the "new normal" in the age of COVID-19, while getting to know our residents and communities in Sengkang and Buangkok. Once again, we are touched that voters have taken a leap of faith in the Workers’ Party (WP) and are grateful for the opportunity to work together with everyone to make our home a better one for all.

In between setting up Sengkang Town Council and conducting our groundwork, we have also been privileged to receive warm welcomes from residents into their homes, into their preschools, Senior Activity Centres (SACs) and other parts of their community, and also from the various agencies and teams who work tirelessly to serve the residents of Sengkang. Our friendships and partnerships have only just begun.

Today, I would like to talk about the Singapore that we hope to build together. In the last two months, set against the difficult backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, I have seen much evidence of an "Engaged Singaporean", contrasting against the "Ugly Singaporean" label that we unfortunately sometimes hear being applied. We have been struck, time and again, by the experience of seeing residents from all ages and all walks of life banding together, looking out for one another and coming together to look after the more vulnerable in our communities, so that no one is left behind. Being engaged in our community is now a value that Singaporeans hold dear and they expect the Government to support this too.

We are also seeing the Engaged Singapore in the emergence of a more discerning electorate. I often find myself being asked challenging questions about the WP team, about our work and our policy proposals. Deeper, more thought-provoking questions are also being asked of us, of society and of the Government’s policies.

These two trends, taken together, mean that we must step up our own engagement with all levels of our community and keep discussing with and involving everyone in deciding Singapore’s future. We must recognise that everyone has something to add to the conversation and there is no one way to do it. Instead of relying solely on highly structured Singapore Conversations and Emerging Stronger Conversations, and Government-mandated or approved schemes, we should also look to more informal forums, such as coffeeshop walks, which the WP team has been doing. We have found that the informal nature of these has a frankness, directness and immediacy which has been invaluable in shaping our understanding of the issues.

Our ground-up movements can also begin with a small spark and do not have to be only possible under the People’s Association (PA) and other "designated enablers". Instead, we have already seen some of these initiatives on the ground, with residents chipping in to start community gardens and small projects to look out for their neighbours. We hope to add to this by organising our own hackathons and town halls within Buangkok and Sengkang and working in close partnership with various organisations and bodies on the ground to ensure that residents feel a greater sense of community and ownership.

The Government, too, must play its part in fostering an environment which enables a more Engaged Singapore – from our youth, workers and enterprises. Instead of solely thinking about competition between groups, we must learn how to come together to find shared interests and resources while, also at the same time, learning to disagree respectfully when differences arise. In this way, we can foster a stronger sense of solidarity, be it intergenerational, inter-societal or even inter-regional.

This is not just about creating new schemes or another task force. Indeed, the Addenda to the President's Address alone contain mentions of around 12 maps and master plans, 24 committees, task force and networks, 32 centres and agencies, 32 schemes and programmes, and 24 funds, packages and grants. It is no wonder that people and enterprises are confused and often end up feeling demoralised and helpless when faced with problems.

While we acknowledge that Singapore faces complex issues and appreciate that the Government and its agencies are working hard to address problems and issues faced by Singaporeans, surely there can be scope to simplify these grants plans policies and initiatives. This will ensure that we do not have to expend too many resources on just keeping a proper track of them all. It would also make for a much better user-centric experience. Indeed, my colleague, Mr Leon Perera, has previously spoken of the need for a unified portal for residents and companies to transact with Government and have better access to schemes that they are eligible for. The streamlining would also aid in tracking how effective and productive the schemes are.

With this, I am glad that we all agree on the "Singapore for all" and that the Government has committed to strengthening social mobility and a society of opportunities for all. Change these days seems much faster. This has been made worse by the ongoing pandemic which has exposed our weak points and hit vulnerable members of our society harder.

The number of residents who are struggling and require assistance appears to be increasing and we believe that this will worsen. To respond adequately, we must be willing to review some previously accepted norms and principles. It is a good start that we are now, like many other developed economies, finally recognising the limits and even failure of meritocracy. We must not let blind reliance on what meritocracy can achieve turn us into a harsh and unforgiving society, where the vulnerable are blamed for their plight for not being hardworking or talented enough to strive for a better life for themselves and their families.

The expansion of programmes such as KidSTART and the increase in the Ministry of Education (MOE) Kindergartens is a good first step. How ever many programmes and task forces that we have, I believe that the real danger facing us now is the perception of the lack of social mobility and the presence of elitism.

When I worked with my university's access schemes to encourage students from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply to top universities, we found that it was often a lack of belief and confidence that held many of these students back. Often, they showed great potential but it would never cross their minds to even put in an application as they felt they stood no chance. Even for those who do apply and succeed, this perception can also persist.

I remember once speaking to a volunteer who came from an under-privileged background after obtaining a polytechnic diploma. He was successful in gaining admission, a place to read law at one of our local universities and was about to start a training contract with a prestigious firm. When asked if he was a sterling example of our meritocracy, he replied firmly that he was instead an example of tokenism. This reluctance to lean in is based on a certain perception of meritocracy, society's ossification, and something that we have to urgently address.

One way is to encourage more existing university students and members of professions to take a more active role in speaking to and mentoring the next generation of applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds early on. They would be available to encourage them, to discuss their concerns and to guide these students through the recruitment or application process, and thus demystify some of the pre-existing notions that these students may have.

Other ways of doing so include smaller class sizes that the WP has been calling for and deeper engagement between schools beyond the bonding activities that are currently planned. And we must remember that engagement is always two-way and there are always many things that we can learn from segments of society that are different from us.

Next, I would like to touch on sustainability. I would like to declare that I work for a multinational corporation active in the global supply chain for natural resources and we have done much work in the sustainability sphere over the last few years. It is good that we now have a Ministry for Sustainability and the Environment (MSE). Climate change and environmental issues are important, but sustainability goes beyond this.

We must also ensure that Singapore is a socially, economically and demographically sustainable. Mdm President and many Ministers have spoken about the need to strengthen our Singapore identity. This is a key factor in ensuring the sustainability of a harmonious society. Instead of berating Singaporeans for being xenophobic, we should instead really listen to their concerns and try to understand why they feel this way.

We should also continue to involve more segments for our society, engage with them and empower them to take the lead in building our Singapore identity and future while, at the same time, involve more in integrating and welcoming newcomers.

Economically, the COVID-19 pandemic has focused the world's attention on global supply chains and their vulnerability. It is good that the Government now plans to strengthen our food and essential supply chain security to ensure that we are not so much at the mercy of global forces that are mainly beyond our control.

But the shock to supply chains goes beyond just food and consumption and has severe repercussions for the structure of our economy. It is a commonly held view now that the recovery from the pandemic, together with increasingly complex geopolitical tensions, will further accentuate shifts from truly global supply chains to concentrate manufacturing and production being moved to the continents or regions of end consumers. Trade patterns will correspondingly be affected, and Singapore needs to be ready.

To deal with this and remain sustainable, our economy must therefore become more nimble and our education system needs to encourage inquisitive exploration and less rote learning in order to produce a workforce that is able to adapt to disruptive new horizons and opportunities. Environmental sustainability does not just have to mean costs and compliance. Like my colleagues who spoke before me, I instead see many opportunities for Singapore here.

Some potential growth areas can include our move towards Industry and Supply Chain 4.0, by harnessing new technologies such as blockchain and Internet of Things, not only to develop expertise and helping companies and industries digitalise, but to use these new technologies to commit to a completely sustainable supply chain from source to final product. Such expertise can be developed by our enterprises and be exported to other economies in the region, as we set the gold standard for what true sustainability means.

Similarly, I am pleased to hear of a stronger commitment to green financing and green tech which would also definitely benefit the environment. This too can be a growth area for our economy going forward. However, there remains a large gap between enterprises and access to green financing and technology remains challenging for SMEs. This is also reflected in green bonds forming just 1.4% of Singapore's total corporate debt market.

Awareness of green issues, too, should start from a young age. We should look to the example set by a tiny town in Finland, which has managed to reduce its carbon emissions by half between 2007 and 2015. There, older students become green ambassadors and are responsible for guiding their younger schoolmates towards green and sustainable practices. As an added sweetener, if the school is successful in reducing its bills due to successful green practices, students are given unfettered freedom to decide what to spend 50% of the savings on. It is this type of youth- and community-led projects that we hope to be able to implement in Sengkang.

Our changing social fabric and demographics have accentuated the challenges facing our care infrastructure. Having to adapt and thrive in a post-pandemic world has made it all the more important that we cohesively tackle this head-on. Failure to do so would lead to widening health inequalities and increasing burdens on households already struggling to get by. We must ensure that our care systems keep pace with evolving demands and that carers, especially those who undertake unpaid care and domestic work, are more visible and supported.

The pressing problems faced by an ageing Singapore must first be tackled by further integrating our social, health and informal care systems. This will enable more seamless support for growing elderly population and people with long-term conditions who require care and support. This means joining up hospital and community-based services for physical, mental and social care needs. We would see greater efficiencies by breaking down barriers between services and focusing on growing our ability to provide care in our homes and communities. As care needs are complex, a fully integrated system would also result in less confusion and stress among family members struggling to cobble together – a care plan for loved ones.

There should also be room for more innovative care solutions and infrastructure, such as situating elder and childcare centres within the same facilities, which has the added benefit of facilitating intergenerational exchanges and solidarity while also tackling the pandemic of loneliness. We must also consider our informal carers and integrate them into our care delivery system. These are unpaid workers are unsung heroes, like my mother, who have devoted their entire lives to providing care for those who need it, be it their elderly parents, children, grandchildren or family and friends who have special needs.

Their contributions to our society are equal to any other wage-earning job, but unequally measured by traditional indicators of growth or value. Yet, informal and unpaid carers often end up being vulnerable themselves, as their care responsibilities often have a detrimental impact on their own physical, mental and economic well-being.

We know that Singapore is not unique, and that unpaid work falls disproportionately on women. In addition, in the most vulnerable segments of our society, children may also be called upon to undertake domestic labour by being solely responsible for the care of younger siblings and doing housework, often at the expense of their own education and childhood.

Yet, the magnitude of the issue is unclear, and we do not have a good idea of how this has been trending. We must therefore measure unpaid work to make it visible. Such an approach immediately recognises this work as being of tremendous value to our society and will be a first step in changing how we think about such work and in understanding the profile of these workers. Having better visibility and measures of unpaid work also mean that it is easier for our policies to pay more attention to inequality.

In many countries such as South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, time use surveys are now a key part of the national statistics systems and these are conducted regularly. The US does an American Time Use Survey every year since 2003. In Europe, these surveys have been conducted since the 1970s and have continued with relative frequency across the region.

It is significant that Singapore does not conduct such regular time use surveys. Regular measurements immediately recognise the work as being of value to our society and also give us an idea of how our policies have implicit effects on such unpaid workers and how effective other policies are in addressing the problems that they face. Indeed, countries such as Finland and New Zealand have made concerted efforts in measuring the scale of unpaid work which has resulted in policies that address the gender differential, for example, by providing adequate paternity leave.

Mr Speaker, it is time for us to tackle this head-on so that we may understand more fully the full scale of this issue and to thus take steps to mitigate the impact on our personal, social and economic fabric. I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

2.13 pm

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the President's message that there will be permanent shifts in our approach towards social safety nets. The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) believes that progress should always be accompanied by compassion and social safety nets play a big role in that. During difficult times, they are of even greater importance.

The Government has introduced temporary relief measures to help Singaporeans and businesses cope with COVID-19. While Government support is essential, we should continue to exercise financial prudence in the utilisation of our Reserves. A significant portion of our relief packages goes towards the Job Support Scheme (JSS), which gives companies wage subsidies in an effort to keep jobs. It is a blanket measure that also pays companies that do not require any wage subsidy.

Most companies in certain industries, for example, the technology and financial sectors, continue to do well. Several companies have returned the JSS payments, and the Government is urging all other companies that do not require this subsidy to do likewise.

I urge a review of the unconditional JSS to explore clawing back JSS from companies that are still profitable, and companies that continue to pay million-dollar executive salaries, and re-channel these resources to where they are more needed, like unemployment support. It is too late to do anything about the JSS payments that have already been made, but we can impose conditions for the additional JSS recently announced.

JSS for Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs) should also be differentiated to underline the difference in the Government’s duty and obligations to these two groups. The first duty of any government is always to its own citizens.

Despite our best efforts to stem job losses, according to the economic survey, employment decreased by 131,500 in the second quarter of this year. The COVID-19 Support Grant currently provides for cash payment of up to $800 per month for three months for those who have lost their jobs or suffered a significant drop in income.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) expects the economy to shrink by 5% to 7% this year. Further job losses are thus expected. Under such circumstances, most will take longer than three months to find new employment. An OCBC survey this year found that 70% of the respondents did not have enough savings to last more than six months. In comparison, Government Reserves, though never revealed, is widely believed to be sufficient for at least eight to 10 years of Government expenditure. If my figures are wrong, I would be happy to be corrected. There is therefore a lot of room for adjustments in the balance between Government Reserves and household reserves.

We need to enhance the COVID-19 Support Grant to offer financial assistance for a longer period of time. Otherwise, there will be much anxiety and pain in many families, which will in turn slow down our recovery.

Another way we can help families cope with the financial stress caused by COVID-19 is to allow CPF members who have lost their jobs to borrow from their own CPF accounts. These loans can be repaid after finding new employment.

The CPF system works well for many Singaporeans. However, for those who are experiencing financial difficulties, it can be very frustrating to see their own savings trapped in an account they are unable to touch to help them ease their current situation. The fact that these savings are being withheld for their future needs is scant comfort in the face of immediate distress. Coupled with the later withdrawal age and steadily increasing minimum sum, it is fuelling dissatisfaction or even mistrust in our CPF system. If we can allow ways for CPF members to rely on these savings in times of need, for their CPF savings to be a source of financial security at all times and not just in the distant future, it will help build trust in the system and provide a peace of mind.

I would also like to suggest that the Government explore the option of indexing CPF LIFE payments to inflation, with the inflation adjustments paid by Government. To illustrate, if the monthly CPF LIFE payment is $1,000, and inflation is 2%, then the Government can top up the CPF LIFE payment by $20, which is 2% of $1,000.

Based on current retirement age and life expectancy, there are approximately 20 years of retirement life that we need to plan for. Our CPF system is designed for individuals to be responsible for their own retirement needs. However, certain things are beyond our control, despite our best efforts. If the economy and wages grow rapidly over the years, then the wages earned in the early years would be too low to cope with the cost levels in later years. If inflation is rampant, then retirement funds saved up in the early years would be inadequate.

Twenty years after retirement is a long time, and retirees are at the mercy of economic forces over which they have no control. So, while we do not want to purely rely on our younger generations to support the older generations, to expect every individual to fully fund their own retirement may not be a feasible nor realistic proposition for many. Even in our earlier asset enhancement approach – the idea of owning an appreciating asset that we can then sell to fund our retirement – that involved a transfer of wealth from the younger generation to the older.

I would therefore like to suggest that the Government explore a hybrid system, where individuals build up their own retirement sums as much as they can, and Government steps in after their retirement to help them cope with the effects of inflation.

Lastly, with all the current anxieties about losing jobs and incomes, let our people not have to worry about losing their homes. I hope the Government will grant further deferment of mortgage payments for households with members who have lost their jobs or suffered a loss in income, for up to December 2021.

Mr Speaker, the President spoke about the dangers of an echo chamber in the online space. But echo chambers exist everywhere, not just online. I remember when I first entered politics and joined an alternative political party, I immediately experienced a marked change in my environment. Many with anti-establishment views sought me out to share their perspectives. People whom I already know previously became more forthcoming in criticising Government policies.

My environment became decidedly more critical of Government all of a sudden. It took great effort to maintain my perspective, to remember that the world has not really changed all that much all of a sudden, but simply that people are telling me what they think I am interested in hearing. If I experienced such being just an opposition candidate, how much more must it have been for someone who wields power?

Whether it is addressing issues of job security, saving jobs, creating new jobs, job discrimination, existential threats, strengthening social safety nets, national identity or retirement adequacy, everyone needs to recognise the bias of one’s echo chamber, that we view everything through filters. And the only way we can mitigate this myopia is to acknowledge that these filters exist.

Like any investments, past performance is not a promise of future returns. Dwelling on past successes does not help us chart the path to the future. This pandemic is like a tide rolling out, exposing our vulnerabilities previously under the surface. We need to muster the courage to have an honest evaluation of where we are in the work-in-progress we call "The Singapore Story". We need to keep an open mind and be prepared to tackle sacred cows.

Singaporeans are intelligent, believe in the core principles of justice, equality and the concept of sacrifice for the common good. These are pillars of the Singapore identity that we should continue to uphold. I am confident that we can all find the courage to step out of our echo chambers, listen to all sides without prejudice, and act without pre-set agenda, so we can collectively build the next chapter of The Singapore Story. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheryl Chan.

2.23 pm

Miss Cheryl Chan Wei Ling (East Coast): Mr Speaker, we are living in extraordinary times today. One that departs from our daily routine, one which calls for constant adaptation and one where we have no reference except to figure our own way to overcome the challenges brought about by COVID-19.

COVID-19, however, will eventually pass. When that time comes, we will ask ourselves what we have learnt, what can we improve structurally to prevent fallouts that we see today and what we can do better than before. All these are valid questions, and we should seek to find the answers together as a country.

In Mdm President’s Address, she highlighted the challenges we faced from COVID-19 to global instability that resulted in the issues ahead of us as a nation and how we can evolve as a greater diversity of views emerge and aspirations of each generation change. Some issues that now surfaced probably existed even before COVID-19, but quickly came under the spotlight when the natural order of things was disrupted, and everyone had to adjust to the new interim rules.

For me, there are three areas which stood out, which I believe we firmly should have bolder change and further building of trust.

First, the need to foster an open and collaborative spirit between the people, Government and the authorities. During COVID-19, we recognise the heavy dependence we had on essential workers who manage many aspects of our lives and keep our country going. During the circuit breaker, when landscaping works were unable to go ahead, the fields of grass and trees in the neighbourhood flourished abundantly. To some extent, some of my residents felt it is unkempt and must be immediately tidied once allowed to. In good spirit, some of my residents and community gardeners offered to do the grass cutting in case the overgrown fields may become sources of dengue cluster, which is another trend that we worry amid COVID-19. However, their kind offer was declined as there were concerns they may injure themselves in the process and there is no insurance coverage for them as they are not officially contracted essential workers. Further, the agencies were worried of the liability in case the community gardeners made claims against them in the event of any incident.

While I can understand all this, I felt it is a pity that under such circumstances, our constraint is confined by the "business as usual" operating procedures instead of focusing on the outcome or community needs. If we take a look at the work nature of grass cutting and gardeners tending to designated plots of gardens, there is subtle differences and they probably hold the same level of injury if they were conducted in an unsafe manner. Looking at the larger scheme of things, such community effort is in fact commendable. It is not only a good sign of heightened social responsibility. It also opens an opportunity for the SG Together movement and for people to feel the sense of belonging and that they are valued individuals in the community.

Another example is how projects involving collaboration can be lost in effectiveness when there is a lack of leadership and accountability. Citing a case in my constituency when a neighbourhood school turned into single session, it further heightened the traffic congestions in the area during peak morning hours. There was a possibility to trial a combination of different approaches to find a balance, where the residents living in the area could leave for work and parents could drop off their children and expeditiously exit without increasing the congestions within the area. However, when the agencies and schools came together to work on options, there was little breakthrough as each seem bound by their rule book. The issue still exists today.

In my view, we need to break some imaginary boundaries and enable more effective cross-collaboration between the agencies and the public to achieve an outcome with speed, simplicity and accountability. When resolving community issues, we must depart from the mindset of “it is not in my backyard” and focus on the community that is affected. We have to empower the agencies and community partners, allow them to solicit external advice and resources if not found within the Ministries and open to pilot new and unproven methods without fear of violation, as long as the interest of the public and the community affected is being placed first. Without which, any strategy will only remain a paper strategy when it cannot be executed with tangible ground impact.

Through this approach, we will develop the attitude of experimentation, learn and form new rules and build trust with each other at different stages. In time to come, we will better appreciate and value the fact that we do not simply ask for change but understand why the need for change and how exactly to change.

Sir, on this note, I would like to raise the point on unemployment insurance and redundancy insurance which has been raised several times in this House. The idea is not new, and I understand that NTUC, too, has explored this as far back as the early 2000s. But in good times when employment rates are low, it is understandably hard for people to be willing to pay the premiums for such an insurance. Of course, in a more volatile future, this idea should be revisited.

But first, we need to understand what we seek to address with such an insurance. For example, unemployment that is arising from structural skills mismatches may not be easily insurable. So, what are the costs that are involved, whom to pay, the willingness of the parties to pay them and the trade-offs that are tied to the proposal, all these have to be studied carefully. We need to be honest and upfront to see if the insurance can be effective and to understand if the math really works.

For a crisis like COVID-19, the negative impact on the economy and jobs are wide and deep. How long will it take to recover? No one will quite have the answer now. Will an insurance alone sufficiently cover the needs? I do not think so.

A crisis of this scale needs to have other aspects of immediate support, just like what is offered in the Budgets that we have had in this year, if we want to cushion the impact more broadly for the different individuals and the families that are being affected. So, I believe we do need to look at the additional options to strengthen the safety net for our citizens in the long run.

It is even more relevant post-COVID-19 as the nature of jobs change, the movement patterns of people and businesses globally will deviate from the past and the geopolitical tensions will result in different business decisions.

So, I suggest we look at solutions more holistically, on whether the proposed solutions aim to resolve the structural of fundamentals if they exist or whether they serve to complement and fill the gaps. At the end of the day, it is the people who need the help the most that we do not want to disadvantage. And through the process, we can ensure that the benefits are fairly distributed.

And the second area, Sir, would be the need to expand our definition of merit and success, as I think it is a necessary step towards becoming an inclusive society.

COVID-19 had brought out the best, the good and the ugly of individuals and society. Social media had enabled actually many thoughtful ground-up initiatives that strengthened the cohesion in our country during this crisis. But what truly made the difference are the people who stepped forward. Those who had the heart and those who cared enough to make us realise there is always someone or some other families who need the help more than ourselves. These kind-hearted souls put their skills to good use for good causes and rallied their family, friends and also strangers to join them. I am sure all of you felt the same as me – our hearts and spirits were uplifted each time we hear of all these heartwarming stories amid the daily numbers of infected COVID-19 patients being reported and announced.

The fallouts and negative situations that COVID-19 brought about had actually set us thinking about the larger meaning of life, family, aspirations and social needs. For many of us, we have experienced so many firsts in 2020 that yet another first will not really surprise us. Despite the rumblings, I think we pulled through it, with the hope that COVID-19 will soon pass. But if we look deeper in our society, there equally exists many individuals who can barely survive this episode or are further disadvantaged against their own situation pre-COVID-19.

Vulnerable seniors, families with little financial and support, individuals with special needs and people who are mentally challenged and stressed, these groups are particularly displaced in coping with the pressure and stress that is brought about by the external environment. Any impact to their livelihood, their living conditions and financial status will almost leave them hanging by the thread. While state resources had always largely been channelled to assist the vulnerable and the low-income groups, have we considered what other safety nets they require or what may make them feel more comforted in knowing that they are not left behind as Singapore progresses?

I think Singaporeans are broadly shy to show open empathy and acts of goodness towards others. However, I am not surprised that many would have thought of helping someone else and doing something to ease their pain and burden if they are aware that someone is suffering or needs help. Why do we not begin to allow these, what I call "silent voices" and acts of kindness to surface naturally and be cheered? From crisis to rebuilding our lives post-COVID-19, we need more than financial aid. The emotional support that is offered and the ground-up initiatives may be unofficial, but they are necessary additional safety nets that will truly make a difference to people's lives.

I say schools should acknowledge and reward children who look after other classmates, or co-help one another in areas to excel, depending on their own capabilities and taking care of others who are living in the community. Such self-initiated actions from the students are far more valuable than Values-in-Action programmes that is initiated or school-organised. We need to inspire, not calculate or rank, the spirit of volunteerism and acts of kindness. A points system to measure the efforts of one's contributions is counter-intuitive and is fair.

If a student in school constantly helps another child who has learning needs and make him or her feel less isolated or different from others, I would say this child has learnt beyond the books and school and is a person that we should celebrate and be exceptionally proud of. It is not the scores or ranks that he or she has achieved, but the values and ability to pay it forward that we should celebrate.

Over time, we will hear fewer conversations that children from disadvantaged families are unable to cope to have the same opportunities that they can afford tuition or extra classes. These children will have new starting lines and the ability to break the cycle of poverty as it begun on the day that their own classmates and those with more resources are already partnering them and helping them to get ahead in school or the community.

Our society will have a chance to become kinder and cherish every individual for who they are, the values they stand for and recognise that everyone's abilities are essential in this country. Over generations, our measure of success surpasses that of examination scores, school rankings and, in turn, pursue the finer essence of life. And if I may just quote how Minister of State Alvin Tan has put this, he mentioned that this would be a real measure and true shift in the barometer that we measure success. I believe, by then, the stress that many face today will correspondingly reduce as our definition of success has more dimensions. It is multifaceted, it becomes less superficial and the fanatic race to a top single prize is no longer relevant as more people are champions of their own rights and causes.

And lastly, Sir, how can we be more constructive moving forward? Often, we hear feedback that we need to strengthen our Singapore identity as we evolve and even more so now getting through a crisis. This begins from conversations between the Government and the citizens, which have been taking place over the years. While conversations and exchange of thoughts and ideas are a great starting point, I feel we need to deepen the understanding of perspectives that are raised and effectively listen without biasness from all parties.

The assumptions used and basis in which policies are being crafted can be more actively shared during public consultations. And whether feedback have been considered, the reasons for implementation or not and new circumstances that may arise from the point of feedback and implementation, we require more flexibility to adapt as we implement. If the flexibility required does not exist today due to a need for compliance, how then should we change? The authorities to take the lead or the community and citizens to share the ownership of ideas and implementation?

It is time we relook at our fundamentals and not take all feedback and requests as radical changes or criticisms. Processes do exist but constantly require fine-tuning or removal if it is no longer relevant for the times. But what we should not forego is the need to widely consult and gather diverse views from groups, big or small, and robustly review all options available at each point of time. Sir, next, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has brought the world into a critical time. Plans cannot keep up with changes. People need to adapt and change in this uncertain environment. Only by doing this can we survive the adversities. COVID-19 will eventually pass. To learn and grow from these difficult times is critical for future crisis management and system reforms.

In her Address, the President emphasised that the Government cannot overlook the diverse views and aspirations of each generation. Only when the development is balanced and holistic can the country grow in a healthy manner. I suggest that we make bolder reforms in the following areas.

First, foster an open and collaborative spirit between the people, Government and authorities. We need to break some old mindsets and boundaries, create more collaboration opportunities between the people and Government and enable more effective cross-collaboration and platforms, so that we can achieve an outcome with speed, simplicity and accountability. Through this approach, we will develop the attitude of learning, form new rules, build trust with one another at each stage and create a Singapore in a new era.

Second, expand the definition of success to step towards an inclusive society. Although the Government has always believed that we should provide more resources to the vulnerable and the low-income groups, have we thought about whether our existing safety nets are strong and suitable enough or have we considered the feelings of the recipients? After COVID-19, people will need not only financial but also emotional support. Additional safety nets will ensure a more secure life for people whose lives have been affected. We need to encourage and promote volunteerism more actively and include this into the assessment framework of a student's basic learning capabilities.

Third, how can we forge ahead constructively? Conversations and exchanges of thoughts and ideas between the Government and citizens over the years are a great starting point. I think we need to deepen the understanding of perspectives raised and effectively listen from all sides. During public consultations, the assumptions used and the basis in which policies are being crafted can be more actively shared. We can then communicate with the people again after feedback has been considered and tell people the reasons for implementation and new circumstances that may arise.

(In English): And in conclusion, Sir, this is an inevitable journey we must trod with determination and be inspired to share. Regardless of circumstances, the leaders of the time have to demonstrate leadership in order to gain the trust and respect of fellow Singaporeans. To build a more just, a more fair and a more equal society that is not just idealistic, but one where every Singaporean feels they are a valued member and a country that we can all proudly call our home. Depending on context, it can be a tango, waltz, hip hop or line dance, but this coordination and partnership is exactly what we need to keep the society and country going.

I sincerely hope we will take this opportunity to move forward embracing diversity, partner one another in the spirit of putting the country first and taking steps in becoming an inclusive nation. And Sir, with that, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

2.41 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, four years ago, I gave my maiden speech in this House. I emphasised that we needed to become a more caring and compassionate society, that the heartware of this nation is just as important as the hardware and software. My focus on a caring and compassionate society will continue in my second term as an MP. I will speak up for a more equal and just society where discrimination becomes a thing of the past. I will push hard for an inclusive society without labels.

Today, I will speak about how we can make our workplaces, schools and community more inclusive and how we need to remove the labels.

The first label we need to remove is that of being a mother so that we can have more inclusive workplaces. "I cannot find a job"; many Members would have heard this over and over again from our residents. Our unemployment rate is at its highest level in a decade. In this economy, we need to do our best to help Singaporeans find new jobs. But some will find it harder than others. Women, in particular, will face unique struggles.

Last month, a female resident shared worrying concerns with me during my market walkabout. She said, "I have just been to an interview. The human resources (HR) personnel called me a 'mother' before they even called me by my name. I am in the line of recruitment and such stories are a dime a dozen. My take is that the focus should be on whether we are up for the job. It should not be on whether we are a mother and then assumed that we are not able to do the role."

Was this a one-off incident or a more widespread problem? I took to social media to do a public consultation and the results were alarming. Many more people shared about the bias they faced.

One lady said, "I have faced bias because my daughter was under the age of one when I was applying for a job with a large corporation and they said that while I was extremely qualified for the role, they needed someone who could travel at short notice and was therefore unencumbered. Nobody asked me if I was willing to travel even with a young child. They just assumed. 'Unencumbered' also gave the impression that my child is a burden."

Another shared, "I have been asked in an interview before if I am planning to have a fourth kid in future. The hiring manager said he is not a sexist but if he had to choose between me and a male candidate, he would choose a male candidate over me as I have three children."

Even worse, another lady shared, "At a final interview with a local bank (with HR sitting in as well), they blatantly told me that I should not get pregnant if I were to take on the role."

There are many more stories, and the numbers paint the same picture. Out of 255 female respondents to the public consultation, about half said they were asked whether they had or planned to have children at the point of recruitment. Over 60% felt they were unlikely to be hired and over a third felt they would be offered a lower salary if they had or planned to have children.

The unfortunate reality is that study after study show that at job interviews and at work, many women are second-guessed for no other reason than being a woman and a mother. MOM's figures also show that there is a problem. On average, women earned $342 less than men for similar work.

Our female labour force participation rate has stagnated for the past five years. Last year, it was 61%, far below the 77% for men.

I know MOM is working hard to address this problem. But Sir, one of the main causes of this problem is the assumption that women are supposed to take care of the children. I saw this problem first-hand when we built the Oasis Water Park in Nee Soon East, which opened just last year. I made sure that the water park is family friendly. We have a nursing room, a nappy-changing room, hot-water dispenser, child-friendly toilets, the whole deal.

But what I forgot was this gender stereotype. The builders installed the nappy-changing room inside the women's toilet. When I asked them why, they said women are the ones who change nappies. We managed to resolve this by installing a second nappy-changing station in the disabled toilet so men can help change nappies as well. And we men should.

But these builders are not alone in thinking that only women take care of babies. Such an attitude makes it harder for women everywhere.

Sir, I have two suggestions on how the Government can reduce this gender inequality.

First, we need to legislate to make it illegal for employers to ask interviewees and employees about their marital status and whether they have or plan to have children. Our Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) guidelines are clear and state that questions related to marital status and family responsibilities should not be asked during an interview. But these guidelines are clearly not being followed. We really need to go beyond guidelines and follow the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, China and Hong Kong to legislate and make it illegal for employers to ask about marital status and child-bearing plans when hiring.

Second, we need to legislate to give employees the right to access flexible work arrangements, which employers can turn down only for valid business-related reasons. This pandemic has given fathers more opportunities to be involved with childcare at home. It has enabled both men and women to feel they can contribute at work and home equally, and this change is good. We should legislate this flexibility to work from home, so that we can facilitate this change and help break the gender stereotype.

Let me end this part with a success story that I am proud of. In Nee Soon East, Ziqing, our constituency manager was considered for promotion when she was pregnant with her second child, received the promotion to deputy constituency director when she was on maternity leave and took up the post when she came back from her leave. She was judged on her ability and competence, and I am privileged to have her in my team and for her to lead the passionate staff and volunteers in Nee Soon East.

Our workplaces can be more inclusive, and our schools should as well.

My second point today is about more inclusive schools and the label of being a child with special needs or, a more progressive term which I will use, a differently abled child. Sir, we have said that every school is a good school, and I believe that wholeheartedly. We need to make sure that every school is also a good school for differently abled children. I am glad we are abolishing streaming, which will encourage more social mixing across socioeconomic statuses in our schools. We need to work towards more social mixing with differently abled children, starting with our preschools.

I met a group of parents with differently abled children last month. Their children were only five to six years old. They shared their worries about what would happen to their children when they pass on. Who will look after them? Will they be left alone and be abandoned by society? They have to think so far ahead, and I can see how worried they are. They are fighting hard for their children who have mild to moderate developmental delays, to enter a mainstream preschool because this helps their children integrate into society. Ultimately, they hope that when daddy and mummy pass on, they would pass on knowing that their child would be respected and valued members of our society.

But the reality is they are finding it difficult to find preschools that accept their children. They face constant rejection, which does not help in the already difficult journey they are in. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has worked hard to make our preschools more inclusive, and Mayor Denise Phua has spoken passionately about this.

Sir, I have two suggestions to make.

First, I hope the Development Support and Learning Support programme, which provides trained specialists, can be extended to all preschools rather than just some and extended also to nursery-level children. Such specialists provide in-class support to the mainstream teachers to integrate the differently abled children in various group settings.

Second, I hope that as part of their professional development, all new pre-school teachers undergoing courses at the National Institute of Early Childhood Development (NIEC) are offered modular courses and top-ups that train them to support differently abled children in their classrooms. By supporting the integration of differently abled children, I hope we can make schools more inclusive.

My third and final point is about an inclusive community. Sir, this pandemic has made people who are often invisible in our society much more visible. Our cleaners are now called essential workers. They put themselves at risk during this pandemic to keep us safe. They are labelled as cleaners, and worse and ironically, the people who give us a clean environment to live, work and play in are sometimes labelled as "dirty". Most of these cleaners are our migrant workers who do the work that many Singaporeans do not want to do.

As Senior Minister Shanmugaratnam said, "It is because of foreign workers that 57% of Singaporeans have been able to become PMETs. They clean Singapore, they build our Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, they handle our waste management, they form the base of our economy. And therefore, they are helping us build our prosperity."

Sir, last year, I joined our Nee Soon Town Council cleaner, Hanif, on his trip back to Bangladesh to welcome his first child into the world. Our plans failed slightly as his wife delivered early and he missed the chance to be there when his son was born. He was already absent for the whole pregnancy. In Bangladesh, I saw first-hand how difficult it is for our cleaners to be so far away from home and so far from their loved ones. It was both a heartwarming and heartbreaking experience.

Hanif has worked as a cleaner in Singapore for 14 years. In Bangladesh, I saw how much his family loved him and missed him. Hanif's wife, Tania, said, "Sometimes, I think, if he can come back to Bangladesh, how amazing that would be. I feel sad and I miss his presence. However, reality is very tough, so he has to work hard abroad for us. I have compromised and accepted this. Obviously, I feel sad for my son, that he will be deprived of his dad's love and affection."

When asked how he felt knowing that his son may not see him for a long time, Hanif replied, "We are poor people and to survive we have to make these kinds of sacrifices."

During that trip, I also invited all our Nee Soon East cleaners' families to lunch in Dhaka. We arranged for them to do a video call with their loved ones in Singapore. It was heartbreaking to see them cry as they spoke to their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons. I met our cleaner's, Mazibur, daughter who was seven years old and he has never met her. She has never hugged her father. I met Newton's daughter who was about a year old, and she too has never met her father, and it will be years before she meets him.

To be honest, I felt bad that their daughters had met me before meeting their fathers. As a father, I cannot imagine not being able to meet my daughters for so many years.

We should show a lot more appreciation to our cleaners for the work they do for us. I have three recommendations.

For the past five years, I have been bringing our cleaners, both local and migrant, out for outings almost every quarter. I learnt this from Mr Speaker, when I was serving with him in Kembangan-Chai Chee. We bring them to explore Singapore to see a different side of our beautiful country that they seldom get to see. I see how much they value these outings. Many do video calls during the outing to share the experience with their families back in Bangladesh.

My first recommendation is that Members of this House join us and organise these outings for our cleaners once it is safe to do so.

My second recommendation is that Members will also help humanise our cleaners. In Nee Soon East, we have placed posters at every block to share who the cleaner for that block is and also their personal stories. I hope that residents will see them not just as a cleaner but as a person.

My third recommendation is that Members will host more inclusive events, again, when it is safe to do so. In Nee Soon East, we had a beautiful barbecue party hosted by Hanif. Together with our cleaners and residents, we celebrated the birth of his son. Together, we celebrated as one Yishun family.

Sir, I truly hope that we can remove the labels that we have created and be truly inclusive. These labels should not define who we are or our place in society. These labels lead to discrimination.

Let me end my speech with an update. For the past three years in this House, I shared the story of a Singaporean sex worker. Her story was in my speeches on the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill and the Massage Establishments Bill.

I shared that, "She was only 19 years old when she became a sex worker and did this for four years. Her parents divorced when she was five years old and both parents did not want her. She was left with her grandmother who raised her. For her entire childhood, she was constantly reminded that she had no parents. I cannot imagine the impact that had on a young child.

She did not do well in her studies and could not get into a polytechnic. She tried to enroll in a private polytechnic but did not have enough money to pay the tuition fees. She tried to get a bank loan but failed, as she could not find a guarantor. Not knowing where else to go for help, she ultimately entered the sex trade to fund her education."

Many have discriminated against her as she was labelled a sex worker. Many did not view her for who she really was and the difficult journey she was going through. I am glad to share with everyone that she is now doing her diploma, and she proudly sent me the results of her first semester. She had scored straight "A"s for all the modules. If we remove the label and give her a chance, help her like any other person rather than discriminate against her, then like any person, she can succeed as well.

Sir, last year, my daughter and I took part in the Giraffe Singapore Community Art Exhibition organised by the Central Community Development Council (CDC). I was invited to use a giraffe sculpture as a canvas to "share about any cause you would like to champion for or any related thoughts or ideas". My idea is a simple one. Sometimes, we need to view the world through the eyes of our children. So, instead of me painting the giraffe, my daughter painted it.

Here is the description of the giraffe she painted that was published: "My five-year-old daughter Ella painted this. She views the world as a rainbow with colours mixing. There is beauty in looking at the world through the eyes of our children. They view the world without labels we adults created. Ella has been with me to help refugees, cleaners and many others. To her, they are not refugees or cleaners but simply, her friends. Children remind us that there is no us or them, only us, one human family connected in ways we sometimes forget."

Sir, I am often asked which animal I resemble the most and I have always replied "a housefly", mostly because a housefly is very persistent and never gives up. Or, as my sister would say, I am as irritating as a housefly. Some people now say I look like a housefly, so I am glad and very humbled that Mayor Denise Phua has named me a "Giraffe Hero" for sticking my neck out for the common good. A giraffe is much cuter than a housefly and so I am very glad to reply to people now that I resemble a giraffe.

Sir, I have spent the last two decades of my life speaking up and I will continue to speak up in this Fourteenth Parliament and stick my neck out for the common good. I will continue to fight for a more caring, compassionate and inclusive society, and one with a strong heart-ware.

We are still in the midst of a pandemic, and it is our hardware and software that will save lives and livelihoods. But it is about being inclusive and our heartware that will determine whether we will get through this pandemic as One People, One Nation and One Singapore. Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Ms Carrie Tan.

2.57 pm

Ms Carrie Tan (Nee Soon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would first like to declare my interest as Founder and Strategic Advisor of a charity with Institution of Public Character (IPC) status in Singapore called Daughters Of Tomorrow. I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for her Address.

There are three key questions I would like to raise for this House to consider, as well as for our citizens to reflect on and contribute their views to, to help shape our policies.

My first question: how do we maintain the fighting spirit of our people, maintain our unity, even as the loss of jobs puts increased pressures on families and make people feel like they have to compete for resources?

I think the best way to do this is to change the way we think about welfare and social assistance. We need to first acknowledge that there could be biased assumptions in our current notion and perceptions of deservingness. We projected our gross domestic product (GDP) to shrink by 5% to 7% in 2020. Our unemployment rate is at 2.9% and it could rise further despite our best efforts.

We will need to provide strong social support to those hit hard. This will require our social policies to be more generous. It also gives us an opportunity to evolve the existing narrative and notion of welfare recipients beyond having to be deserving and needy. COVID-19 has shown us that anyone can fall onto hard times. With global trade and economy being so volatile, we can now clearly see that the willingness to work is not the main factor that makes someone seek help. More often than not, people seek welfare because of many forces outside of their control. Mr Speaker, allow me to make a point in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Government's schemes are meant to help the people but, for some, the application process can be very frustrating. Take Workfare Special Payment, for example. Many low-income earners cannot qualify just because they have Medisave account arrears. Hence, they feel very frustrated.

Is it because the schemes are not designed thoroughly or because public officers lack empathy? I do not think the problem lies with the frontline officers because their job is to do what is instructed to do.

The Government should study where the problem lies and avoid unnecessary conflicts. What is meant to be “sending coals amid snow” should not end up becoming “adding frost to snow” and damaging the morale of public officers at the same time.

(In English): While we support those who have lost their jobs with the usual practicalities of upskilling and employment matching, it is imperative that we uphold their dignity. We must maintain their self-esteem and we must upkeep their morale.

Deputy Prime Minister Heng affirmed this in his speech on Monday. Hence, let us remove the shame of people feeling that if they resort to welfare, that it is because they did not try hard enough. If COVID-19 cannot convince us to be more compassionate and less judgmental in the way we help and support our people, what else can?

When Minister Masagos made an announcement on 7 August that there would be an automatic renewal of ComCare for those whose support was due to end in the current quarter, I was delighted. This is a really good start. We can make more of such improvements to help reduce the anxiety, stress and erosion of self-esteem that affects many recipients of support. As my colleague, Mr Seah Kian Peng, also advocated, let us err on the side of being kind.

I am certain our social assistance policies were designed to get people out of poverty and not keep them poor. But did we unintentionally create a perverse situation for people to stay poor because the system forces them to show us how needy they are before we can help them?

The human spirit is intangible, and it is so important to preserve, especially in such difficult times. The cost to rebuild it is far too high.

My charity, Daughters Of Tomorrow, was set up to help low-income women from challenged families rebuild their confidence in order to step back into the workforce. We intervene at the right time with the right measures without judging them. We incentivise effort and we reward progress. All these help us rebuild the spirits and revive the potential of hundreds of women. We put them and their family back on their feet.

I urge this House to rethink our social assistance approach, from a “needs-based approach” to a “growth-based approach”. For a start, I recommend that we shift our language to stop referring to these families as “needy” families and start addressing them as “challenged families” to kickstart a mindset shift in our society. It might sound like semantics, but the choice of words can remove unhelpful labels and refocus our social assistance approach towards removing the barriers faced by these families who struggled.

I also urge the relevant Ministries to create funding for individuals and social service agencies to reward effort and progress. We should reward individuals and families for making progress. We should also reward social service workers and officers for successfully enabling these families. I believe we can change the vicious cycle to a virtuous cycle. With compassion, empathy and the correct key performance indicators, we can lift the plight and spirits of our people, one person, one family at a time.

My second question: how do we rebuild our economy to ensure equity while balancing fiscal sustainability?

I believe the best solution lies in better harnessing the potential of women and allowing their talents and wisdom to shine, and to contribute better by reducing work-care conflict.

During the General Election, I made a promise to my constituents that I would look after the sandwich generation of families and ease their stresses and burdens. I, myself, am a self-confessed millennial woman guilty of not choosing marriage and childbirth, not because I do not wish to, but because I am hesitant to.

I grew up watching my mother be a tireless and self-sacrificing full-time homemaker. This gave me the unchangeable impression that a mother is someone who willingly takes on all chores in the household related to cooking, cleaning and taking care of the health and happiness of everyone in the family. As a 38-year-old woman with a career I find immense fulfilment in, there is no way I could see myself being a mother the same way mine was while continuing to advance in my personal and professional aspirations.

Despite more and more women graduating from university with a degree, we still face the pressures and penalties that come with being a wife and a mother. All over the world, once a woman bears children and stays home to rear them for a few years, there is little chance, if ever, that her income can catch up again with the level she otherwise could have gotten. When her parents get old, again, she may have to give up her job to look after them, especially if they are in ill health. This then means she ends up poor in her old age, because she has not made enough income during her productive years to ensure that she can retire well. According to research by AWARE Singapore, women earn close to $550,000 less than their male counterparts, over the course of a standard 40-year career.

As we already know, the low fertility rate in Singapore has serious implications for our society. Less people working means a shrinking tax base, while we face rising healthcare costs due to our ageing population. So far, measures such as the Baby Bonus scheme have not been effective in improving outcomes, as our birth rate remains far lower than our replacement rate at 1.14 in 2018, the lowest in eight years.

I beg the House to consider that the root causes of women’s decision to delay marriage and childbirth have more to do with quality of life that is made worse by financial sacrifice. The lack of caregiving support, opportunity costs in career for women, as well as the increased stress in their lives are all barriers to women having more babies.

As my colleague, Mr Louis Ng, spoke passionately about, if we do not remove these barriers, we have little hope of reversing the trend of low birth rate. The strategies I urge this House to consider and debate in the coming months are: valuing the unpaid care work of women; legislating adequate workplace policies to support working caregivers, men or women; facilitate easier re-entry back to work; and reducing the burden of care on women with upstream gender and care education in our schools. I look forward to discussing and debating these strategies in future Sittings.

We need MOM, MSF, the Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF), as well as domain experts from civil society working in gender as well as the care sectors to come together. We need to ensure that the complex interconnections among employment, caregiving, domestic labour, healthcare and retirement adequacy are considered holistically from a woman’s life journey approach.

Mdm President mentioned in her speech that we need more innovation in the ways we transform our economy and to create new livelihoods for our people. I believe if the Government also works with social innovators and entrepreneurs and focus on enabling women, we could see the rise of a Care Economy that creates economic activity and new jobs for our citizens, both men and women, while serving the care needs of our ageing population.

The third and final question that Singapore needs to address is this: how do we cater for the aspirations of the younger generation while meeting the desires of our older generation for social cohesion, peace and stability?

To do this, we first need to step out beyond ideologies, theories and frameworks, away from emails and keyboards, and into people’s lives, to truly understand how they feel and why they feel the way they do. My colleague, Ms Yeo Wan Ling, spoke about knowing people for the stories behind the faces and the stories behind their challenges.

Related to gender and poverty is a larger conversation about discrimination in our society. For those of us who are privileged, whether by race, class, gender or education, we may not always notice that it exists. However, for those without such privileges, I have come to understand that it is ever present, seeping into their daily lives. Are we making enough and intentional effort to get to know their stories?

Mr Patrick Tay spoke about hiring biases. And similar to Mr Louis Ng, some of the instances I have seen in my work at Daughters Of Tomorrow are the following: a pregnant job seeker in a dilemma whether to disclose her pregnancy to a prospective employer; a single mother being asked how she expects to turn up for work on time with four kids on her hands; a Malay or Indian jobseeker being turned away because employers prefer “Chinese-speaking” individuals for jobs that may not require this; a tattooed individual being turned away for a job at a childcare centre and a Muslim woman being asked to remove her headscarf to perform her customer service duties.

Discrimination is real to minority communities, not just in daily life and social interactions, but also from people in positions of power over their lives.

Recently, due to several notable incidents, our racial and religious harmony has been tested. Minority communities have spoken up again, with some in the majority listening with an understanding ear, but some not. As I, myself, am learning right now, sometimes I say and do things that come across as unwittingly hurtful to our minority communities. In the past, I know that I have held and maybe even perpetuated some of these biases without knowing better, but I am trying to learn from my mistakes and be better.

I would like to extend an invitation to people like me – who are privileged in some ways – to expand our empathy to our minority communities and begin really listening to what they say and how they feel. I invite all of us to reflect on what are the biases that we have inherited from the society around us and how do such biases affect the way we speak to and treat our friends and fellow countrymen and women who are in the minority. Did we behave in ways that have been insensitive and unmindful that we should remedy?

Outside of these, I would also like to extend a challenge to those who are passionate about working on these issues. Can we make our activism and advocacy more accessible? Can we explain concepts like microaggressions and intersectionality to our elders? Can we include our parents and grandparents in these discussions about equality and justice?

I encourage our youths and others who are passionate to step up on these issues, not just on social media, but also in real life. Real life is where we build strong relationships. And we need strong relationships in order to have these difficult conversations. I am happy to share my experience from Daughters Of Tomorrow in empathy education with anyone keen to do this work.

At the leadership level, I believe that the Government can loosen out-of-bounds (OB) markers and practise more tolerance. There are those who may not have the finesse to talk about such topics with the level of sensitivity that would be ideal. There are those who are well-informed and well-researched but may sometimes be hindered by passion and inexperience.

I see and I empathise that our leaders bear the weight of Singapore on their shoulders. They bear the burden of protecting us, protecting our security, and protecting our stability. They have dedicated much of their lives and uncountable sleepless nights for the good of our country. It is a heavy cross to bear, but there is no need to bear it alone.

The youths of today are passionate because they care so much for Singapore. Many have good ideas, and many are capable. It is now our cross to bear too.

I have confidence that if we balance circumspection from the youths, with guidance and mentorship from the elders, we will find a sweet spot. A sweet spot of unity, cohesion and shared purpose together, across generations. I look forward to an awakening and participation of our people that stems from compassion and empathy and future discourse that roots itself in mutual respect.

I look forward to enabling young people to step forward, to take on this mantle of nation-building work. I urge the House for magnanimity and forbearance towards the young and the dissenting, while we figure things together in all our messiness and diversity as one people, as we evolve a new social compact for Singapore, together. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I reaffirm my support for the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.30 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.14 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Prime Minister.

3.32 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. This year, we opened Parliament sooner than we usually do after a General Election, because we have urgent business dealing with COVID-19 and the economy.

COVID-19 has caused a massive upheaval in our lives. After eight gruelling months, we have stabilised our situation. But it has taken a tremendous effort to get here. From the very beginning when COVID-19 hit us, our overriding consideration was to protect the lives of Singaporeans. Many countries talked about flattening the curve, the infection curve, of letting the disease burn through the population until herd immunity developed. But that would have meant many Singaporeans getting ill and perhaps thousands dying, especially the old and vulnerable.

We were determined, right from the very beginning, not to go down that route. We did our utmost to contain the outbreak and keep Singaporeans safe. This meant mobilising all our national resources.

We built up contact tracing and testing capabilities so that once we detected a new case or cluster, we could immediately isolate them and their close contacts, before they could infect others.

Today, we can do about 20,000 laboratory tests a day and with pooled testing, that means we are able to test several times that number of persons.

We expanded our healthcare system significantly. We more than doubled our our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity, in case we were swamped with gravely ill COVID-19 cases, like what happened in Wuhan, Milan or New York. We set up temporary community care and isolation facilities at the Singapore Expo, Changi Exhibition Centre, PSA Tanjong Pagar Terminal, old schools and SAF camps, where we could accommodate and treat patients with mild symptoms. In total, we created more beds than all our acute hospitals put together – all within a few weeks.

To handle the migrant worker dormitories, where we had most of our COVID-19 cases, we mobilised the SAF and the Home Team. They did a magnificent job in the most testing circumstances – ensuring the well-being of some 300,000 migrant workers, taking care of their health and welfare and keeping them, as well as our general population, safe.

Implementing the circuit breaker in April was a very big move. We knew that it would cause extensive social and economic disruption, and demand major sacrifices from Singaporeans. But we decided, Cabinet decided, we had to go ahead, to slow down the infection rate and get things firmly under control and buy us time. Fortunately, we timed the circuit breaker right and luckily, it worked.

Each of these operations was huge, and all of them had to be done in parallel. Thanks to the heroic efforts of many unsung heroes, working quietly behind the scenes, we have got here today.

Judging by the health outcomes, we have done well, so far. Our fatality rate and absolute numbers are one of the lowest in the world. New infections in our community are down to just a handful a day. Fewer than 100 patients remain in hospital. This has given us the confidence to re-open our economy and society – gradually and carefully.

Of course, our COVID-19 response was not without shortcomings. COVID-19 has severely tested every government in the world. No country has been perfect in its pandemic response. Some have done better than the rest, like South Korea and New Zealand. But even for them, the fight continues, with new cases surfacing as they open up again.

With hindsight, we would certainly have done some things differently. For example, I wish we had known earlier that people with COVID-19 were infectious even when they were asymptomatic, did not show any symptoms. Then, when we brought Singaporeans back home from all over the world in March, we would have quarantined all of them earlier, instead of only those returning from certain countries, so that the virus did not spread to their family members, or their colleagues and friends. And we would have tested all of them before releasing them from quarantine, whether or not they showed any symptoms, instead of assuming that no symptoms meant no infection.

We would also have recommended that everyone to wear face masks sooner than we did. But at the time, we took the best available scientific advice. Once the World Health Organization (WHO) recognised that asymptomatic transmission was a major problem, we changed our policy and distributed face masks to everyone.

We would also have acted more aggressively and sooner on the migrant worker dormitories. We knew that communal living in the dorms posed an infection risk. Communal living in any form poses risks – onboard ships, in army camps, in student hostels and nursing homes. We stepped up precautions. For a time, these seemed adequate. But then, bigger clusters broke out in the dorms, which threatened to overwhelm us.

All this is wisdom after the fact. We must learn from these errors and do better the next time.

But in the fog of war, it is not possible always to make the perfect decisions. Yet, we have to decide and move. We cannot afford to wait. The key is to watch things closely, learn from experience and adapt our responses promptly as new information emerges and as the situation changes.

Because of the scale and complexity of our operations, there have inevitably been some rough edges. For example, now that we have cleared the dorms, we are helping the migrant workers resume work, especially in the construction industry. But this has to be done safely because the risk of cases re-emerging is still there. And it is a complicated exercise.

I know we have made things more difficult and burdensome for employers, especially the contractors and sub-contractors. They have found it frustrating to deal with all the new rules, approvals and inspections, even as they try to get their businesses up and running again. But I hope they understand that we are doing our best to smooth things out for them and doing all this in order to keep our people safe. It is better that we make these measures work and get businesses to operate safely, than to suffer a new outbreak and have to shut down again.

Overall, we have been able to deal with COVID-19 only because the Public Service, the political leadership, our businesses and the Singapore public have worked closely together, each doing their part and more.

In the Public Service, the officials, Ministries and agencies have worked tirelessly, building new capabilities on the fly and stepping up to do things way beyond their normal scale or scope. Without a high quality, dedicated and adaptable Public Service, we could not have carried out all these major operations.

The political leadership has also played a role to define the priorities, to make the major decisions, to direct the civil servants implementing the decisions, win public support for these measures and take responsibility for them, for example, whether to impose a circuit breaker, what activities to restrict, which businesses to keep open, whether to close schools or reopen them.

We explained these decisions to the public at frequent press conferences, video addresses and in Parliament, so that Singaporeans understood what we were trying to do and what each of us individually had to do. These are the responsibilities of the Ministers and ultimately of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Without political leadership, the Public Service alone could not have done their job.

Businesses came forward, also, to do sterling National Service. They put their people to work furiously on solutions, often going well beyond their business mission. They set up mask production lines, constructed Community Care Facilities, built up testing capacity, scoured the world for test equipment, test kits and reagents, and designed booths to swab patients safely and much more. Their contributions were a vital complement to what the Government agencies were doing.

Our COVID-19 response also depended critically on Singaporeans working together and giving the Government their trust and support. They understood the need for tough and painful measures and complied with them. Many Singaporeans' lives have been severely affected, but they have borne the difficulties calmly and stoically. They had confidence that the Government would see them through the crisis and beyond. Many volunteered to take part in the COVID-19 operations, sometimes on the frontline, and also in the community efforts to help others through these tough times.

I am very grateful for their cooperation and support. Their support will remain crucial as we continue the fight to keep Singaporeans safe.

The situation is currently stable, but we must not let our guard down. A recent The Straits Times survey showed that almost half of the respondents were weary of the safety measures. The irony is that the more successful we are in keeping cases low, the more people wonder whether all these painful measures are necessary.

I recently received an email from a university student. His socialising had been disrupted. He complained that our reaction to COVID-19 was “one of the greatest overreactions to a public health issue”. As proof, he pointed out that our hospital systems were far from overwhelmed. He said that, instead, we should let young Singaporeans “do us the service of achieving herd immunity”.

You only have to look at the situation in other cities that have let this happen to imagine how this could have turned out for us. The COVID-19 virus remains as infectious and potent as it was before. This has not changed. What has changed is that we have taken measures and we have built up our capabilities to contain it. If we relax these measures now because the numbers have come down, we will have a resurgence. Just look at Europe and many other places in the world.

COVID-19 will not be our last public health crisis. SARS was 17 years ago, in 2003. After SARS, we knew that, sooner or later, another novel pathogen would appear and pose a threat to humanity. We had H1N1, which was highly infectious but, fortunately, it turned out to be relatively mild. Then there has been Ebola, but we escaped it because it was confined mainly in some African countries.

Next, there was the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) but, fortunately, that is not so transmissible and we have been lucky not to have had any cases here, although the Koreans had. They had an outbreak, they learned painful lessons from it and the lessons served them well when COVID-19 came.

Scientists talk about Disease X being overdue – a new disease, unknown, that is highly infectious, deadly and mutates easily. So, when COVID-19 appeared, people asked whether this was Disease X. COVID-19 has been a disaster for the world, but it is not Disease X. It is, by far, not the worst new disease that can befall mankind.

But it is only a matter of time before Disease X happens. So, we had better learn from COVID-19 on how to deal with a pandemic and be as ready as we can when a worse one befalls us. We should build up our resilience, instincts and preparations, so that when Disease X comes one day, we will be prepared.

Even as we manage the immediate situation, we must look forward and prepare for life after COVID-19. As the President said in her speech, we are headed into a very different world. What must we rethink and reinvent, so that Singapore can continue to be successful in this brave new world?

Members have touched on several topics already in this debate, including social safety nets and foreign worker policies. In times of economic uncertainty, it is natural for people to be anxious about these two issues. So, let me give Members my perspective and explain to Singaporeans what we intend to do in these areas. Then, I will talk about the future of politics in Singapore, which underpins how we will manage and respond to all these different issues.

Let me start with social safety nets.

Social safety nets are there to protect the vulnerable in our society and ensure that everyone has full access to opportunities to improve our lives. They also give people the confidence and assurance that if some bad luck trips them up in life, society will be there to break their fall and help them pick themselves up again.

In our early decades of nationhood, we did not need extensive social safety nets. We had high GDP and income growth. Jobs were aplenty for a young population. The economy was buoyant and unemployment after the first few years was very low. If you lost your job, a new one was just around the corner. In fact, sometimes, people were happy to be retrenched because you collected your retrenchment benefits and then you went into a new job straightaway; get paid twice.

So, we invested heavily in our social infrastructure – universal education, basic healthcare and public housing. This improved everyone’s standard of living and allowed all to benefit from the country’s progress. More importantly, it levelled everyone up, giving them the means to improve their lives through their own efforts.

Now, we have moved into a different phase of development. Our economy is maturing and incomes are growing less rapidly. There is a higher premium on specialised skills and education. As a result, when someone loses his job, especially as a mature worker, it is harder for them to move to another job, especially across different sectors.

Therefore, in the last 15 years or so, we shifted our approach and progressively strengthened our social safety nets. We introduced many schemes in these last 15 years – ComCare in 2005, Workfare in 2007 and Silver Support in 2016. These schemes, and many others, are targeted at the lower-income and those who have fallen on hard times. They supplement their wages and CPF contributions, so that the recipients gain both current income and also retirement security.

As we expanded our social programmes, we have also extended the coverage of other schemes and subsidies beyond the lower income, to include middle-income households, too, for example, with preschool subsidies, and bursaries for universities and other post-secondary institutions, which almost all our students now attend. We also gave special support to our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations to help them see through their retirement years. Altogether, we now spend three times as much on social programmes every year as we did 15 years ago.

These are all peacetime measures. But when COVID-19 hit us, they could not be enough. So, we implemented multiple emergency measures for COVID-19 – the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), COVID-19 Support Grant and now, the Jobs Growth Initiative.

We had to draw on our past Reserves to fund them. These are emergency measures; they are crucial for now. But they cannot continue indefinitely. We have to start thinking about what comes after them and about the level of social support we will return to after COVID-19 is over.

In the "new normal", we fully expect more economic uncertainty and turbulence. And the longer-term trends of an ageing population and rising healthcare costs remain unchanged. So, we will certainly need to strengthen social support for our people, during and after their working lives.

How will we do this? Several ideas have been raised, including in this House, on this debate. The Government is not ideologically opposed to any proposed solution. Our approach has always been pragmatic and empirical; make the best use of our resources to meet the needs of different groups in our society, in a targeted manner. Because if we help everyone equally, then we are not giving more help to those who need it most.

Take, for example, older workers. Older workers are valuable and experienced. Having been in the workforce for longer, they tend to draw higher salaries than younger workers, but their skills may be less current. If they lose their jobs, they find it harder to find another similar job, particularly at the same pay, so they are at greater risk of long-term unemployment.

Solutions, like unemployment insurance, can offer older workers transient relief, at best. But retraining and upskilling older workers will enable employers to continue finding value in them and to be less likely to make them redundant. And if the older worker does get retrenched, with these skills, he or she can find a new job more readily.

This is a structural solution that helps older workers get their careers back on track and feel that he is making a worthwhile contribution. The best unemployment insurance is, in fact, the assurance of another job.

Another group is the low-wage workers. They are the most vulnerable ones in our workforce. They worry about the day-to-day and how to make ends meet. They often feel stuck in their jobs while others around them seem to be doing better. We need to support them to improve their lives, so that they can catch up and narrow the gap with the rest of society. The Workfare Income Supplement has made a material difference to them, and we have been enhancing the Workfare scheme every now and again. In this downturn, we made a special payment under the Workfare scheme because we want to help those who are most in need and we do not want to put the burden on employers. The Government takes it on. The Progressive Wage Model has also helped them and we will extend the Progressive Wage Model, as you have heard from Minister Josephine Teo yesterday, to more sectors over time.

The Government’s efforts, supported by unions and employers, have worked. Older workers are staying in the workforce longer and, over the last five years, real wages of our bottom quintile have consistently grown faster than median wages and that clearly shows that our approaches are working.

But we know greater challenges lie ahead. We need to do more, and we are ready to do more. The question is: what more will we need to do and what is the best way to do it? We should take some time to assess the landscape after COVID-19 to see how things unfold and what specific problems develop. We must keep an open mind as we build and improve on the systems we have and consider solutions that can work in our context.

It is not just floating ideas like minimum wage or unemployment insurance, but assessing their impact carefully. Who wins and who loses within the workforce? How will our SMEs or the public be affected? We must identify pragmatic solutions which will make a real and sustainable difference and give people justified assurance that, when they need help, they will get the help that is relevant to them. And it must not create new problems in the process, for example, by eroding our spirit of self-reliance.

One permanent imperative as we think about new schemes is to keep our programmes fiscally sustainable. As a matter of principle, our social safety nets should be paid for out of current revenues. We should not draw down on what we have inherited, nor should we mortgage the future of our children.

When our founding generation were building up our Reserves, they never asked themselves whether they had too much savings. We were in our early days of nationhood. Things were so uncertain, and no one knew what the next day would bring. Compared to today, incomes then were low. But it was never a question of how much Reserves would be enough. The question was whether we could steadily squirrel away a bit more in our Reserves, year after year, decade after decade, as protection for a rainy day.

After several generations of frugal prudence, we have built up significant Reserves. And because we have taken such an approach consistently, decade after decade, in this enormous monster storm, we have been able to draw on past Reserves and fund our essential Budget packages and help people on a very big scale.

The opposition says, "Show me how much we have in the reserves before I decide whether I support your Budget and tax plans. Let us have a look at the money". Basically, they are asking, "I have something in the bank already. How much of that can I touch?"

This was not the attitude of our forefathers, the founders who were building for the future, but the attitude of inheritors who think they have come into a fortune and want to consume the fruits of their predecessors' labours. And this is fundamentally the wrong approach.

How much Reserves are enough or too much? There can be no good answer to this question. The future is unknowable. We have no way to tell what may hit us from out of the blue.

Just look at the last nine months. In January, before COVID-19, MOF was preparing Budget 2020, and we were quite confident. We thought we could meet our current commitments and put aside funds for the long term to offset the Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase and fund climate change defences and many other things and still expect to have something left over at the end of that term of Government to add to our past Reserves. But just a few months after that, we are down more than $70 billion. We have had to draw heavily on past Reserves to fund four, five Budget packages and explain to the President why this has been necessary.

Therefore, we should not think of ourselves as inheritors spending what we have been lucky enough to be endowed with. Rather, we should take the attitude of founders, even though we may be the third, fourth or fifth generation in reality, but we should think of ourselves as founders for the future generations. Whatever Reserves we have, big or small, let us not think of touching them in normal times. They are our rainy-day fund, our 棺材本. In Chinese, it sounds better because it is a coffin fund.

Every year, we live within our means and whenever we are able to, we add a bit more to the rainy-day fund, to make ourselves a bit more secure for when it really pours. And that is the way to build Singapore for the long term and secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

A second area that we will review is our foreign worker and work pass policies. Minister Josephine Teo spoke about these yesterday, but I want to give my take on this too.

This is not a new issue. But in an economic downturn, this issue becomes sharper. It is the case not just in Singapore. All around the world, anti-foreigner sentiment is on the rise because people are feeling worried and insecure about their futures.

Many Singaporeans are feeling anxious and pressured about their jobs. Their sense that foreigners are competing with them for jobs is palpable. Some feel unfairly treated when they see foreigners replacing them or taking up good jobs ahead of them. These feelings are completely understandable.

Singapore is a small country. Our population is small. It is not growing very fast. Soon, it is going to level off. To grow our economy, we have no choice but to top up with foreign workers and work pass holders. And yet, we cannot throw open our doors, just throw open our doors, nor have we done so.

We only have three and a half million Singaporean Citizens and half a million Permanent Residents. In Southeast Asia, there are 650 million people. In Asia, China and India alone add up to nearly three thousand million people. All can potentially come in, many would love to come. Without tight controls, we would be overwhelmed.

And that is why we have our foreign worker policies. They help us control the inflow and ultimately, ensure that the foreign workers who do come in add to the workforce in Singapore, rather than substitute for them and benefit Singaporeans rather than hurting them.

How we control the flow depends on the type of foreign worker. At the lower levels, we have got work permits and we use a mix of levies and quotas – we call them dependency ratios – to directly control their price and quantity. It is a rough and ready approach, but it helps us deal with the large numbers and limit them effectively.

In the middle levels, we have the S Pass. It is not just a matter of numbers, but we also want to look at the quality because the S Pass are competing with people who are graduating from our polytechnics, diploma holders and slightly above that, and we want to make sure that there is a balance. So, the S Pass still has levies and quotas, but we also impose other requirements on minimum salary and qualifications.

Then for the upper levels, the professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), we have the Employment Pass (EP). Here, the key issue is about controlling the quality and making sure the people we bring in are those who are able to contribute to Singapore. So, we have been using salary benchmarks as a proxy, along with other qualifying criteria.

While the perception of foreign competition is sharper during this downturn, actually, both the EP and S Pass holders have been coming down since COVID-19 this year. But we still have to make adjustments to our work pass schemes because there is now more slack in the job market but also because, over time, the education levels, capabilities and incomes of our local workforce have gone up.

More Singaporeans are now ready and available to take up PMET jobs. And, in fact, more have done so. The proportion of PMETs in the workforce has grown steadily from 40% 20 years ago, to close to 60% now, today. And the purpose of the EP scheme is to top up at the higher end of these PMET jobs. Therefore, we need to tighten the EP qualifying criteria. And that is why, at the lower levels of the EP holders, the proportion of Singaporeans is higher and at the higher levels, the proportion of Singaporeans is slightly lower because we are deliberately bringing in EP holders who are at the higher level and can contribute to us. It makes sense.

But we need to tighten the EP qualifying criteria, and this is what we have been doing. We raised the EP entry floor from $3,600 to $3,900 in May this year. And MOM just announced last week a further tightening to $4,500, with a higher floor of $5,000 for the financial services sector. We are raising the S Pass salary floor too. We have to pay attention to market conditions and adjust at the right pace, but this is the correct long-term direction.

But I know Singaporeans are not just concerned with the macro overall numbers but also, at the micro individual level, they are also concerned about fair treatment, that Singaporeans are being considered fairly for jobs, promotions or when it comes time for retrenchments.

There is no comfort in knowing that the total numbers are not too many, if personally, we feel that we have been discriminated against at the workplace, or that the EP holder working beside us somehow has an inside track because of old school ties or some other personal connections.

And that is why we have the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) where Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated can seek redress. We also have the Fair Consideration Framework, which we are tightening further as you have heard. And we are working with unions to make sure any retrenchments are done fairly, and no company is retrenching a Singaporean only to fill the same post with a foreigner, without very good justification.

The Government takes this issue of fairness very seriously. In evaluating EP and S Pass applications, we take into account whether the employer has kept up support of local PMETs in their employment and has been responsive to Government efforts to help them recruit and train more Singaporean PMETs or conversely, whether the employer has discriminated against qualified Singaporeans. This has always been the Government policy, but we particularly want to emphasise these considerations now, in these uncertain times, to remind all employers to play their part in building up their Singaporean workforce – the Singaporean Core.

One specific red flag is when we see a company that has an over-concentration of a single foreign nationality in its ranks, especially when compared to other companies in the same sector. This concentration, if it is unchecked, can cause social resentment and workplace problems. It makes it harder for the company to blend into and be accepted by our multiracial society. They stick out; it is a lump unable to be digested or integrated. It suggests that the company has not really taken root in Singapore. It can cause problems within the company too, because employees of other nationalities – Singaporeans or others – may find it harder to fit in, take pride in their work, and see a future for themselves in the firm.

Therefore, when that happens, we ask the firm to please relook at their hiring practices. Most companies are responsive, and work with us in good faith. In fact, many global companies understand that a diverse workforce is to their advantage and have explicit HR policies for this.

The issue of concentration can be easily played up and we know that there are some people who are stirring this up. For example, a Facebook page posted a wefie of DBS CEO Piyush Gupta with a room full of Indian employees last September. It was captioned "Eyesight test: Find a Singaporean or Chinese in this DBS photo". The picture resurfaced recently and went viral, which just shows that during tough times, this subject is more neuralgic. Last September was a different world. Many people took offence, and got worked up and berated DBS, flamed them. But it was fake news.

Why? That picture was taken in India, where DBS had opened a new office, not in Singapore. The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the wefie to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans. And the damage was done.

The Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans. What is the point of creating jobs for foreigners if it does not benefit Singaporeans? Why would we want to do that? Ultimately, our aim is to grow the economy, create good jobs for Singaporeans and raise our standards of living. Foreign workers and work pass holders help us to achieve this. By being open to talent from all over the world, we create more opportunities for ourselves.

Singapore has succeeded by being an international hub, tapping talents worldwide and serving a global market. So, even as we adjust our work pass policies, we must be careful not to give the wrong impression that we are now closing up and no longer welcoming foreigners. Such a reputation would do us great harm and we have to watch this because we are being watched. The Financial Times had an article just a couple of days ago to say Singapore, the mood is changing, we are turning inwards. There had been articles in the South China Morning Post a few months. There are articles circulating on the Internet. The grapevine buzzes and we have to do the right thing for ourselves, but we must also avoid sending the wrong signals to others.

It may surprise you, but even in this depressed economic climate, where some companies are consolidating and laying off workers, many investment projects want to come to Singapore. In fact, this year, the Economic Development Board’s (EDB) pipeline is higher than their pipeline was last year. And there is a reason for this.

All over Asia and in the world, societies are under stress and politics is in flux. In places where investors already have regional headquarters and projects, they are rethinking the merits of their locations and looking for alternatives. Because the situation changes. You set up your headquarters there. There is some political shift. You look at the sky. It does not look the same as before. You will start thinking, "Where can I go?"

Investors starting new projects are also anxiously scanning the globe, searching for the right place where they can safely make a commitment now. Companies are seeking a safe harbour, where the politics is stable, there is rule of law, the people are hardworking and united, and where the country will come through the pandemic safely and have a bright future.

We take no joy in the troubles in the world, but it is a fact that in a troubled world, Singapore is one of the few trusted countries that stands out. And we must guard that reputation zealously. Indeed, EDB and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) tell me that many companies have expressed interest in coming to Singapore.

Some projects you would have heard about. For example, Hyundai Motor has just announced plans to set up a major facility here to undertake research and development (R&D) and develop future mobility technologies. But there are others yet that have not been announced or are still under wraps, are being discussed and are hopefully on the way. I cannot tell you these confidential discussions, but I can give you a small peek.

For example, a pharmaceutical company is planning to build a facility in Singapore to manufacture vaccines. Another company specialising in pandemic risk insurance wants to set up shop here. These are opportunities which are directly coming out of the crisis. We want vaccine plants here so that we can get access to vaccines when they are available. We want to build up our financial sector and pandemic risk insurance is now something on peoples' minds, and they are looking for a safe place where they can put their insurance company. And Singapore is in the running. Do we want to turn them away?

There are other companies which are coming to Singapore or looking seriously at coming to Singapore. Several Fortune 500 firms are considering moving their regional headquarters here because of political uncertainties elsewhere. Major financial institutions want to grow their operations in Singapore too, and these include IT and operations; backroom operations. And we look at them, they are good projects. We will study them. We are conscious that IT is one of the areas where we worry about an over-concentration of foreign work pass holders. But when you get a good project like this, an IT centre for a major foreign bank, a major global bank wanting to come to Singapore, and therefore going to recruit a proportion of Singaporean IT professionals and other management staff, should we say no?

They see good prospects in Singapore. They see us as a stable base to work from. We want to talk to them to see how they can fit in here in Singapore to create good jobs for Singaporeans.

But for them to come here, they must feel welcomed and be allowed to bring in the talent that they need. Because we do not have the full complement of specialist engineers and other expertise for all these types of work yet. And also, regional and global headquarters, by design, need to draw talent from around the world and to be run by international teams. That is the nature of a regional and global headquarters. The companies which have headquarters run by all one nationality – the Japanese used to be like that – they did not thrive. The American companies which had headquarters with people from all continents, they did well and they could adapt. They had the feel of different markets and they could fit into different cultures. And if we want good companies to come to Singapore, we must be prepared to have them come and to bring to Singapore that constellation of talent, to be able to operate out of Singapore and manage activities and locations all over the world.

They will employ Singaporeans too, but they cannot be staffed by Singaporeans alone. Once these companies establish themselves here, more Singaporeans will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they create, pick up the skills and knowledge and rise up the ranks. This is how we have always done it.

For example, pharmaceutical companies began to invest in Singapore 20 to 30 years ago. They started by building manufacturing plants. Later on, as these facilities grew, some of the pharma companies set up regional headquarters and research labs, like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK's site director is Lim Hock Heng, a Singaporean. He joined GSK in 1992, nearly 30 years ago, as a production engineer, picked up skills and knowledge from his foreign colleagues and rose up the ranks. Today, Hock Heng runs most of the Singapore sites, which manufacture key GSK products for the whole world. In other words, it is a drug which belongs to GSK and Singapore is the one place in the world they are making it and exporting it around the globe.

Another example is from the financial services. In the late-1980s, Singapore was recovering from a major recession and trying hard to grow our financial centre. Several global banks came to Singapore, including Citibank. They had no shortage of staff to choose from, with tens of thousands of employees globally. But they hired Singaporeans, including Susan Kwek, who had a polytechnic diploma in Computer Science. They saw her potential, groomed her, rotated her through several operations and technology roles, here and in the region. And, today, Susan oversees operations and technology for Citibank in Hong Kong.

There are many more Singaporeans in senior positions in semi-conductors, oil and gas, and IT. If we had not welcomed these companies in the past and encouraged them to bring in global talent, Hock Heng, Susan and others would have been deprived of these opportunities. Would we have been better off?

But it is not just global companies that need foreign manpower. Local companies also need global talent to grow and develop. Our SMEs need skills, knowledge and expertise that they may not have in Singapore, for example, to develop an external wing and to move up the value chain. And, by doing so, they too, create good new jobs for Singaporeans, besides promoting entrepreneurship and making it easier and more attractive to start companies in Singapore.

So, the economic benefits of our foreign worker policies are very clear. But there is a more fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves, and that is, what sort of society, what sort of people do we want to be?

We have always been a people open to the world, welcoming others who can add value to our society and bringing the best out of us. This is our history and our ethos, from our beginnings as an open port and an immigrant nation. The Bicentennial last year reminded us of that. This generosity of spirit gives our society and economy, vitality and resilience. It has made Singapore the exceptional, cosmopolitan city that we are today, plugged into the global economy and making a living by making ourselves valuable to the world.

We may be under stress now, but we cannot afford to turn inwards. We will adjust our policies to safeguard Singaporean jobs but let us show confidence that Singaporeans can hold our own in the world.

Social safety nets and foreign worker policies are just two of the many difficult issues that we will have to deal with, as our society matures. We will study them carefully and, of course, debate them thoroughly, including here in Parliament.

The Government will lead this conversation with Singaporeans, build a political consensus around the right solutions and move us forward. Whether we succeed depends on how well our politics work. Singapore has achieved a high degree of political consensus on many of our social, political and economic issues. This is one major reason for our rapid progress and one major benefit of the People’s Action Party's (PAP) dominant position.

But our society is not static. Each new generation of Singaporeans is more educated, more connected to the world and surer of themselves. Their attitudes and aspirations change too. They desire more diversity, alternative voices and checks and balances. This trend is not new. The desire has always been there, but it is growing.

In the last General Election, many people voted for the Opposition, while fully expecting that the PAP would remain in power as the Government. In fact, the Workers' Party (WP) campaigned on this platform, if I am not mistaken, seeking to form a strong Opposition, but explicitly not seeking to form the next government.

Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean told me that on the second last day of the General Election campaign, a middle-aged lady came up to him, a little agitated. She asked him, "Mr Teo, is it true? My friends tell me it is okay to vote for the Opposition. Because the Government will still be in charge. All the programmes the Government has promised, they will deliver – MRT, upgrading, new facilities, polyclinic. So, do not worry – all the things will still get done and that PAP will work even harder for you. You get everything they promised, and two persons working for you instead of one." She was very perturbed and asked him, "Mr Teo, is that true?" Her question really was, "How can this be true?" It troubled her profoundly that she did not know how to rebut the argument, yet, in her heart of hearts, she knew instinctively that something was very wrong.

The PAP will respond to these social and political trends, as we have always done. We have not stayed on top all these years by being static, but by adapting to our evolving society and changing needs. We have been assiduous in our leadership renewal. Each new generation of PAP leaders has developed their own leadership styles and their own policy priorities. They have created their own bonds with their generation of Singaporeans, to be in sync with their mood, to win their trust and support, and develop new ideas that resonate with them.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his founding generation of leaders governed Singapore in a direct, no-nonsense way. It was necessary and appropriate at that time, and Singaporeans then strongly supported Mr Lee, although today's Singaporeans would probably consider the style hard and uncompromising. You read the old speeches, the directness and the force of the language, it makes you sit back and say, "Could we say that today in a different way?" The truths are the same. The presentation has to change with the zeitgeist.

Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team had a different touch. His approach was about bringing people together and building a societal consensus on the next lap of Singapore's growth. It was a contrast to Mr Lee's approach, but it was appropriate for his generation of Singaporeans and Mr Goh made it work.

My team and I are not like Mr Lee, neither are we like Emeritus Senior Minister Goh’s teams. We found our own ways to engage with this generation of Singaporeans. We have gone through many ups and downs together over these last 16 years and adapted and changed policies to meet the new needs of the population. And, by now, I think Singaporeans all know what I am like and how I work. They have always given me strong support and together, we have taken Singapore another step forward.

My successors will have to do things in their own different ways too, establish their own standing and build their own bonds with the next generation. The 4G leaders have been doing this for some time. They are conducting the SG Together conversations now. They want to accommodate this growing desire of Singaporeans not only to be heard but to be involved.

In Parliament, with a stronger Opposition presence, I expect the tone of the debate to shift. PAP Ministers and MPs will have to raise their game, be prepared for sharper questioning and defend the Government’s policies and decisions while speaking up for their constituents. They also must be prepared for more substantive debates and engagement with the Opposition. I hope the Opposition will also step up, go beyond asking questions and criticising the Government’s proposals, which is part of their responsibility, to go on to put up serious proposals and ideas of their own to be examined and debated and, if found meritorious, adopted, to show that they are willing and able to play their part as a loyal Opposition.

For our part, the Government will take an open and constructive approach. And let me explain what I mean by this bland term "open and constructive approach".

On the specific details of policies, we can be quite relaxed about it. We will be open-minded, and we will listen to the different voices. We can try different schemes and solutions. We will take in all constructive views and perspectives. But we, of course, have to make sure that the discussions are supported by facts and logic, and informed by our context and experience.

But if it is a major issue which concerns the fundamental interests of the country, the Government cannot wait passively for a consensus to form. We will still have a full discussion, in fact, probably an even fuller discussion. But at the end of the discussion, if there are still different views, the Government will have to make the decision it judges best and take responsibility for it.

Having been elected to govern, we must govern. It is the Government’s duty to make such decisions and to be accountable to the people for them. So, discussion is fine, but discussion must lead to action and, finally, if it is an important issue and we are not yet entirely at one, the Government has to decide, we shall go. And in the end, we put it to the voters. The voters have to decide; do they support this, or do they want something different? That is on issues.

But politics is not only about issues but also about power. And if the issue is not policies and priorities but a challenge to the Government’s fitness to govern, then the Government will have to stand up and defend itself vigorously. It must put down the challenge and prove that it deserves to be the Government. Because, otherwise, it must step aside and let another team take over.

This is how the political system is supposed to work. We have a Westminster style of democracy, modelled on the British and adapted as we have gone along with it. It is adversarial by design.

In Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition sits on the opposite front bench, directly opposite the Prime Minister. That is why Mr Pritam Singh is there, sitting opposite me. He is not there as a supportive cheerleader, helping the Government to perform better. He is there to challenge the incumbent Prime Minister and the Government, to point out their faults, to highlight where the Government has fallen short and to keep chipping away at the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s credibility. And so, at the next General Election, or sooner if the opportunity arises, the Opposition can knock the Government out of power and take its place.

I am saying this not as a criticism of any political party in Singapore or anybody in Singapore, but I am saying this as how the system is designed to work.

In the British House of Commons, you have seen Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of the Opposition taking on David Cameron and later, Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Question Time. He was not very successful at this, which is why he is no longer there. Now, the new Labour Party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is doing his best to show up Boris Johnson and to make his own name in the process.

In the Australian Parliament, Question Time for Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his predecessors happens every day when Parliament is sitting and often lasts for more than one hour. Every encounter is a gladiatorial contest. Lots of drama and theatre and prepared soundbites. The wittier and more contemptuous, the better.

The British or Australian Prime Minister has to stand his ground, defend his government’s policies and maintain psychological dominance to show that he deserves to be the Prime Minister. If not, members of parliament on both sides will sense it and so will the public, and this will influence election outcomes as well as leadership contests in their parties.

In today’s Singapore, the tone of our Parliamentary debate is less combative than in Westminster or Canberra or, indeed, than how the Singapore Legislative Assembly was in the early 1960s, when the Barisan Sosialis was a formidable presence on the Opposition benches. Our political traditions have developed differently since then. Speeches in the Chamber are more substantive, with less verbal fireworks. The Opposition is generally more restrained in its style of questioning. Sometimes, their questions sound like questions which could have been asked by PAP backbenchers. And, no doubt, it helps that they know if they take a more strident tone, Ministers are on top of their briefs and will be more than capable of taking them on. But that does not stop them from trying their hand and their luck from time to time, and Mr Low Thia Khiang was particularly skilled at this.

I listened carefully to Mr Pritam Singh on Monday, describing how he intends to perform the role of Leader of the Opposition. I applaud his tone and his approach. The Government benches will do our part to work with him to keep Parliament a constructive forum for debate.

I believe that it is good to have an adequate number of Opposition MPs in Parliament. It keeps the Government on its toes. It shows the public that the Government has nothing to hide and will answer all questions, however awkward. And that is why we increased the minimum number of elected Opposition MPs in Parliament to 12 and why in this Parliament we have two Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) to top up the 10 from the WP.

But that does not mean that the more Opposition MPs and the more fiery the debate in Parliament is, the better. Or that the tone of our political debate cannot change for the worse. The adversarial dynamic that is inherent in the Parliamentary system can go wrong. We all hope that diversity will make a hundred flowers bloom. But how do we prevent diversity from producing polarisation? How do we make sure disagreement does not result in paralysis?

It has happened in so many other countries. Politics permeates every issue. Every subject becomes partisan. Even public health issues, whether to wear a mask or not, becomes a partisan issue. If you wear a mask, you are a Democrat; if you do not wear a mask, you are a Republican. This is my side and that is yours. There is no middle ground, only sides to take. There are no truths or facts, only different versions of reality — facts and equal standing, alternative facts! Politics becomes toxic and bitter. The country is divided and goes into a downward spiral. If this happens to Singapore, we will not just cease being an exceptional nation. It will be the end of us. We must not go down this path.

At the most fundamental level, to make our politics work, both the Government and Opposition must share an overriding objective – to work for Singapore and not just for our party or our supporters. Our debate must be based on principles and facts and guided by shared ideals and goals. MPs must speak up for what they sincerely believe in. You are elected not just to repeat what you have heard others say, but to think on behalf of others and to make arguments which make sense, which will benefit the interest of the people you are representing and of the voters who elected you. But to think for yourself and not just to be a mouthpiece.

We must be in politics in order to protect Singapore’s security, grow our economy and secure our future. If we do that, then there is a basis for us to manage the inherent tensions in our system and for politics to work out productively.

Ultimately, what sort of politics Singapore has depends on Singaporeans themselves. Because they have a vital responsibility to engage in the public discourse, to send the right signals at the ballot box and to reward political parties that do the right thing and deliver for the people. The standards they demand of political leaders, PAP and Opposition, will influence the quality of the political leadership and the level of discussion and debate in Parliament. They will determine whether our politics enable us to thrive and prosper, or divide and destroy us.

Speaking for the PAP, we have a special responsibility to make our system work and provide the leadership that Singapore needs and deserves. It is a responsibility that the PAP carries, but no other political party in Singapore shares, to make our system work. And let me explain why.

The PAP is inextricably linked with Singapore’s founding, its history and development. We built this place together with Singaporeans. It was Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP who pledged that Singapore shall forever be a multiracial nation on Separation Day itself and made good on that pledge. It was Dr Goh Keng Swee and the PAP who decided on National Service and built up the SAF into the respected force that it is today. It was Mr S Rajaratnam and the PAP who penned the National Pledge and strived to live by it every day for the last 55 years, and counting. These are among the reasons why the PAP has won every election since Independence. Singaporeans have trusted us, and we have never let them down.

Last week, Ms Sylvia Lim posted a beautiful picture on her Instagram of herself with Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Png Eng Huat and a few others. They were dining al fresco after the Opening of Parliament at what looked like a rooftop bar near City Hall. It was a vivid picture. Behind them, you could see the National Gallery, Raffles Place and part of the new downtown in Marina South, brightly lit and spectacular. In the caption, Ms Lim wrote: “What a skyline”. I thought to myself, "She has paid an enormous tribute to the PAP Government and to the people of Singapore"; my predecessors as well as my colleagues in the current Government and generations of Singaporeans who worked with the PAP Government to make this happen. I do not think she intended it and, therefore, I appreciated it all the more. Together, we did make this happen!

How politics and Government work in Singapore is quite unique. We have put enormous emphasis on the quality of government – the public service as well as the political leadership. We have gone to great lengths to recruit the best people we can find to enter politics, join the Government and serve Singapore.

This quality of government, coupled with the trust and support of Singaporeans, enables us to deal with problems rationally, comprehensively and effectively.

Jean-Claude Juncker, who was Prime Minister of Luxembourg and, more recently, the President of the European Commission, said this about European politics and politicians: "We all know what to do; we just do not know how to get re-elected after we have done it."

But in Singapore, the PAP Government has been able to do the right thing for Singaporeans – sometimes difficult and hard things – and still get re-elected. Sometimes, we have paid the price in the vote, but overall, we have continued to win elections.

And therefore, the Government has been able to think long term, well beyond the next General Election. We have no incentive to kick the can down the road because down the road, we will very likely meet the can ourselves again. Therefore, we make plans over 50 to 60 years, or in the case of climate change, 100 years. As a result, the country progresses, Singapore benefits, and the PAP continues to win elections, so far.

It is a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle. This model has worked well for Singapore. Once broken, it will be very difficult to put back together again.

Several years ago, I made a trip to a former Communist country in Europe, quite a big one. A distinguished business group hosted me to dinner, serious-minded people interested in Singapore and some of them knowledgeable about Singapore. They asked me how the Singapore Government operates, and how we have made Singapore succeed. I gave them my usual answers – our strong anti-corruption stance, our long-term planning and our unremitting efforts to promote social inclusion. My hosts looked at each other in amazement. They shook their heads. They chattered away in Russian. [Laughter.] Several countries speak Russian! They were familiar with how the politics in their own country worked. To them, what I described was completely unimaginable. Surely, it cannot happen in this real world!

But it happens here in Singapore, and every one of us thinks that it is just normal. But even in Singapore, it is not normal at all. It is the result of sound politics, hard work and the will to put together, pull together and make Singapore a success.

It is path dependent. We have come this way; we have kept it like this. It is like being in the Garden of Eden – things are going right, they stay right; you leave the Garden of Eden, you cannot go back.

Can it continue to work like this? With more diversity and contestation, can we keep our focus on the long term and plan and build ahead for Singapore? How long can Singaporeans vote for the Opposition in some constituencies, in the expectation that somehow, somewhere else, their fellow Singaporeans will ensure that the PAP is returned to power?

Can we continue to get good people into politics to maintain the quality of our Ministers and MPs, and make things happen for Singapore, if more and more citizens prefer the PAP to form the Government and yet vote for another party’s candidates to be their MPs for diversity, for checks and balance?

At what point does a vote for a strong Opposition become a vote for a different government? Is it really true that one day if there is a change of government, a new party can run Singapore equally well because we have such a good Public Service, as Mr Pritam Singh suggested on Monday? It is just like saying, if you have a New York Philharmonic orchestra, anybody can be the conductor.

These questions have no easy answers.

In the nature of politics and of human societies, things can and do go wrong. Each successive generation of Singaporeans has to keep on doing its best to keep the system working right. The PAP feels acutely its special responsibility to keep on doing its best for Singapore and to keep Singapore working in this unique way. That is our sacred mission.

We will do our utmost to persuade good men and women to enter politics, to take over the torch and lead the next generation forward. We will fight hard to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans and win every vote and show Singaporeans that the PAP continues to deserve their support and trust.

Of course, there is no guarantee that even under a PAP Government, Singapore will forever be successful. The world is not quite the same as it used to be. Our streets and our skies are quieter.

I received a foreign visitor recently. She said she felt sad when she came through Changi Airport. It used to be bustling, crowded and full of life. Now, it is deathly silent.

When Changi Airport first opened in 1981, it was a coming-out party for Singaporeans of that generation. We were so proud of it. When someone was flying out, the whole extended family would come to Changi Airport to see him or her off and, at the same time, take pictures with the trishaw display and the water features. I remember it fondly; I suppose it dates me. It was a dream come true.

Over the years, we expanded Terminal 1, and built Terminal 2 and Terminal 3, and now Terminal 4. We built Changi up into the best airport and home to the best airline in the world. Then, we conceived and built Jewel. When Jewel opened, Singaporeans took immense pride in it. I showed it off in my National Day Rally last year to demonstrate what we are capable of and explain why Singaporeans can look forward to limitless possibilities for our nation.

But Jewel too went dark during the circuit breaker. Forty years of building up our airport and airline, COVID-19 came and all of that suddenly came to a halt. So, what now?

We have survived many life-and-death crises before. Singapore was born from crisis. We did not know whether we could survive after the Separation and the British withdrew East of Suez. We rode through major economic storms like the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Crisis, not knowing if we would sink or swim. But each time, we did survive and actually came back stronger. Each time, the dire circumstances became the occasion and the platform for ambition and daring. And each time, we transcended ourselves and built again.

We should fight COVID-19 with hope in our hearts because there is a silver lining. This searing experience will help a whole new generation of Singaporeans appreciate and treasure what we have and what makes us an exceptional nation. We are here by dint of will and imagination. In defiance of all the odds and of all those who said we would not make it, we did.

As in all the previous crises, COVID-19 will be the occasion for us to do better, emerge stronger and become more united. Do not doubt. Do not fear. Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again. Singapore Airlines will be a great way to fly once more. [Applause.]

Our economy will prosper anew. Our children and our grandchildren will continue marching forward to build a fairer, ever more just and equal society. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

4.56 pm

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for the address. Thank you.

I have a few clarifications and I will start with the first one – the framing of suggestions that the Opposition puts forward about the use of the Reserves. And I think it is important.

When we talk about the Reserves, we are not talking about raiding them. It is about slowing the growth slope of the Reserves. So, the principal is not touched. And there is nothing unusual about this because the PAP does it too. How so? In 2015, this House, including the Members of the Workers’ Party (WP), we agreed to include Temasek in the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula. Does that not reduce the growth of the Reserves? It does.

So, the argument cannot be that when the Opposition tries to put that proposal forward, somehow, we are engaging in some sort of chicanery to steal what previous generations have toiled and perspired over to bring us here.

When we look at alternatives, what are we looking at? Healthcare, ageing. For the same Singaporeans who worked hard, toiled hard, and are now in their retirement years who have some difficulties, questions of intergenerational equity come up. And that is the context through which some of these proposals are put forward.

We have asked for numbers. I believe in the last term, Deputy Prime Minister Heng said no, this is a secret weapon; you do not reveal these numbers. But this House, this platform, provides us the opportunity to do so, if not in session, in Committee. And yes, there is Parliamentary privilege, but I am prepared to give up my Parliamentary privilege if I divulge those numbers. Then, I will have to be taken to task under the Official Secrets Act.

So, why are we doing this? We are doing it precisely because we are looking for alternatives to better consider the welfare of Singaporeans.

The Prime Minister spoke about the social media post of Piyush Gupta and, obviously, it was posted with completely mala fide intentions. But similarly, when an issue is not framed accurately and the Opposition is made to look like charlatans, surely, we have to stand up and say, no, that is not the agenda. So, I hope that clarification is helpful when we talk about Reserves and why those numbers matter to us.

The second clarification deals with the anecdote the Prime Minister shared about a lady who spoke to Senior Minister Teo and that choice, that difficult choice, she had to make about, "There will enough people voting for the PAP, they will be the Government. But there are also people who are saying two-for-one". This is an old issue. It has come up before in previous elections.

And there is another side of the coin – that is one perspective. There are conversations that Opposition MPs hear: "Mr Singh, why is it that when new citizens go to the Community Clubs, the elected MP is not there? Is the elected MP, who is an Opposition candidate, not part of this larger political firmament? Is that not unfair?"

And there are other questions too and these have come up as well. More recently, I put up a post about restarting the Meet-the-People sessions and a pro-establishment Facebook page goes on and says, "Hey, look at them, trying to engender sympathy from the public by doing MPS at the void deck".

And, of course, people come up to me when I go on the ground and walk the markets. They say, "Mr Singh, is it true? Actually, the Government says you can build your own offices." I said, "That is true". The position changed in 2011. The position prior to 1991, HDB built offices for everybody, every MP, including Opposition MPs. And then, they stopped in 1991. Why did they stop? Because the argument was there was a competing need for void deck space. Even though in the later Parliamentary sessions, that number is only 1%, I understand, that was dedicated for that purpose. And then, in 2011, the position changed.

And so we have to deal with some of this reality as well. Poor understanding, call it what you want of the situation; people feeling that there is something inherently unfair and so, when they say, "I want the PAP in the Government, but I also want an Opposition," they are giving voice to the situation many Singaporeans actually feel, which is, "We want that an Opposition in this House! There must be an Opposition in this House!"

So, my duty and the duty of my colleagues is to be responsible about our role. It is not easy. We come under pressure to from our own supporters too. But as the Prime Minister rightly said, I think we owe our loyalty to something larger. And we will do our best by Singaporeans, and if we are not good enough, we deserve to be voted out. And that is how the system should work.

The Prime Minister referred to a point I made about the political system and whether it would still run and so forth. Well, these are not just my thoughts. I refer the Prime Minister to the unofficial biography of the PAP which was published by The Straits Times Press, if I remember correctly. In it, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister himself, says this and I quote, "At the end of the day, if you are running the system properly, you must have a distinction between what is the party, what is the Government, so, if you are voted out of office, the machinery is there for the next party to take over. So, although we do not have much of an Opposition, we keep the system going, so that at any time the party is out, the Government, the Parliament, the Civil Service will be there. The Police, the Armed Forces will carry it through. It is not going to collapse".

Mr Speaker, Sir, when my colleagues and I joined the Opposition cause, we did not have heady dreams of becoming Government. It is certainly not me. Why did I do this? I believe in an Opposition in a Parliamentary democracy. It is not going to happen with people just hoping someone else does it. Somebody has to plant his flag in the sand and say, "I am going to do it". And then, it is the duty of myself and my party colleagues, to make sure that the people who are onboard do their very best.

This is my commitment to Singaporeans, and this is my commitment to the Prime Minister as well. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. On Reserves, I am not arguing on the technicalities of percentages, drawdowns, NIRC and so on. I am going on a basic principle. That our mindset should be: what is a rainy-day fund, what is my daily expenses, and I meet my needs.

We do draw from the rainy day fund a certain stream of income to spend. We thought this over carefully and we debated this in the House. We agreed upon a rule which we felt was a fair distribution between the present and the future generations – which is that, of the expected earnings, half will be taken to be spent, half will go back and be reinvested and will be for the future. We made that decision knowing that there would be ups and downs, knowing that one day, we would be short of money, knowing that we should stick to this for quite a long time and not revisit this as soon as we need money.

Mr Singh says we are not talking about bringing the Reserves down. But, as you know in financial investments, there is no certainty about Reserves going up. It can come down for any number of reasons. We may have to draw on them, like we did this year. It can come down because the markets can come down and bring the value of our investments down, despite our best management of GIC or Temasek, as it has happened from time to time. And there is a balance of risks, which we have to accept. And then, there is a fundamental mindset. What are you depending on for the future? What is for now? And I suggest that our mindset should be that what I have planned for the future, I think of as only touching them in extremist.

On Monday, when Mr Singh spoke about trade-offs and difficulties, he said, yes, he knows that there is more spending which is necessary, there are old folks, there will be trade-offs and we can raise income taxes. He did not say GST. But he is prepared to raise income taxes. Well, these are political judgements which you have to make. But finally, you have to be able to spend what you are able to earn.

I suggest that our fundamental mindset should be that we pay our way forward. And we do not depend on another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves; each time, I am not really compromising a principle. I am just getting a little bit more pregnant.

I suggest that is not the way we should think as a generation. We should be thinking for the future for the next generation, and I am, as their founder, I want to help to provide for them. That is a mindset which has brought us here and that is a mindset which will serve our children and grandchildren well.

On Senior Minister Teo's anecdote and Mr Pritam Singh's arguments, his arguments do not respond to the anecdote. Because the basic point is this: whatever happens, there will be Opposition MPs elected to this House. It is assured by our Constitution. It has worked out and the Opposition has been making use of this system. The WP in the last election had NCMPs, the PSP in this term has NCMPs. There will be Opposition in this House, to hold a party to account and to hold the Government to account.

So, if you think that the Government is doing the wrong thing in terms of MPs' offices, in terms of MPs and the community centres, by all means, vote the Government out, put a new government in, change the government and change the policy.

But, if you say, "Vote against the Government because somebody else will look after getting the PAP Government", you just become a free rider. If you vote Opposition, "No harm, the PAP will still be there", then I think the system must fail. Because the system can only work if people vote sincerely and honestly in accordance with what they really want and to produce a result which matches their true intentions. If they vote tactically, the consequence must be, one day, they will get the result which they mark the "X" for but which they did not intend.

I think that is a wrong thing to teach people to do. You go to the elections, you vote for the person whom you have trusted in, who will run your system and who will run your government. Our system is designed so that if you do that, it will be stable. If you do not do that, I think you are courting trouble.

I can understand why Mr Singh, as Leader of the Opposition and not in a position yet to challenge the Government, would like to make this argument; that the PAP Government will be there, do not worry, you can safely vote for me, I am not going to be the next Prime Minister. But I put it to you that that is not the right thing to do morally, and it is not the right thing to do for Singapore.

Thirdly, on the system still running, he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew and, indeed, we have designed it to the best of our ability so that if the PAP is out of government, it shall not collapse straightaway. But let me just ask you whether you really believe, that if this team, that the PAP, one day, hands over to a new Opposition party, the system can work the way it has been working? Yes, you can keep it flying. There is an autopilot, you can fly straight and level for some time.

There are countries where the political system continually produces revolving-door Cabinets. Japan, for a time, was like that, before Mr Abe became Prime Minister a second time. Every six months, they have a new Prime Minister, a new Minister for Trade and Industry and so forth. The country did not collapse. Did it do well? No.

When Mr Abe came in, and I think this time he was eight to nine years in government, eight years; and got the team together and set directions, the country moved.

So, to say that the system is such that with civil servants, the SAF and so on, therefore, it does not matter who is the government, I think that is not being honest. In that case, we can dismiss all the Ministers, they can go on leave, you do not need Ministers, and anybody can be a Minister. But you need to run a system which is finely tuned and capable and you need a very capable hand at the top.

The Ministers are not just presiding. The Ministers are executive. They are running the Ministries. They are expected to know all about the Ministries, every in and out of the policy. When he comes here to answer in the Committee of Supply or in case there are Parliamentary Questions, he does not refer to his Administrative Vice Minister, which is what the Japanese have or, in our equivalent, would be the Permanent Secretaries. He must master and explain it. And when he runs the Ministry, he must decide what the contents are, what the direction is, the details; and if necessary, override the officials and decide on the direction.

That is how we have done COVID-19. That is how the Ministerial Task Force has operated – long discussions, all views heard. Finally, the Ministers must decide and, from time to time, the decisions are not what the staff consensus come up with, because there are other factors, partly there are political factors, but sometimes, because the Minister must exercise judgement and take responsibility.

The staff did not recommend the circuit breaker. We discussed it in Cabinet. There were many pros and cons. I said better think about this carefully, do not make a seat-of-the-pants decision; go back, sleep on it, work out the proposal, work out another proposal, 30% more draconian; come back day after tomorrow, come back tomorrow morning, talk about it, discuss, decide. Cabinet decides. It is a big decision, $5 billion dollars of Supplementary Budget.

Civil servants and the elected can make this happen, can carry this. If the new government comes in, can it know how to do this and have that feel and that trust and that confidence of Singaporeans as well as their officials as well as investors and everybody else watching us? Anybody can make it happen? I think that is not in this world.

Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Prime Minister for the responses. Just two points. The first one about the free rider. I do not think the residents in Aljunied, Hougang for 30 years now and even Sengkang, as a result of the results of the last election, would appreciate being called free riders. They are not free riders.

The residents of Aljunied, I can speak more authoritatively for Aljunied residents because I am a sitting Member there, we are not just doing nothing, having been voted in. We are not just letting the other guy, the government of the day do something. We have got to do what we have to do. We have got to run the Town Council, which is why Mr Lee Kuan Yew conceived of the Town Councils in the first place. Because if you want to move forward in the system as an Opposition MPs, you have got to prove your worth in the Town Council. And we have had growing pains. I am not going to deny that.

But if we were bungling things up, I would not be here today. My team would not be here today. We have tried our best in the circumstances that we are in. The Sengkang team is not going to have an easy time. For the first term, it is always going to be tough. But the voters of these constituencies put their faith in us because they know an opposition in Parliament is ultimately good for Singapore.

And it is not just – and if I can suggest this – it is not just the NCMP version of the opposition, with full respect to everyone who was an NCMP in this Parliament and those who came before, but it is when you have elected Opposition MPs, the Government listens harder. And that means something to people. That is my view. I am sure the PAP may have a different on it, but that is my perspective. And that is why it is important for there to be elected Opposition MPs.

The Prime Minister alluded to a dishonest sort of packaging of what I am suggesting. The bigger moral imperative that I have, and it is a huge burden, and I felt this burden before the last elections, was whether the people who are standing as WP candidates could follow through. That is the heaviest decision. That is the heaviest burden I have. And if you choose someone who is not committed, not vested, that is the biggest pain for me as the leader of one party that aspires to represent Singaporeans in Parliament.

So, I will have to do what is good and what is right by Singapore. Looking for the best people. Do I want to contest all the seats, more seats, slowly grow? A lot of it depends on the quality of people that come and are attracted by the WP and our platform. If Singaporeans are attracted to it, then sure, there is a prospect of growth. But it is not growth for growth's sake. I am not desperate for power, Prime Minister. But we have got to get good people if we want to bring this country forward. The PAP has been doing that as the Prime Minister has alluded to.

At this point in our growth, we have to grow our roots as a loyal Opposition. After more than 50 years of Independence, this is the first time the Government has recognised the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. We have many, many more miles to go. But we are not chasing a destination. We intend to do right by Singapore.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I appreciate Mr Pritam's explanations. I am in no way undervaluing his motivations, his passion and his desire to do right by Singapore, his wish to have a high-quality Opposition built up in Singapore. I understand that. I think it is good for Singapore that you have honest people in the Opposition, people who believe in what they are trying to do and people who will stand up and fight for their ideals. And from time to time, agree very strongly with the Government. I think that is entirely reasonably.

I think it is also good that you have Opposition who take their Town Council responsibilities seriously, who look after their constituencies assiduously and conscientiously and do their best for their voters and give the voters a reason to vote for them. I think it is entirely reasonable.

But I would say however, if you stand and you tell people, "Vote for me, I will be a better MP than the other one, the PAP MP", I think that is entirely reasonable. But if you say, "Vote for me; somebody else will vote for the PAP and therefore the PAP will be the government", that the economists will call a free rider. It means that you are taking advantage of somebody else who is doing the duty of electing a government for the nation. And you are not doing your part expressing your true views and preference as a voter whom you want to be the next government. And if everybody takes that attitude, then you are going to end up with a government which you do not want. Because the argument which he makes is that he is very careful, he only chooses candidates he can trust to be WP candidates. I think I will give him that. It is the right and responsible attitude to take. But I think other opposition parties may say they have been trying to get good candidates too. And they could make the same argument as you have, that it is good to have an Opposition in Singapore, "Vote for us. Somebody else will look after the government of Singapore".

So, supposing that the PSP had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and the Singapore Democratic Party had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and more voters had taken such an attitude, where would Singapore be? Is that the right outcome for Singapore?

So, therefore, something is wrong when you say I really want one government, but I will vote for another one. And the system will go wrong when you do that. I think it is necessary that people understand this and understand what is at stake when you elect a government of Singapore.

Elections are not just about the Town Council. They are also about electing the government for the country and that is necessary for people to bear firmly in mind.

Mr Speaker: Any other clarifications? Mr Leong Mun Wai.

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity. I am mindful that this is the first time I am attending Parliament and also just an NCMP, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a few clarifications. I do not know what privileges I have in terms of how I am going to speak but it may be a bit of my own opinions plus a bit of clarification and questions. So, it will be a mixture of that.

First of all, I think the Prime Minister had given a very touching presentation on the situation in Singapore today. But what we want to say is that, on the point of the free rider, I am not sure whether that concept is being used in line with what economists have in mind. But nevertheless, we do not go into that. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is, Singapore voters looking at the situation today see that there is actually a gap between having a strong Government, because the Government at the moment controls over 90% of the seats. So, as a result, there is a very comfortable margin. Because of that margin, you cannot prevent the voters from thinking, "Actually, there is a margin of error I can afford. So, as a result, I can have the best of both worlds – a strong Government and a strong Opposition voice in Parliament. Let us try."

And I can tell you, Mr Prime Minister, I am a very new politician. In fact, I am a rookie. I do not know much. But in the process of the last one year, when I interacted with voters on the ground, I felt that the Singaporean voters are really, really, very smart. They know how to control the process. So, what they are thinking now is, "There is a buffer, so I leave it. And I will wait until that buffer shrinks and I am not going to vote everybody, anybody in. Even if PSP is not good enough this round. I want to get the best people to go in. And as the buffer shrinks, I will make my decision again."

So, whether it is the Opposition or the electorate, from the position of the electorate, there is no question that, at the moment, everybody wants the present Government to continue. But that does not mean if, going forward, the performance of the Government does not improve, the electorate is going to sit by. But that is going to be very, very long down the road. So, that is one thing.

So, I wish to ask Mr Prime Minister to clarify whether what I said is something that is useable in the current political climate we have.

Secondly, what we are asking for now, in a lot of ways, is actually a rebalancing. We are not talking about a revolution. For example, on the issue of social safety net, what we are saying is, "Do you not think Singaporeans' livelihoods now is too hard?" And they are so hard to the extent that you cannot expect them to become entrepreneurs because their financial security is not there. There is no long-term plan that they can be comfortable about. As a result, we say, "We know we have this amount of national Reserves, can we not use the returns and help to improve the financial position of the Singaporeans so that they can have peace of mind to think of participating in the new economy that we are trying to put into our country?"

A lot of the debates have gone on about recruitment drop, how to create jobs and how to take back some of the jobs from the foreigners, which is not really something that we want to go very far with. We want to maintain our current foreign talent model as well. But, at the same time, when we were to create jobs and have a new economy, we need to have new capabilities, we need to have Singaporeans who can think independently and with the leeway to think. That is very important.

So, these are the two questions I want to pose to the Prime Minister. Thank you very much.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I do not think I need to respond very elaborately to Mr Leong. On his first point, we have addressed the questions extensively. He does not add anything new to it. In fact, it reinforced the problem. Exactly. Mr Pritam Singh is not the only one making this argument. And if everyone makes this argument, everyone is going to be in trouble.

As for the other issues of rebalancing and not a revolution, I think these are matters which can eminently be discussed and are suitable for debate in this House. But it is not the focus of my speech today. I am talking here about which way Singapore politics is going, what their risks are in going in this direction, what we must do in order to make it turn out right and how it has worked out well for us in Singapore. And how we must try to continue to let this work for as long as we can, to serve Singaporeans, a new generation, new desires, but the same high quality of service of Government of commitment in order that there can continue to be more Reserves to argue about in the next Parliament.

Mr Speaker: Mr Heng Swee Keat.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Finance and Coordinating Minister for Economic Policies (Mr Heng Swee Keat): Thank you, Speaker. I want to reiterate the point which the Prime Minister has just made about the difference between a founder's mindset and an inheritor's mindset, and address Mr Singh's suggestion about the use of the Reserves, as somebody who has been directly involved in using the reserves twice.

The first time was during the Global Financial Crisis when I was running the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and we sought the President's approval for the use of $150 billion of our past Reserves to safeguard bank deposits. It was a very difficult decision because we never wanted to do it, until all the neighbouring countries have created bank deposit guarantees to guarantee all the deposits in the banks. And if we had a bank run, the consequences on Singapore would have been far worse. At that time, Mr Goh Chok Tong was my Chairman. After long discussions with him and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who was in MAS at that time, we decided to discuss with the Prime Minister, and we went to see the President.

It is a contingency. If you ask me today: could I have predicted it when I first went to MAS? No way. Could the world have predicted there was going to be a global financial crisis? Not at that time. Did we know that there would be governments around the world creating bank guarantees of that form? Not quite.

So, I think the Reserves, as a contingency fund to meet unexpected events for a small country with zero natural resource of any kind, is something which we must never forget. We must never forget that. And what kind of contingencies can happen? Let me touch on that in a while.

The second aspect is, this year, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we were projecting a fairly rosy picture before the financial year. Therefore, the Budget was made on the basis of even the amount that we will return and keep in past Reserves. But within 100 days, I did four Budgets and also, very recently, a Supplementary Statement. In those five Budgets and Statement altogether, I saw the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers five times and, each time, I can tell you, they asked very tough questions about all our assumptions and what we were looking at, what was the contingency and what could get worse. Eventually, they approved, after very, very tough questions given to me and my team, and we drew $52 billion of past Reserves as part of this almost $100 billion package.

Mr Pritam Singh also spoke about intergenerational equity. I have been looking at how other countries have funded all these programmes. A lot of them have funded them through borrowings. Somebody has to pay for those borrowings. Who? Future generations. The massive debts that have been incurred will have to be paid for by future generations.

As the Minister for Finance, I can tell Members that I felt so grateful to our founders for that founders' mindset in leaving us with these Reserves that my team and I were able to focus fully on what would best serve the interests of Singaporeans, how would we best help our businesses and how would we best provide resources for the frontline agencies, especially MOH, to tackle this major crisis. I did not have to worry about what terms I would have to negotiate with lenders and how we were going to pay for it.

Again, let me emphasise that, for a country with no natural resource of any kind who really live by our wits, having those Reserves gives us strength and allows us to keep jobs for our people, to restructure, to reform and that, even in the Budget, even in this crisis, we are talking about how we can emerge stronger, we have proposals on looking beyond COVID-19 and how we will re-establish relationships and even seek to emerge stronger.

Why are we able to do that? I think there is a certain mindset that we owe something not just to ourselves but to our future generations. Therefore, I hope that Mr Pritam Singh will bear that in mind when looking at this.

On the contingency question, one could ask what contingencies there could be in the future for which the Reserves may have to be used and whether the Reserves are enough. I can tell Mr Pritam Singh that I asked that question of myself all the time, because the nature of the economy is that it is going to be more volatile. We had the Asian Financial Crisis, we had the Global Financial Crisis, in between, we had SARS, the dotcom bubble and now, we have COVID-19.

Let me remind everybody that COVID-19 is not over. The COVID-19 situation is getting serious. Today, on the front page of The New York Times, they spoke about the situation in Spain and the worries in Europe about how things could get worse, whether a vaccine would be found soon enough and, even then, how would that work because now people are talking about the risk of re-infection.

So, we have to have a mindset that we have to prepare for contingencies and not think about, "Well, if I know how much it is, I can tell you how much to spend." Because the one big unknown is what are the contingencies that you have to prepare for. And I do not want to elaborate on the range of other contingencies that we have to prepare for. But a pandemic is certainly one very big area. A financial crisis and economic crisis of a very serious nature, I think we must expect that panics and crashes will continue to happen in the global economy. The global economy does not go on a straight line all the time. And we, being so open, will be exposed far more than many other economies.

So, I hope that Mr Pritam Singh will think about these carefully before thinking about "I must know how much before we know how much to spend". The principles on why we do it are quite clear.

Mr Speaker: Ms Poh Li San.

5.36 pm

Ms Poh Li San (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Motion to thank the President for her Address. I would like to first thank the Prime Minister for his address and also the Members for their questions. The exchange of views has certainly added to the robustness of the debate in this House.

The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting every aspect of our society. There is no road map for a solution and no one knows exactly what to do. Come what may, we must stay resilient. We must finish this race that is full of twists and turns. What good will come from COVID-19 is dependent on how Singapore runs as a team in this marathon.

To run this race, we must be able to respond to the challenges and be able to adapt and transform. We must nurture strong and new runners and let them start racing when they are still really young. Our youths must have a strong mindset and must always stay hungry in order to compete globally. Our youths will be the future. We must invest resources in them to accelerate the building of new capabilities for our future economy. The youths need to feel a strong sense of ownership and feel that they have a role in shaping the future of our country. So, how do we prepare and motivate our youths?

COVID-19 has brought about new opportunities. Digital transformation has accelerated the change necessary for productivity. The changes to the workforce we put in place now will greatly impact the future of our young Singaporeans.

Our millennials ought to play a bigger role in articulating their vision of Singapore in a post-COVID-19 world and the roles they want to undertake in shaping our collective future. Our youths must have more opportunities and responsibilities to lead the change and shape the future society they want to live in.

To prepare them to be able to compete globally, we need to invest and build deep capabilities, not just in growth sectors, but also to solve our nation’s fundamental problems like the shortage of manpower. Our youths must find a way to customise solutions with the use of more industry 4.0 technologies to seek ways to reduce the reliance on foreign workers in sectors like construction, hospitality and nursing.

Our youths should also focus on how the rising sea level is a slow boiling frog problem but with real existential threats to our nation’s survival. We also need to create conducive environments to spawn creativity and innovation. Better solutions often come out of intersections of different disciplines. I hope our education institutions will provide more opportunities for cross-disciplinary training for the students. Given the challenging job market now and instead of adding to the jobseekers' pool, polytechnics and universities could consider offering graduating students the option to study a second diploma or degree in a different field. This will broaden their knowledge and skillsets instead of being part of the current unemployed pool.

As marathoners, we must trim fats, stay lean and stay light. We can take supplements, but avoid quick fixes like steroids. Steroids may boost our performance very quickly but, in the long run, they do more harm to our health. As an open economy and an international brand, Singapore will certainly need the help of international talents. Foreign talents deepen and diversify our economy. Having said that, they should not cripple our organic capabilities. It is crucial to balance. We need to spread foreign talents across various industries so that there is more even growth and to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to excel in every sector.

We should also rejig our employment structure. Consider 70 to be a new retirement age. In a 45- to 50-year career lifespan, we should then take time to build a strong foundation to be good in developing a craft or a career, grow and develop our practical skillsets and experience, before moving into managerial or management roles. This will help our workforce not to be too top-heavy, resulting in us becoming expensive and uncompetitive.

At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to talk about our women marathoners. Women provide diversity and a different style of leadership at all levels and across diverse fields. While men work hard and tend to be strong and aggressive sometimes, women are naturally nurturing and resilient. These are qualities that are crucial when surviving a crisis or rebuilding the economy and society. I believe it is no coincidence that several international women leaders have managed the COVID-19 crisis well, for example, Prime Minister Jacinda Adern of New Zealand, Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and so on.

We can harness the potential of our Singaporean women and encourage qualified Singaporean women to fill the roles first before hiring foreign talents. Many talented and capable Singaporean women have traded-off careers for their young families and children. These women do have the requisite skillsets, experience and maturity to contribute and lead in the workplace. They just need to be given that opportunity to rejoin the workforce. We should increase accessibility for these women to return to the workplace, especially after their children have grown up.

To attract and retain women in the workplace, the work environment must also transform. Ironically, COVID-19 has made flexible work arrangements workable and acceptable. Work from home, e-commerce and home-based businesses have now become the norm and we should make these structural shifts in the workplace permanent.

I would like to thank fellow colleague Mr Louis Ng for speaking up earlier for better and fairer workplaces for women. Echoing Mr Louis Ng's suggestions, I would like to suggest that we consider the possibilities of ensuring that all companies be more gender neutral. Perhaps MOM could embark on a review of potentially unfair or even discriminatory HR practices, such as reducing the gender wage gap.

The vision of Singapore in a post-COVID-19 world will be completely different from how we thought it would be a year ago. We must now undertake the responsibility to reshape our future creatively. We must be different to succeed, to seek autonomous solutions to build new areas of growth and to embrace deep capabilities to improve on our competence. We must be conscious of environment conservation solutions to live better. In our resource-scarce nation, everyone must work together to succeed in this post-COVID-19 world.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]

There is a Zambian proverb that says, “When you run alone, you run fast. When you run together, you run far”. Around this time last year, 200 Singaporeans came together to run "Relay Majulah", to celebrate Singapore’s Bicentennial and to raise funds for President’s Challenge. Each runner ran either 10 kilometres or 20 kilometres and had to raise at least $5,000 each. After months of hard work and fund-raising, the 200-hour relay by the 200 runners, covering 2,000 kilometres, was completed successfully. That relay raised a total of $1.6 million, well over the target of $1 million. Amongst the 200 runners, there are five MPs in this House, including Mr Speaker, Sir, who ran in that relay. Relay Majulah indeed inspired many. It was a race that showed us that so long as we stayed determined to help one another, we can achieve our goal no matter how difficult it may seem.

As a nation, we must keep running this uphill marathon together, no matter what extremely harsh weather condition we may all need to go through. I am confident that we will eventually finish this race together, stronger and trimmer than when we started off. We will be an undefeated marathon team. I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude my speech in Chinese. COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges to Singapore. The fight against COVID-19 and economic recovery is like a marathon, and the key lies in perseverance. Every member of the team must do his or her best and overcome the difficulties without fear. The youths must be brave to innovate and be entrepreneurial and use advanced technologies to solve the most challenging issues that the country is facing. They should also take on the responsibility to shape our future. Businesses should improve their competitiveness, keep agile, reduce the number of middle and senior executives and balance the proportions between local and foreign employees. Women are known to be soft and resilient. Their perspectives are different from the men. Hence, we should encourage them to participate more in the decision-making process at the senior level to work out a more holistic solution.

A marathon is tough. However, as long as we persevere and help each other with a strong belief in mind and a united team spirit, we can complete the run and reach our destination. Team Singapore is a group of unremitting marathon runners who are determined to win!

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

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Ng Ling Ling.

5.49 pm

Ms Ng Ling Ling (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. I would like to declare my role as an independent consultant in healthcare transformation.

Singapore is going through a challenging year. It will not be easy for us or the world to emerge from COVID-19 and its economic fall-out to recover fully any time soon. But I have confidence that we can grow and emerge from this difficult time. What we can and must count on and empower is our people, Singaporeans, young and old.

I have been reflecting on the last few words of our pledge: happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. What truly does happiness to a nation mean? To me, "happiness" is about ensuring and engendering the social and collective well-being of our society as a whole.

Economic growth is crucial, yes, and is the lifeblood of Singapore. But addressing the softer human needs and the collective well-being of our people can be a counter-balancing force when our economic growth may no longer be as fast as in the past decade. A balance in the pursuit of what is most important to benefit the wider population, especially the at-risk groups, will become increasingly important.

As such, my speech will focus on building our people, not just on the "bread and butter" issues affecting livelihoods and jobs, but also social and mental health of our people, and social cohesion.

First, I would like to talk about one group of at-risk people particularly impacted by this crisis, and many in this House have also spoken up about them: the older workers and how we can assist them. I resonate with them because I have been seeing the vulnerability of our older adult workers over 50 years old and those above 60 years old feel even more uncertain and anxious this period in my constituency.

We have started the most significant demographic shift of this generation – the near doubling of citizens aged 65 and older by 2030, with the number of elderly citizens projected to be about 900,000, or one in four by then.

As Minister of State Ms Gan Siow Huang had mentioned, the median age of our resident labour force today has also risen to 44, compared to 41 just a decade ago, and it will continue to rise. It is important that we recognise and appreciate the wealth of experience and skills of our older workers, who will make up an increasing share of our workforce.

I commend Moovaz, a Singapore-based startup specialising in international moving services. In a The Straits Times article reported on 24 August 2020, they employed Mdm Becky Chang, 60 years old, after she was let go from her company in the shipping industry. Moovaz valued her four decades of experience in the shipping industry and, importantly, her willingness to learn. We need more of such employers.

As Members of this House have quoted, and I would like to reinforce, as Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has aptly said, and I quote, "no Singaporean who is willing to learn should be 'too old' to hire. And no one who is willing to adapt should be viewed as 'overqualified'."

As a society, we must make every effort to continually support a more mature workforce in meaningful and dignifying work. What is even more important is for us to respect the emotional journey they are going through as they cope with the rapidly changing job market. I have met older adult residents who have lost or are at the risk of losing their jobs and they shared with me their anxiety in finding new jobs. Not for the lack of will to learn, but for the steep learning curve of acquiring new skills in growth areas and the learning pace they need. My constituency volunteers and I keep them supported by encouraging them not to give up.

The Government has started many good schemes to provide assistance to this group. Whether it be the strong support from the SG United Jobs and Skills Package, the new Jobs Growth Incentive or efforts from the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers. These are all commendable schemes, but we need to also systematically redesign jobs, shift workplace culture and HR policies to institutionalise new possibilities for our maturing workforce. We need to help them overcome the workplace barriers which may stand in the way of maximising their potential.

In my view, social service experts are adept in designing systemic environment and practices, designing new job roles, breaking down tasks and coaching them in partnership with employers, doing these in a way that build psycho-social wellness of people, bringing in elements of respect, dignity and empowerment.

We saw that in the hard-forged efforts in the movement for employment of persons with special needs, which organisations like the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), SG Enable alongside community-minded corporates like Pan Pacific Hotel Group, as well as Social Service Agencies like Autism Resource Centre led by our capable Mayor Denise Phua have made impactful progress in.

We need a similar movement for our older workers. To begin with, I have helped to bring together the NCSS and Pan Pacific Hotel Group to start dialogues on partnership to join forces and combine the social and business perspectives to enable awareness and resources for new job redesigns for the mature workforce. I am glad to share that there is much keenness to support this segment of our workers. For example, the hotel group in their sustainability pursuit are thinking of new roles such as urban farming specialists where they will encourage older workers to pursue and in a dignified way. I hope that more public, private and people sector organisations will collaborate and join in such efforts.

Change in workplace culture, mindsets, HR policies and practices that will ensure non-discriminatory hiring and retention of older workers will require relentless and collective efforts. Because of the important element of self-worth and self-empowerment that work brings, we must continually improve status quo to give assurance to our older workers and help them increase job security.

This brings me to the next part of my speech – the impact of the current crisis and uncertainties on social and mental health of our people.

The Centre for Research on Successful Ageing, a research centre based in the Singapore Management University (SMU), undertook a study recently to understand the possible impacts on elderly Singaporeans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings from their population-representative monthly survey, with about 7,500 respondents, tracking the lives of Singaporeans aged 55 to 75 during this period were reported in The Straits Times on 28 August this year.

There was an important finding: older adults experienced a drop in overall life satisfaction by 3.8% in April 2020 and 4% in May, as compared to January 2020. Respondents mentioned that they experienced a sharp increase in feelings of social isolation, with individuals living alone experiencing larger increases.

One factor that impacts quality of life is job security, and it is telling that many respondents in the survey expressed anxiety about the future, with about a third of respondents expressing being very or extremely worried about the health of their loved ones and the economy. In my opinion, this has potential impact on our people’s mental health.

In another survey conducted by the National University Health System (NUHS) Mind Science Centre on mental health resilience published in The Straits Times on 19 August this year, it found that younger Singaporeans 45 years and below are more likely to feel anxious and less mentally resilient than those aged 45 and above.

These two reports show that the impact of the current crisis on mental health is a complex one that affects different groups of Singaporeans in different ways, both young and old.

My hope is that our younger people today, who are more likely to talk about mental health more openly and honestly, can increasingly exercise "self-care" and be part of their normal vocabulary to be able to find support and care that they need. I am heartened that compared to five years ago, the awareness when talking about the stigmatisation of mental health among youths and young adults has vastly improved. But we must keep on this journey of bringing down the stigma for youths that need the help to find help.

Some of the older adults may find it difficult to talk openly about mental health. They may not dare to tell people that they are not doing well. Perhaps they feel that their dignity may be impacted, or they do not want to be a burden. We must continue to reduce the stigma of help seeking behaviours for Singaporeans, especially when it is at the early onset of mental health issues, such as mild depression or anxiety, for preventive care nearer to home in the community.

I hope to encourage more preventive mental health support in primary care providers, including the polyclinics and general practitioner (GP) clinics, which are closer to most people, with more support in terms of subsidies and integrated care with social services.

Social cohesion amongst all generations for a collective destiny is increasingly important. In dealing with the issues I have mentioned so far, we can see that we are facing more complex challenges among our people, both young and old. However, I remain hopeful that if we pull our strengths together, not seeing the emerging issues like what I have mentioned as solely the problems of one specific group or another but affecting our common destiny ahead, we can find new solutions together. After all, all our futures are closely intertwined with each other and how Singapore will continue to thrive ahead.

We can build intergenerational "Communities of Support" at work, in the neighbourhood and at home out of the Singapore Together conversations. Such communities can act as platforms that promote intergenerational bonding through embarking on shared projects with common interest that value each other's strengths and provide support that is enriching in a meaningful way intergenerationally

Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end my speech on a note of hope. Hope for all Singaporeans, young and old, during this period of uncertainty. Hope for a better nation as a whole. No matter how diverse our views are and no matter how complex the challenges we are facing, we can all prevail in a common destiny ahead if we know how to harness each other's strengths and will. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Eric Chua.

6.02 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Eric Chua): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.

Mdm President said in her address that "Singapore is at an inflection point of our history." Indeed so, but I would argue that the issues that we confront are, in fact, of existential concern. Beyond the current fight with COVID-19, the real battle we have ahead of us is a virus of disillusionment in the longer-term future of Singapore. Let me explain.

I am a recent father to a baby boy, all of 77 days young. On occasion, where I have the luxury to lull him to sleep, questions inevitably flood my mind. When he completes National Service some 20 years later, what will Singapore be like? Can Singapore still work for him, as it did for me and my cohort?

I would like to bring the House 41 years back in time, when another little boy was just born in the now-defunct Toa Payoh Hospital. Yes, I am narrating my life story. Indeed, in the past couple of months, I have narrated my life story several times, since being introduced as a candidate. Juxtaposed against the life stories of many of my fellow first-term Parliamentarians, my story does seem a little "familiar", and some might even say, "cookie cutter".

May I defiantly suggest that these stories bear repeating, for they are the lived experiences of a generation where many young children started off in humble families, but in spite of their challenges, they held up hope, strived and they made good. And may I also suggest that these stories could not have been possible if our system had been running on the fuel of tokenism. These stories are not only emblematic of our generation of Singaporeans, but to impose broad and inaccurate characterisations on these life stories make a mockery of what the Singapore system stands for.

I had a simple but blessed childhood. Being both blue-collared workers, my parents worked very hard. At their urging, I too studied hard and was often reminded that getting good results was my ticket to a good life. Two years ago, CNA ran a documentary titled "Regardless of Class." In that programme, six youngsters from the Integrated Programme (IP) and Normal streams were brought together and had a visibly uncomfortable time together, as they shared about their ideals in life. That social experiment generated a fair amount of heated discussions around class divides in Singapore. And that reminded me that I, too, had my fair share of awkward brushes on the topic as I grew up.

There was once in primary school when we had to write a composition about our fathers. As a few of us strayed into casual chatter in that class, questions that are usually taboo in conversations between adults innocuously sprung up, "How much does your father earn monthly?" I remember wondering in amazement when a classmate of mine shared that her dad was a manager and that he earned a handsome monthly salary of $5,000. That was several times my household income at the time and was, to me then, an astronomical sum.

When I became older, another episode left a deep impression. I remember I was getting to know a group of new teenage friends when the conversation veered into where each of us lived. Amongst this group was a friend who had known me for some time and was quick to answer, on my behalf, albeit a little insensitively, "Oh, Eric lives in Ang Mo Kio, the slums near the Town Centre!" I remember feeling uneasy momentarily while another friend with a better emotional quotient, I think, quickly steered the conversation away to lighter topics.

To be sure, socioeconomic differences are present in every society. But what powers people forward and what keeps successive generations striving is the hope of a better future. The idea that if one works hard, he or she can potentially earn a train ticket for a better cabin class on our collective trip into the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, the very fuel for this train of hope – with future as its destination – is social mobility.

According to a 2018 paper published by the MSF, 14.3% of Singaporeans born between 1978 and 1982 to families from the lowest 20% in terms of household income made it to the top 20%, significantly higher than other developed countries, like the US and the UK. Families who make up this statistic are completely uplifted in a single generation. For families not far behind, this statistic serves as an aspirational target. Being born to a family of a lower socioeconomic status should not be a handicap. Who you are at birth should not determine who you will end up being in life. Conversely, problems occur when one gets entrenched in their situation at birth, essentially, being stuck with the hand you are dealt, with little to no means of getting a better deck of cards.

The bad news is entrenchment is the natural order of things. Most, if not all parents, regardless of their ability, will naturally want to provide their children with the best they can afford. In fact, no social order in the world organically ensures parity of opportunity. So, if left unchecked, our train of hope will eventually run out of fuel and tank.

But instead of simplistically alleging the failure of our meritocratic system, I suggest we need to take intervening steps to keep our systems going. To be sure through the work of the work of the ASPIRE committee and programmes such as UPLIFT and KidSTART, we have done quite a fair over the years to address uneven starting points.

But little has changed in the way that we, as a society, perceive success and how to get there. The tried and tested path of studying hard for a degree and landing a comfortable white-collar job remains the mainstay for most. But this remains only one out of the kaleidoscope of possible ways that one can succeed in life! After all, each of us are unique individuals, and I am not making a feel-good Disney statement here. It is high time we celebrate the diversity of our talents and just think about how much we can achieve if each of us pursue life to the fullest by mining our individual reservoirs of unique talents, instead of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.

Where then do we begin? A good start, perhaps, is for Singaporeans to develop a sense of respect for blue-collar work, an idea put forth by Dr Cheng Ching Siang in his Forum page contribution to The Straits Times and echoed by Mr Louis Ng earlier. Of course, respect alone is not enough. It takes a paradigm shift in our mindsets that beyond the typical, white-collared roles, there can be many other viable routes to success in life.

Along with this attitudinal shift, we need to take concrete steps not just to signal, but to tangibly show that there can truly be multiple pathways to different pinnacles of success. Take, for instance, apprenticeships or work-based learning. Not to be confused with internships or mistaken as a euphemism for cheap labour, apprenticeships offer a blend of on- and off-the-job learning. Apprenticeships offer individuals the chance to grow both in the classroom and at the workplace. It is a good way of enhancing the development of one's skillsets and preparing the individual for his or her career all at once. Apprenticeships are widely offered in European countries like Germany and Switzerland as a pathway that eventually leads to skilled employment in both blue- and white-collared roles. And it is not uncommon to hear of individuals working up the ranks to senior appointments, often without even a basic degree.

To be sure, designing and provisioning for apprenticeship programmes is an arduous process involving many stakeholders poring over details such as remuneration, time allotted for classroom instruction vis-à-vis productive work.

But the key obstacles we face today are the tinted lenses through which we view apprenticeships. We need to ask themselves the right questions when a young family member considers taking up an apprenticeship. It is not about whether the family can afford full-time classroom learning. It is much more about whether an apprenticeship provides the best pathway for the child to develop his or her full potential. At the same time, employers also need to see apprenticeships as a pipeline for talent development, not merely a manpower supply line.

I know our education institutions have been exploring work-study progression pathways for our children in recent years. They face an uphill task of changing deep-seated beliefs that we have held for a very long time. But if we are determined for our future generations not to trip over ourselves by sticking to narrow definitions of success, we have every collective interest to make sure apprenticeships flourish in our system.

Beyond pathways, we need to do more to help Singaporeans in non-white-collared roles as well. We can do so by helping our local industries, some of which are Uniquely Singapore, flourish. Take, for instance, our hawkers. Today, few would actually raise an eyebrow when they find food selections that made it to the Michelin Bib Gourmand list in our hawker centres. That alone is testimony of the quality of our hawkers' products. We can help our hawkers innovate their business models, scale up operations and even help them go regional! For other industry segments that are fledgling or non-existent locally, we can connect Singaporeans with aptitude to overseas centres of excellence. It is after all my belief that Singaporeans of all stripes, not just those with degrees, can make waves the world over.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this proposal I am talking about goes way beyond conserving hawker culture and ensuring our future generations will still get to eat our favourite chicken rice and chai tow kueh. It is most certainly not about having our own master watchmakers, or expert sommeliers simply for the vanity of it. At the heart of it all, we need tangible change to help Singaporeans reimagine and re-visualise a multi-dimensional definition of success.

On success, a 2018 survey commissioned by OnePeople.sg and CNA revealed very telling differences between different social classes. Respondents from the lower class cited: (a) hard work, (b) education and (c) knowing the right people, in this order, as key factors for success. And replying to the same question, respondents from the upper class cited; (a) knowing the right people, (b) ability, and (c) hard work, as their answers.

Indeed, one's networks has an impact on how well one does in life. As a general rule, it is not inconceivable that a family that is better off will be able to leverage a larger network to their children's advantage. And this speaks to our earlier point on entrenchment as the natural human order.

But this is where we need to take intervening steps to level the playing field. To provide access to young people from families where networks they can tap on for advice on career, education and lessons in life are limited. This is where mentorship programmes for our youths can be a useful counter against the natural forces of entrenchment, that critical leveller between the haves and the have nots.

I have been mentoring ITE students since 2014. Many mentees do well and go on to complete diploma courses in the polytechnics. One of them has even gone on to sign on with the Republic of Singapore Air Force and is now a pilot trainee. Another one, recently left Singapore, to pursue a hospitality apprenticeship in Switzerland. I do not lay claim to any of my mentees' successes, but simply being able to journey with them for part of their formative years has made me a better person.

So, to unlock the full potential of every Singaporean, we need to avail mentoring for our youths at skill and tap on the many who are willing to step out as mentors. I am sure many among the 14% who got uplifted in a single generation need no nudging. Many will want to make a difference by mentoring a younger person. We can tap on our collective energy and create conditions where people can step up to pave forward and for successive generations of young Singaporeans to do likewise.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, I venture an assumption that whether society views its future with optimism or otherwise can have a unifying or divisive effect on its constituents.

According to the Pew Research Centre, when asked to gaze at the crystal ball into 2050, many Americans are pessimistic about many aspects of life in the US, including a perceptible decline in living standards. For us here in Singapore, we can and will believe in Singapore, only if social mobility continues to feature as a defining part of our social compact.

Deputy Speaker, Sir, it takes an entire village to raise a child, and we owe it to each of the 39,000 Singaporean babies that we welcome to this world each year to ensure the continued and deliberate injection of hope and conviction, so that as one people, we, can keep Singapore going. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.

6.17 pm

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

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, President Halimah Yacob's speech at the opening session of the Fourteenth Parliament of Singapore, touched on the importance and need for Singapore's political and community leaders from all walks of life to unite, despite having their own different principles and philosophy, working together and contributing towards a happy, prosperous and developed Singapore.

In my speech, I would like to share my thoughts on strengthening unity in diversity.

It is natural that humans are created differently or in a state of diversity. This is normal and we must agree with and accept this natural state. Whether this diversity results in something good or not, the outcome depends on the way we accept and how we go through it.

My life experiences, especially as a counsellor, make me view diversity positively and accept it as a blessing and wisdom. This is because diversity offers choices, and it can also help and facilitate efforts to complement each other on any matter.

However, we must acknowledge that some differences that may arise from diversity are sometimes awkward and can pose challenges. In addressing such differences, we must be open, tolerant, have mutual respect and practise the principle of agreeing to disagree.

It is natural for us to practise the values of diversity in life. People who live in a community cannot live alone without engaging in the existing ecosystem, as the English saying goes “No man is an island”.

A combination of ideas and efforts is necessary in going through all aspects of life, especially within the challenging global situation today and in the future. In short, we need each other to complement each other.

Sir, going back to Mdm President’s address at the Opening Session of the Fourteenth Parliament, where she noted the outcome of the new General Election, in which 10 Parliamentary seats were won by the WP, while the ruling party experienced a fall in the percentage of national votes, signified the need for Singaporeans to have a diversity of views and thoughts in the country’s political and development processes.

Singapore voters want a more effective and constructive political landscape. They want a robust and cohesive check and balance system, and not a political system guided by the “ownself check ownself” approach. The “ownself check ownself” political approach is unhealthy. As human beings, we are exposed to the phenomenon of “blind spot” and “group thinking”. This is irrefutable.

Sir, we must accept that diversity in politics is something quite necessary. But we must also accept the fact that diversity can also cause anxiety and the possibility of fault lines. This is something that may not be avoided but can still be addressed or mitigated.

Diversity should not have a negative impact such as being divisive and discriminatory. There should not be any feelings or opinions by any party that their ideology or philosophy is more “superior” than the others. As I said earlier, this diversity is meant to complement each other and, if differences cannot be resolved, we should be prepared to agree to disagree.

Efforts to assimilate and practise unity in diversity in our society should start from the country's political leadership. The actions of political leaders will serve as examples and role models for the public. The ways leaders deal with and discuss sensitive and hot issues, whether inside or outside the House, to some extent, will shape and influence the tone of debate and discussion that will take place among the public.

Sir, in May this year, my colleague, Mr Leon Perera, proposed that Parliamentary sessions be broadcast live on the national television channel so that the public can appreciate the atmosphere of the Parliamentary sessions and understand the procedures better.

A spokesman for Minister Grace Fu, responding to this through the media, said "Live broadcasts of Parliament risk turning the House into a ‘form of theatre’ and do not add to transparency", and further said, "An element of public performance is unavoidable because Singaporeans want to see their concerns expressed, and hear their questions asked and answered in Parliament." In short, the answer given is that the live telecast does not improve transparency; in fact, it poses a risk of transforming Parliamentary sessions into performance theatre.

On this note, Sir, I would like to state for the record that I agree to having live telecast of Parliamentary sessions, because in my view, any Member who wants to put on a theatre performance in Parliament will still showcase their acting because they know that, although there is no live telecast, there are recordings done every second, from the start to the end of the Parliamentary session. In short, whether there is a live telecast or not, it is not the reason for a Member not to showcase their acting, because they know their acting can still be watched through recording clips over social media channels.

Sir, based on the responses that I shared earlier, it appears to express a concern that a situation will occur where a Member of the House will behave inappropriately during Parliamentary debates, to the point where Parliamentary sessions are akin to theatre performances.

This is something that should not happen. Members of this House should realise that whatever qualities they display, whether through verbal or verbal conduct, will have an impact on the public.

Sir, among the less appropriate qualities or approaches are personal attacks; avoid making personal attacks against Members of the House. This House is meant to discuss matters that can have a positive impact on the well-being of the community and the country. It is not an arena to launch personal attacks against anyone. Debates that incorporate personal attacks are unsuitable for this House as it will tarnish the integrity and status of this House as a legislature. The portrayal of a leader who makes personal attacks against another leader shows an unhealthy example to the followers.

Sir, a robust discussion is necessary so that the issues discussed can be explored more deeply and as best as possible. However, a robust discussion should be based on good order so as not to erode the value of unity.

As elected leaders, it is best for us to be more vigilant in the way we debate because it will become a model and example to the public, because negative examples can create unease and anxiety, and thus will likely lead to polarisation and disunity among the community.

Sir, another thing that can affect unity in diversity is the issue of justice. Justice is central in achieving unity especially in a multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural society. The desire for justice is part of human nature and when there is an injustice, there will be uneasiness.

Lately, many have expressed dissatisfaction, especially on social media, over the role of People's Association’s (PA) grassroot advisers in the constituency under the care of alternative parties being given to the defeated ruling party candidate in the general election. The PAP candidate is also, at the same time, holding the post of PAP branch chairman for the same constituency. This is considered an injustice.

Their question is, why are MPs elected from non-ruling parties not given the post as was done to the ruling party MPs? Why are there double standards?

It has been said in this House repeatedly that the PA is a statutory body and is not political in nature, it is neutral and is not inclined towards any political party. Several reasons have also been shared on why an opposition MP is not appointed as the PA's grassroots adviser. Among the reasons is that the main role of the grassroots advisers is to present and explain government policies and the opposition MPs will not be able to do this role well in situations where they do not support these policies.

But the explanation and reasons given failed to convince a large group of political observers amongst the public who still express the view that the PA is used as a platform to fulfil the political interests of the ruling party. Sir, I myself cannot accept that the PA is free from partisan politics.

I have proposed in this House to appoint senior public officers such as a Chief Executive Officer or Director, whether still in service or retired, and are not members of any political party, to be appointed as PA grassroots advisers. The experience of serving in ministries and statutory bodies is valuable and most appropriate for such individuals to hold this post.

I believe such appointments will eliminate the issue of injustice, that is, the PA's tendency towards partisan politics. Once again, I ask that my proposal be given serious consideration if the Government is sincere and honest in further strengthening the principle of unity in diversity.

I would now like to touch on the issue of religion and race, which is considered taboo and sensitive to be discussed openly. According to some leaders, such matters should only be discussed behind the scenes. Sir, this House has heard many times from several Members of both sides for an open discussion on topics related to religion and race. I think it is time for this matter to be given due attention.

Minister Shanmugam, as reported by the media, said that Singapore should find suitable ways that can be accepted by different generations to discuss issues of religion and race. More recently, Minister Edwin Tong also stated, “less confrontation, more mediation, when talking about sensitive issues”. Sir, I agree with both Ministers in this matter.

Sir, in the past two months, there have been two incidents that caused disquiet in relation to the issue of religious practices. One, where a Sikh man was asked whether he could remove his turban during a telephone interview because the reason given was that his appearance could cause unease. The second incident involved a Muslim salesgirl who was told to remove her hijab because it was considered unprofessional.

Such discriminatory incidents are deplorable and should not happen, given that efforts have been made over 55 years to develop a multiracial and multi-religious society. These two recent incidents indicate that there should be more open and dynamic approaches to further strengthen understanding, acceptance and tolerance among Singaporeans so that the discriminatory attributes, whether consciously or indirectly, can be better curbed. And such efforts should start at a leadership level.

Leaders should be open and not narrow-minded whenever an endeavour or discussion on issues related to religious practices are put forward. Avoid the use of words or phrases that can cause unease in society, words like “divisive” and “problematic”, when discussing religious issues. Speeches containing such words and phrases are not helpful to anyone and, in fact, it will give rise to anxiety that can lead to cracks to social cohesion.

Sir, it is better to have a humble and open approach when discussing matters that are considered sensitive such as religion and race. These qualities will enable discussions to be conducted rationally and constructively so that, in the end, they can result in consensus and good solutions for the community. If no solution can be agreed upon, at least the discussion can end in a “agree to disagree” situation and mutual respect. This is what is best in order to maintain unity in diversity.

Sir, in conclusion, my arguments are meant to invite all Members of this House, especially myself, as leaders, to do soul searching because any kind of values, character and behaviour displayed by leaders will have an impact on the public. Humility, openness and tolerance will strengthen unity while negative qualities will create fault lines instead. This is because leaders are role models to people who follow them.

Sir, last but not least, I would like to sincerely thank the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) voters for once again electing the WP team, to represent them in Parliament. Sir, I support the Motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

6.34 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Sir, I am heartened to hear the President reaffirm our commitment to take good care of our seniors to enable them to age well and with dignity. While our seniors strive to stay healthy for as long as possible, it is quite inevitable that at some point in time, disease sets in or an injury occurs. So, today, I would like to speak on how we, as a society, can also care well for our seniors and their dignity, in sickness and in infirmity, when they are at their most vulnerable.

Sir, fundamentally, the structure of our family unit has changed. Our seniors may have multiple siblings, but few children. Their siblings may offer some degree of support to each other, but all are ageing at the same time. Their children, on the other hand, have to balance the demands of supporting parents while building their own homes, raising kids and fulfilling career aspirations. In my house visits, I have met many seniors. They would tell me about their family portraits, their children and grandchildren. So often, their children would have moved out and built their own families.

Against this backdrop, we have to recognise the practical limits of the family unit in caring for our seniors if and when their healthcare needs become the highest. While the individual and family must continue to be cardinal and first line of support, we also need stronger interventions – by Government, local communities and society at large – to support families in providing dignified care for our seniors.

Any intervention would have fiscal or social implications or both. So, as a society, we would need frank and thorough discourse and seek to refresh our compact on personal and shared responsibilities.

Allow me to touch on some specific areas that we need to look it collectively.

Firstly, on our nursing homes and the intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) sector. The Government has steadily grown nursing home capacity and continues to do so. While we must avoid the moral hazard of institutionalising care as a society, we must also recognise that more families would require the support of long-term full-time institutional care for our seniors.

In the last decade, the sector has improved its quality of care significantly, but I believe it is time to go beyond basic care to dignified care. We can do more, in terms of integration with the community, rehabilitation and thoughtful design to improve residents' quality of life. For instance, could residents continue to enjoy their favourite hawker food in a nursing home? Could residents mix with children regularly and bond? Could our nursing homes be more home than nursing?

To achieve even better standards, cost of care in the sector would have to go up. To raise and sustain an ecosystem of capability building, innovation and human capital development, cost of care in the sector would have to go up. I believe there is scope for the Government to bear the bulk of incremental costs for these higher standards of care.

At the same time, while most nursing home residents are already getting some level of Government subsidies, I would urge a review of the current subsidy framework to see if we can do more and be even more progressive. Ultimately, we must keep long-term care dignified and affordable for those who need it the most.

And yet, we must guard against runaway healthcare costs in general. Indeed, in the COVID-19 "new normal", we face serious fiscal challenges. At the same time, demands for healthcare spending will only grow as our population ages. Therefore, while we keep at flattening the epidemic and unemployment curves in the COVID-19 new normal, we must also urgently flatten our healthcare cost inflation curve.

How do we do so? I believe we need to start with our hospitals, our tertiary care setting. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as an employee in a public healthcare institution. In our hospitals and tertiary care setting, we must continue to make difficult decisions on standard treatments and therapies. Even as the range of treatments and therapies available to patients continue to grow, our society would need to constantly review and refresh our consensus on this.

As importantly, we must continue guarding against fragmentation in tertiary care. An encik once told me, "Jantung (heart) got problem, better see jantung doctor lah". That is very understandable, but I wondered, "Hati (liver) also got problem, how? Paru-paru (lungs), tulang (bone) also got problem, how?" The point is more seniors will be affected by multiple conditions. And while we would expect to see a specialist for each organ, it may neither be sustainable nor lead to the best overall outcomes.

So, increasingly, we should move towards having a single doctor to coordinate care around a patient's whole range of conditions. For our healthcare system, this reduces duplication of resources and reduces costs. But, as importantly, for the patient, it means less visits and more convenience. Indeed, when illness is stressful and becomes more complex, care should become simpler – one patient, one principal doctor. This would require patients to shift their expectations about care fundamentally. And this would require our healthcare professionals to also refresh both mindsets and skillsets, starting with a training framework that must emphasise broad skills on top of deep skills.

Sir, in both hospitals and nursing homes, the Government has been adding beds. But ultimately, no bed matters quite as much to our seniors as the bed at home.

I have attended a number of wakes in my constituency and almost all of these residents who passed on have either passed on at home or wanted to do so. Indeed, we need to grow our home-based care capabilities in a major way, including the protocols, technology, financing and regulations. We should strive to provide what has traditionally been hospital-level care outside the hospital and in the home. Providers around the world are exploring this in earnest and we will need to evolve our own way. This may be a moonshot for our healthcare system, but one that I believe is worthy for us to apply our minds and energies to.

Sir, let me now talk about people. Firstly, we need more healthcare professionals, in particular, more nurses. We continue to improve productivity through technology and job redesign, but fundamentally, care remains a high-touch, highly human endeavour, especially if we want care to be dignified. We need more nurses going forward and it is key that we maintain a strong Singaporean Core.

So, to this end, we have intensified recruitment and reviewed salaries, training and career pathways for Singaporeans. But we also need to complement our workforce with foreign nurses. There had been several debates on this topic in this House, around qualifications, culture and language. Allow me to share my views with a simple story.

On 16 March, it was announced that the flow of people across the Causeway would all but cease within two days. Yet so many of our non-Singaporean nurses decided to stay with us in Singapore. Some rushed home to pack before crossing the Causeway just in time, even on foot. These nurses have not seen their families for months. Some have postponed weddings or missed funerals of loved ones. So, if there is anything that COVID-19 has taught the healthcare sector, it is that everyone, Singaporean or Work Pass holder, has made sacrifices and everyone has worked as one team to care for Singaporeans and keep Singaporeans in the community safe.

COVID-19 has taught us that we need resilience. We need a buffer in our system to anticipate disruptions. And so, I hope Singaporeans can recognise that going forward, we need more locals and more foreign nurses to continue working together as one team to ensure the best care possible for our seniors. To this end, I would also suggest a comprehensive review of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling and manpower strategies for the healthcare sector, especially for intermediate and long-term care. At the same time, we have to care better for our caregivers.

I have three suggestions. Firstly, we should enhance financial support for full-time caregivers. We need to define full-time caregiving carefully and guard against abuse in implementation. But fundamentally, we must recognise that full-time caregivers have sacrificed much in terms of career and income.

Secondly, we should reconsider parent-care leave. Both childcare and parent care are key burdens for Singaporeans in the “sandwich generation”. So, our policy principles for childcare and parent care should be consistent. Introducing parent-care leave entitlements send an important signal to workers, employers and the whole of society on our collective compact to care for seniors. At the same time, we have to recognise the impact on businesses. Therefore, flexible work arrangements must remain as our most sustainable strategy. COVID-19 has changed the way we think about workplace and collaboration, and we must use this opportunity to further cement flexibility of work as part of our new normal.

Thirdly, we should work with caregivers to raise the uptake of Lasting Power of Attorney and Advance Care Planning among seniors. These may be difficult conversations, but necessary ones as they significantly reduce caregiver stress down the road. We should support our caregivers to plan ahead and plan well with our seniors. Sir, in Chinese, before I conclude.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We all know that Singapore is ageing rapidly. When I make house visits, I have met many senior residents. The good thing is that many of our Pioneer Generation seniors were mistaken by me as the Merdeka Generation and many of those who are from the Merdeka Generation were mistaken by me as being middle-aged. In other words, our seniors look young and live a good life in their old age.

However, degeneration and ageing are inevitable. As the sandwich class, the children not only have to take care of their parents, but also their own children. Work and life have brought double amount of stress on them. Under these circumstances, the society and Government must better support Singaporeans and families, and ensure that seniors are properly taken care of, both physically and mentally, when they get old or fall sick.

Here I have three suggestions: first, the Government should focus on developing and building nursing homes, inject more resources, improve the quality of care beyond basic care, and at the same time increase subsidies for Singaporeans; second, explore more comprehensive home care services because hospital wards can never be as comfortable as a bedroom at home; and third, provide more financial assistance to full-time caregivers and establish a suitable parent care leave regime through the Tripartite partners.

Of course, as Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, our national pocket is not bottomless. Every policy comes with a price. As a society, how we help to share the burden will be a core issue in our future social compact. Let us face it squarely, make decisions based on care, protect the dignity of our seniors, and uphold the core value of respecting the elderly.

(In English): Sir, let me conclude. Keeping our seniors healthy will always be key. At the same time, becoming sick and losing functionality is part of being mortal, but it does not have to be morbid. We, as a society, must resolve that it will not be morbid for our seniors and the caregivers in our midst.

Families, community and Government must work together to provide dignified care for our seniors and preserve their quality of life as much as possible. This means even better standards in our nursing homes and allowing as much optionality as possible for care within the home, where our seniors truly want to be. At the same time, we need to make hard choices on treatments and therapies and involve our tertiary care model to keep a lid on overall costs. Yet, overall costs would go up and these would have to be funded.

And certainly, our society would need more passionate individuals, both local and foreign, to step forward to provide the best care possible for our seniors.

And finally, as a society, we must also care better for our caregivers.

We must be a society that commits to dignified care for our seniors, because it is the right thing to do. And we must be a society that commits to stepping in and stepping up to help each other with the burdens of care, especially where the individual or the family is unable to manage, because this is who we must be as a people. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]