Debate on President's Address

Order read for the Resumption of Debate on Question [17 April 2023].

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

'We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which she delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament.'." – [Mr Murali Pillai].

Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker: Ms Jessica Tan.

1.42 pm

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

"A Different World", "realities we have to adapt to", "As a small nation, we must take the world as it is", "challenges" and "opportunities". These were points highlighted by President Halimah in her speech at the Opening of the Second Session of this 14th Parliament. But she reminded us that "we are far from powerless". Our history and what we have achieved as a nation today has shown that our strength has and continues to be our people and our will as one people, government, businesses and citizens "working together to make the improbable, possible".

There are many important aspects that President Halimah has covered in her speech and plans that the Ministries have also outlined in the various addenda to her speech. In my speech today, I will touch on two areas which, I feel, are important for Singapore and Singaporeans to be ready and more importantly, confident for the changes we are facing and to remain relevant now and in the future.

They are: one, education and continual learning – to equip Singaporeans and expand opportunities throughout life for all; and two, a society that values and support families.

Let me now touch on education and continual learning.

For our young: with the fast pace of change and rapid digitalisation across many aspects of work and life, what we teach, how we teach and when learning happens has changed and will need to continue to transform.

In schools, we are preparing our young for work and careers that do not exist today. The Ministry of Education's (MOE's) addendum to the President's Address outlines its commitment to quality education and strong foundation for every child, while breaking new ground to adapt to the changing landscape.

It is heartening that MOE will invest more in preschool education especially for children from disadvantaged families. Studies have shown that access to quality childcare and early childhood education develops foundational skills and helps boost math and reading in children.

For our young, building strong foundational knowledge and skills, including STEM, is crucial. With rapid digitalisation, technology skills need to be part of core curriculum. With how technologies are evolving and the potential benefits and risks they pose, technology skills are essential not only to enable use and leverage of these technologies and tools. Equally important, is the understanding of the pros and cons to enable discernment and appropriate use. For example, the benefits of ChatGPT, which everyone has been talking about. ChatGPT gives the ease of use with human-like conversations, extensive applications to produce text, images, music and code – to just name a few.

But, just last week, an article in The Straits Times highlighted what seemed realistic artificial intelligence (AI) generated images that surfaced in recent months and the difficulty to differentiate a fake photo from the real one.

There are both benefits and risks as AI and new technologies continue to play a bigger role in our work and lives. With increasing use of technologies, there are rising concerns around privacy, biases and discrimination. Policies are needed to protect, but with a balance so as not to impede the benefits to be derived from these technologies. This is an area that the Government will need to continue to monitor and manage.

In a fast-changing landscape and with disruptions, we will need to be agile and adapt quickly. Adapting is not just about being flexible and making changes rapidly, but making the right changes. The irony is that in order to deal with changes and to be confident in making the right changes, it will require effort to understand and discern.

Acquiring knowledge is essential but not sufficient. The need to analyse data and information, to ask questions and understand in order to use and build on the knowledge is essential. To be adaptable, our students will need to build their problem-solving skills and creativity.

With the pace of change and the complexity of the changing landscape, to prepare our students for success, we must also develop them to collaborate well with others and to communicate confidently to articulate their ideas and thoughts.

As outlined in the MOE addendum, how teaching is done in our schools has evolved. An example is Subject-based Banding (SBB), which caters to the diverse interest and needs of students by allowing secondary school students to learn subjects based on their strengths and learning needs. To support our students to be able to collaborate and communicate effectively, schools will also need to continue to provide ample opportunity for students to do team-based learning around projects and problem solving.

These skills will train our students to collaborate with diverse groups and also require them to communicate effectively. This will prepare our students and give them life skills and the confidence for opportunities in Singapore and overseas, both in school and in the future.

Let me now touch on those in the workforce. With people living longer and healthier, our workforce is multi-generational. The needs and experience of workers differ between generations in the workforce. This is an advantage if we are able to tap the diversity of the workforce. I have made this point in several of my speeches in this House, that we need to rethink the structure of work to make learning and training systemic for workers of different age groups and stages of life. With change, people of all ages in the workforce will need to acquire knowledge at each stage of their careers and lives. Apart from work, workers have to manage their different obligations and life stages, hence, learning has to be organised and accessible both online and hybrid-enabled access to learning to fit the learning needs and the different obligations, life stages and schedules of our workers.

COVID-19 has also brought fundamental changes and shown us the possibilities of how work can be organised and where work can be done. These can provide opportunities to attract and retain workers as well as tap a larger pool of talent. But to do so, will require fundamental shifts in mindsets and policies around work arrangements, including flexible work arrangements and even retirement age.

President Halimah touched on the need for broader and a more open meritocracy to allow every Singaporean to have the opportunity to take on meaningful work that tap on their strengths and to be rewarded fairly for it. I feel that our schools, Institutions of Higher Learning and our SkillsFuture programmes, have and do provide pathways for learning, training, certification and credentials to recognise the skills acquired for our students and those in the workforce. What we need, is for businesses and society to recognise skills, competencies and experiences of workers of all ages and qualifications, and not just academic levels of attainment for job opportunities and qualification.

Let me touch on our society and the value of support for families. The family plays an important and central role in our society. The family provides our sense of belonging in society and are our first line of support and care.

With an ageing population and people living longer, families are multi-generational and caregiving needs will increase. With smaller families, some families need to care for both the young and seniors.

Mean-testing qualifying criteria for caregiving support for middle-income Singaporeans may work against some middle-income families that care for their family members. For example, a middle-income household living in a private property taking care of aged parents or siblings may not qualify for any relief or subsidy for eldercare services because of housing type.

Let me relate an example from a recent house visit I did. Our resident, Mdm Lee – not her real name – shared with me her worries on the long-term care needs for her brother. Mdm Lee and her husband are in their 60s and do not have children. They live in a terrace house with her brother, aged 65 years old, her sister who is in her 50s and an aged mother in her early 90s. The family are a close-knit family. Mdm Lee's brother suffered from poliomyelitis, which affected his speech and mobility, and he is unable to care for himself. In fact, during the COVID-19 period, it was really quite trying for this family in terms of caregiving needs.

Mdm Lee shared with me that the family does not qualify for any Government subsidies because of housing type. As her husband, herself and her siblings are either retired or nearing retirement, she is worried about affordability for her brother's long-term care when his condition gets worse and he needs to stay in a nursing home. Mdm Lee and her sister currently pay for his medical expenses as he does not have any medical insurance coverage. The irony is that, if Mdm Lee's brother or mother did not live with Mdm Lee and lived in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, her mother and brother would qualify for support for eldercare services and nursing home. But Mdm Lee and her family believe that staying together contributes to the overall well-being and care of their mother and brother.

I appeal for a review of the criteria to qualify for support for eldercare services, intermediate and long-term, to better support families as they care for their loved ones. I am not saying that we discount means-testing, I think that is required. But we need to think about the flexibility and also the circumstances. And sometimes, we do it on a case-by-case basis. As our population is ageing, I think we will have more and more of such scenarios.

Mr Speaker, our people are at the core of Singapore's past, present and future. In this complex and rapidly changing world, while the Government has to do more, our businesses, citizens and society, too, have to do our part. Working as one people, we have been able to weather challenges and emerge stronger. I am confident that as one people, we will move forward together to address challenges and seize opportunities.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

1.52 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, as someone born in the 1960s, my cohort-mates and I find ourselves straddled between our seniors and the young. On the one hand, we are young enough to use many forms of social media, but not young enough to use youth slang like "OOTD", outfit of the day and; "IYKYK", if you know, you know. [Laughter.]

We are old enough to remember the feverish days of the Malaysia Cup; but are a little too old to banter about the latest K-drama heartthrobs – though to be fair, I can name one or two.

Thus, placed between seniors and the young, I wish to focus my speech today on these two demographic profiles that bookend society at opposite ends. I wish to ask how we could give greater confidence to seniors and the young, to assure them that they are indispensable parts of our social fabric. Put another way, how do we build a country for all ages?

One attitude that will erode solidarity across generations is the tendency towards ageism. Ageisim can be directed against both older people and the young as well. I will touch on these today.

First, on seniors. According to the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Global Report on Ageism (2021), about one out of every two persons worldwide habours ageist attitudes. Ageism manifests itself in our minds, when we stereotype people based on age; it manifests in our feelings, when we harbour prejudice; and finally, it manifests in our actions, when we discriminate against people.

WHO notes that ageism can exist at three levels. First, at the institutional level, when laws, policies and social norms restrict or disadvantage individuals based on age. Second, ageism exists at the interpersonal level, in interactions between two or more individuals. Finally, ageism could be self-directed, when it is internalised by those who are discriminated against, who then accept it and behave in ways that make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sir, there is ageism everywhere, though we may not call it such by name. Here are some instances.

One of my residents, who is 97 and in excellent health, likes to go around asking anyone she meets in Teochew: "I am 97 years old this year. Are you afraid of me?"

When we hear of someone so senior, some of us would, with good intentions, overprotect the person or assume that the person needs help without stopping to think that everyone ages differently. We have also come across single elderly people who need to rent rooms to stay, due to disagreements with their family, but are rejected by landlords in view of their advanced age. Think also, of the millions of dollars spent on hair dyes and anti-ageing products, so as to present a younger image of ourselves, for fear that we might otherwise not be taken seriously. There is also a sexist element to this, where professional men with grey hair are respected, but women with grey hair doubted; but that deserves a more detailed discussion on another day.

Ageist attitudes are also familiar in the workplace. How often do we hear of middle-aged jobseekers who report that once their age is revealed to the prospective employer, they would receive a polite response to wait for a follow-up call, which does not come? Indeed, in a survey released last March, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) confirmed that ageist attitudes were still prevalent in the Singapore workplace, affecting older workers.

The recent global COVID-19 pandemic, too, saw ageism rear its ugly head. A United Nations independent expert, Dr Claudia Mahler, noted that the pandemic restrictions and lockdowns had resulted in a wave of ageist comments and hate speech; older persons were blamed as the reasons for lockdowns and labelled as vulnerable and burdens to societies.

To combat ageism, the WHO highlights three strategies: first, through laws and policies; second, through public education; and third, by increasing inter-generational contacts. How is Singapore doing in these aspects?

At the official or policy level, there are positives in Singapore. We see many health-related initiatives toward active ageing, including the latest Healthier SG initiative. The Government is also looking into more options for seniors to age-in-place instead of in an institution and for assisted-living accommodation that preserves the individual's autonomy to make decisions. Such preservation of an individual's autonomy is a precious tenet that we can also see in legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Under the MCA, donees and deputies must give weight to the preferences of the incapacitated person, as far as possible.

On the employment front, there are policies to incentivise employers to hire older workers through wage offset schemes, such as the Senior Employment Credit. Nevertheless, for stronger protection for all workers, we are still eagerly awaiting the anti-discrimination legislation, which the Prime Minister announced nearly two years ago. Apart from laws and policies, the other two strategies that are likely to have more impact are public education and increasing inter-generational contacts.

As far as public education is concerned, what more can be done?

For our students, we could review our education curriculum from primary to tertiary, to remove any ageist stereotypes and dispel any misconceptions about certain age groups.

On employment, I note the efforts of MOM to encourage our employers to hire older employees and embrace multi-generational teams. The Government should always lead by example.

Another aspect is to watch our public discourse, including debates in Parliament. Ministers and Members of Parliament should avoid making statements that may inadvertently perpetuate ageism, such as: "By the year 2030, we will face a silver tsunami", which evokes all the wrong images.

As for increasing intergenerational contacts, I fully support the Housing and Development Board's (HDB's) move to evolve from building blocks with only senior apartments, to having mixed blocks of flats for seniors and flats owned by younger families. This provides opportunities for cross-generation neighbourly activities, such as gardening, games and mutual care. Another Singapore initiative was cited positively by the WHO – that of pairing seniors from activity centres with young people to play video games together.

Research has shown that the benefits of such inter-generational contacts go beyond reducing ageist attitudes; they also benefit older people in improved health and psychosocial well-being, reducing distress and loneliness. They also strengthen inter-generational solidarity. We should continue to promote more inter-generational contacts.

From older people, I next move on to the young. In the President's Address, she highlighted that youths showed a strong interest to take action and initiate change on issues they cared about. She affirmed that the Government would engage the ideas, dynamism and energy of young Singaporeans.

In the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth's (MCCY's) addendum to the President's Address, it was further stated that the Government would encourage more youths to engage in constructive civic discourse, through platforms such as the Youth Circles and the Youth Action Challenge. MCCY said it would continue to create new platforms to give youths the opportunity to shape Singapore.

However, in a TODAY media report the next day, some young people expressed cynicism about existing forms of engagement. Several interviewees argued that the engagement had to go beyond just talking, but should enable young people to have direct participation in governance and policy formulation. One person doubted that the views of young people would be accepted unless those views aligned with the Government's own ideals.

Whatever the views expressed, there was common ground that any engagement should foster in young people a sense of responsibility.

I believe it is worthwhile to distil what the priorities of our young citizens actually are. What are the issues young people care about? While the President highlighted mental health and sustainability, it would be wrong to interpret this as meaning that young people only care about "woke" issues, such as climate change or discrimination.

In my past work as a polytechnic lecturer, I could see in my students concern about their parents, making ends meet and how to improve themselves and their families' station in life. In an article published in the Workers' Party (WP) Hammer last year, WP Youth Wing President Nicole Seah also shared that young people had many concerns that crossed generations, such as the affordability of public housing, cost of raising a family and employment opportunities.

We must be careful not to pigeonhole young people's issues into a handful of areas and only seek to engage them on those. That would be a big turn-off and a disservice to our young.

Besides not restricting the areas for youth participation, we must also ask what sort of participation would convince our young people of a direct role in governance and policy-making. There is some indication that the many conversations, so far conducted, have led to conversation fatigue and skepticism. Cynicism about talking and consultations is understandable, as these are simply input which will eventually either be incorporated or thrown out by decision-makers.

Of course, the empowerment of young Singaporeans need not and should not be a top-down affair. Young citizens can and should seize the day and organise themselves around the causes they care about, adding to the richness of society through such ground-up initiatives.

Nevertheless, I believe one change that should be made is to give younger cohorts a direct say in our national elections by lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years. I raised this matter in this House 16 years ago and most recently again in this year's Committee of Supply debates. The Government's consistent response has been "no". This is despite Singapore being among a handful of countries in the world that has not reduced its voting age to 18 years, such as Bahrain, Cameroon, Tonga and the United Arab Emirates. In the Government's latest response this year, the Minister basically said that those between 18 and 21 years old do not have the skillsets required to cast their votes. I wonder, how many citizens agree with this assessment?

Sir, it is worthwhile remembering that ageism can equally be directed against the young. To this end, it could well be argued that when we require male Singaporeans to serve National Service at 18 years, but only permit them to vote at 21 years, this is a form of age-based discrimination.

As I said in February, in the 1960s, the movement in the United States to bring down the voting age to 18 years gained momentum when youths below 21 were drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. The slogan ran: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote!"

Sir, let me conclude. For Singapore to fully harness the energy of every citizen, we must foster a dynamic environment where ageist stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are blown away. This is not something for the Government alone, but requires marshalling the whole-of-society. Each of us needs to examine ourselves too, to see how we individually can contribute to this endeavour in our everyday interactions. If Singapore is to be built to last, we must, together, build a Singapore for all ages.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

2.05 pm

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, as we move into the Second Session of Singapore's 14th Parliament, I would like to thank Mdm President for charting out the course ahead as we transition into a different world post-pandemic.

Mdm President spoke of the need for our unity and to strengthen our social fabric through emphasis on our core values of fairness, inclusivity, mutual support and giving back to society.

One avenue in which we can accomplish this is through expanding opportunities throughout life for all, regardless of individual backgrounds and circumstances. I believe this starts with education.

Mdm President spoke of providing every child with a good education but not wanting to increase the stresses in an "educational arms race". I wholeheartedly agree with this. Earlier this year, during the Budget Debate 2023, I spoke on right-sizing our syllabus and increasing affiliations between schools. Today, I would like to elaborate more on that, for I feel it is in-sync with what Mdm President charted out last Monday.

On education, firstly, right-sizing our syllabus involves asking ourselves how do we truly want to prepare our young people for a different world they are growing up in. The way our world has changed and keeps changing and – with the influx of knowledge and technology and AI – we cannot focus on getting the best test scores or merely having the most knowledge.

Increasing affiliations between a primary and secondary school can lift the burden of thinking about which school to go on to after the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

We should not go down the route of an educational arms race. One key way to stop this is to reduce the syllabus. I am not saying it is the only way, but making the syllabus less voluminous will reduce the reliance on tuition to play catch-up. An educational arms race has incentivised a tuition culture. And if we do not stop the race now, our students are going to end up hitting a brick wall. We must avoid that. We must inject the joy of learning, instead of reliance on tuition to play catch-up on the syllabus.

An educational arms race has built-in a tuition culture, where students are caught between doing school homework and tuition homework such that they are possibly, busier on weekends than they are on weekdays.

Secondly, Sir, I would suggest reducing class sizes from 40 to less than 30. MOE's addendum to the President's Address, focuses on being able to better customise teaching and learning for students of differing abilities, to bring out the best in each child. I believe one way this can be accomplished, is to have a smaller class size to allow teachers to have more time with each student. This can lead to more individualised attention, a greater capacity to monitor each student's physical, mental and emotional well-being, and the ability to tailor to different learning speeds and to cater to different learning styles.

Instead of students having to go for tuition, smaller classes can help better pacing, so each student can learn and keep abreast of the subject within class time itself. This can also allow students to have opportunities to speak out and participate more, which would be especially helpful for students who learn as they verbalise.

Another focus is helping students with Special Educational Needs in mainstream schools. By reducing class sizes, teachers will have more capacity to assist with the educational experience of these students and to allow the space for interactions between all the students in the class under the teacher's supervision.

Of course, reducing class sizes must mean we need more teachers and I believe it will be a step in the right direction. Our teachers choose their profession because of the value they see in raising students to their full potential and derive much intrinsic joy from it. But the tendency for teachers to be overworked and burnt out is known, especially in the past few years where they have had to cope with many, many changes.

Our teachers go far beyond just the academics, as they often counsel students and help those struggling with mental health. By taking on more teachers and reducing class sizes, we can build a better environment, both for students and teachers. That is, at least, in my humble view.

In right-sizing our syllabus and having an appropriate class size, we put in place the foundational stepping stones to inculcate in our young, the love of learning. Perhaps, in tweaking our syllabus, that may make way to craft more opportunities for students to visit museums and libraries and have more moments to play, which is essential for creativity.

Sir, I move onto my second point. Mdm President encouraged us to move ahead together, even in the face of many changes the world presents us now.

Sir, this means caring for the vulnerable. A recent topical concern is protecting our vulnerable citizens from scams. Therefore, Sir, the other issue that deeply concerns me, as we progress as a nation, is the increasing prevalence of scams. Many of the residents I serve in the constituency, have come to me at the Meet-the-People Session (MPS) or shared with me during home visits, their distressing stories about how they have lost tens of thousands, if not, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scammers.

Prevention involves both building an infrastructure of laws and harnessing technology to detect and dismantle criminal organisations as well as preparing our people, both young and old, to deal with this threat. The scale of this threat cannot be under-estimated. The variety of scams – from investment scams to e-commerce scams – all focus on one thing: targeting a specific vulnerability of a targeted group. The scammers are highly sophisticated in directing different scams to different age groups and taking advantage of cognitive biases to psychologically manipulate people into giving more details and transferring larger amounts of money.

What accentuates this challenge is the transnational nature of the issue: with 90% of the scams from overseas and how technologically savvy the scammers are in using various digital platforms to carry out the scams.

So, to tackle this, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) need to work with the Singaporean public, the banks and our partners from other countries. In particular, I believe we have to double down and raise a proper bulwark with our banking security systems.

Instead of just saying what the problem is, I humbly suggest some solutions. These include placing limits on transactions, giving phone calls to owners of bank accounts to ensure that they do want to proceed on a transaction, spotting suspicious patterns in consecutive transactions and a kill switch which can be activated by the bank if it detects multiple and suspicious outflows of monies from citizens' accounts.

In the constituency I serve and when I meet with residents, I have seen physically, bank statements of residents with multiple outflows of monies, just under the transaction limit each time. I have seen bank statements where this happens between 2.00 am and 8.00 am, multiple withdrawals under the limit. And then, when they wake up, the poor residents are $70,000 poorer.

This should raise alarm bells and, in my view, prompt the bank to halt the transactions altogether until further verification is obtained, or at least contact the customer to ensure that these are legitimate withdrawals.

We have also to consider the new safeguards we should put in place. For example, e-wallets make transactions far quicker, but do they have the same safeguards in place? I think it is time that we consider what trade-offs we make between advancing "frictionless" transactions on the one hand and putting in place enough safeguards to protect our people.

We must look at how we can mitigate the effect of the scam. The Anti-Scam Command has taken the commendable lead in this in freezing 16,700 bank accounts just last year and recovering over $146 million. But that is out of 31,728 scams just in 2022 and over $660 million were reported to have been stolen.

In addition, I humbly think we also need to consider how we should put in place, better support and compensation for those who lose their life savings. For many of the elderly who are scammed, the loss is often at least six figures, which is close to their entire retirement savings. Often, the compensation offered by the bank is insufficient for them to retire on. That would leave many of our seniors having to find more work. That may not be ideal at all, if the couple is already in retirement. I really believe this is a group of people we must stand alongside.

Sir, with these two priorities in mind in the field of: one, education and; separately, two, protecting vulnerable groups from scammers, I stand in strong support of the Motion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

2.18 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my maiden speech in Parliament over seven years ago, I argued that the Singapore glass is half full. While there are always areas for improvement, we have done well with governmental efficiency and urban planning relative to other countries.

However, back then, I said that we have not done as well in fostering strong non-state actors and institutions to balance a strong state. And I would add, that we have not done as well in fostering a strong sense of participation in our democracy; a sense that we can speak out and, if needed, disagree with the dominant narrative, with our views actually having a chance to make a difference.

An article by Tan and Preece in the Asian Journal of Comparative Politics in December last year reads, and I quote, "We find that mechanisms of diagonal accountability related to media and civil society have declined. Vertical and horizontal accountability remains weak." Published research from the book "The Well-being of Singaporeans" by Tambyah, Tan and Kay, in 2010, reaches similar conclusions. They cite survey data to show that 56% of Singaporeans agree with the statement that, generally speaking, people like me do not have the power to influence Government policy or actions, while another 23% are neutral. Only 20% disagreed.

Countries that succeed in drawing strong participation in democracy will be more successful in fostering a confident populace, a people who deeply feel that this is my country, my home – a place where my voice counts for something, a place that I will sacrifice to defend.

We all want Singapore to be a country where everyone feels that they have a chance at realising their full potential and giving life to their dreams. A place where tomorrow can be better than today for ourselves and, even more so, for our children and grandchildren. Not a place where many cannot even envisage a better tomorrow; not a place where economic pressure and ever-intensifying competition from school to workplace lead to ever greater stratification in living conditions, social capital and social standing.

Sir, the first part of my speech will examine how we can cultivate an active citizenry while keeping politics and political discourse fair, vibrant and constructive. The second part will address how we can build economic optimism, so as to create a virtuous cycle of economic dynamism. The third part will suggest "a Singapore model" that can be a beacon for the region and also a bulwark against attempts by great powers to suborn or divide us.

Firstly, on politics and political discourse. President Halimah's speech called for "an active citizenry" and "a passionate civil society". She also spoke of the importance of avoiding political polarisation and gridlock, having trust between "our political leadership and people" and keeping political discourse respectful and rational.

Such calls are not new. But as I reflected on this, I found that my unease was captured in a public comment from former media editor and academic Bertha Henson. I will quote an excerpt here: "I am always bemused when I hear politicians warning Singaporeans against such 'polarisation'. Our politics is nowhere as partisan. We do not have a two-party system yet nor a civil society which will take to the streets. Yet, we hear about divisive politics as though we are teetering on the edge of an abyss…I don't think we should be guarding against 'divisive politics' but rather 'mono-politics': that there is only one narrative, one view and it must necessarily be the right or the best perspective – unless you don't trust me. That is too tall an order for any citizen to submit to."

Let us unpack and interrogate some of these assumptions in what I term "the dominant narrative". Firstly, do we want an active citizenry that feels that it is worth participating in politics by speaking out, listening, caring and getting involved in political discourse versus just retreating into private life? I think we should and I hope all hon Members want that. And if we take that ideal seriously, we should never treat differences of opinion as necessarily equivalent to polarisation.

Polarisation happens only if some groups of people oppose others for the sake of opposing and not in a reasonable, fair-minded way. Polarisation happens only if vindictiveness and tribalism trump thoughtfulness and basic human decency. No pun intended in the use of the verb "trump", by the way.

Secondly, disagreement and agreeing to disagree does not imply disrespect. One can disagree with respect, courtesy and decency. It seems that everyone, nowadays, welcomes that well-worn phrase "robust debate". But we do sometimes hear in this House that the other side has not explained the trade-offs properly and, therefore, was being dishonest in some sense.

During very major recent debates in this House, the Opposition explained how there were alternatives to a Goods and Services Tax (GST) hike that would slow the rate of growth of reserves; and that there were alternatives to a housing ecosystem based on the promise of asset appreciation and that these alternatives would lead to some weakening in the resale market.

Were those trade-offs denied, hidden or glossed over? No. The trade-offs were explained. I think in our political discourse and even in our debates in this House, we should strive to treat Members' views and other parties' views fairly and accept when there is a philosophical or ideological difference, call it what you will, rather than being too quick to label the other side as "disingenuous". Such labels can affect the tone of discourse in the wider society, if alternative ideas become demonised or labelled uncharitably. Rather than chip away at trust in the Opposition with such labels, the Government should focus on explaining why it disagrees with the Opposition.

Thirdly, on the need to keep political discourse rational, I do not think anyone would disagree with this. However, to have rational political discourse, we need transparency of information. We do not always get this. There are many examples of Parliamentary Questions that do not elicit the information requested without an explanation as to why that is the case. Sometimes, outcomes of public consultation are not made public. There is a great deal of public opinion surveying done by the Government, some of it through opinion-sensing agencies like Rysense, for example. Not all of this is made available for public scrutiny and debate.

Lastly, I come to the oft-repeated call for trust in Government. I think trust in the independent institutions of the state is a very good thing, where it is warranted. But should the public blindly trust the Government, as in the political leadership, regardless of whether relevant information has been shared; regardless of what the Government says or does? Surely not. That goes against the active citizenry which the President's speech referred to.

Sir, some speak of a democracy of deeds. But surely, we do not want a citizenry that is active in deeds, but blind, apathetic or timid in thinking. Such a citizenry may engage in the wrong deeds. And to trust the Government – does that mean that, since the Government and Opposition sometimes disagree and not, hopefully, irrationally, does that mean that it is right that the public distrust the Opposition? Surely not.

We should not strive for a political landscape where the public innately trusts the Government but innately distrusts the Opposition, or vice versa. If any Member disagrees with this, please, I would love to hear your views later. We should strive, rather, for a politically educated populace that accords trust based on facts and evidence from independent institutions that function as intended.

What can we do to strengthen everyone's confidence that we have an open society, where citizens can and should care, listen, understand and debate policies? How can we make everyone believe that there is a more level-playing field for ideas and not primarily one dominant narrative that you would do well not to challenge?

In the interest of time, I will suggest just a few ideas to advance towards this goal which WP Members of Parliament (MPs) have expanded on in previous debates in this House.

One, delink the People's Association from the ruling party. The current system creates a sense that state resources are invested in promoting the Government's thinking and the ruling party's politicians, which unlevels the playing field for politics and ideas in our nation. My hon friend, Aljunied MP, Mr Faisal Manap, will elaborate on this.

Two, create an ombudsman with investigative capacity to strengthen confidence that the state and ruling party are accountable and cannot simply shut down a grievance that may be politically costly or for other reasons. At the very least, a second unbiased opinion would be of value. I have argued for this at length previously, as have other WP MPs.

Three, ensure that funding for civil society, the arts and so on is handled by independent committees who are not linked to the government of the day. This would certainly help build the passionate civil society that President Halimah spoke of and counter any fears that civil society groups that advocate alternative policies to the Government may be penalised using state resources.

Four, since we do not have a Freedom of Information Act, we should publish every single public opinion poll and data collection effort conducted with state funds, redacted only for anything that has clear and strong commercial or national security sensitivities for better-informed debate amongst political parties, civil society groups and citizens.

Five, allow Opposition MPs to engage school students in their MP capacity, alongside ruling party MPs and Ministers, a subject I have raised in this House before. We need to mould the mental habits of our citizens from a young age to nurture independent, critical thinking.

Exposing them only to People's Action Party (PAP) politicians in schools and barring non-PAP ones in most student engagement contexts does not achieve this. Our future citizens need to be able to see both sides of a question, in a way that will inoculate them from the demagogues and foreign interference attempts of the future.

Sir, we must not allow any sense to congeal that there is one dominant narrative and that everyone who has a different view has to be marginalised or go on the defensive.

I now come to the second part of my speech on the optimism of Singaporeans. Will tomorrow be better than today?

According to the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer survey, only 36% of respondents in Singapore felt that their families will be better off economically in five years' time. Only 36%, the lowest level for this measure since Edelman started surveying 23 years ago. This 36%, for Singapore, compares with the 40% global average across 24 countries.

Sir, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the risk of there becoming two Singapores. Right now, close to 50% of households live in 5-room HDB flats or more expensive homes, private homes and so on. A little over 50% live in 4-, 3-, 2- or 1-room HDB flats.

At the risk of oversimplification, those who live in less expensive homes may be the ones feeling the economic anxiety and pessimism that the Edelman survey measures. They may struggle to compete in the workplace or academia, especially if they did not receive the inherited advantages of wealth or social capital that President Halimah spoke of. The elderly on fixed or no incomes, have to grapple with rising food prices. Whereas others, the optimistic 36%, may feel that they can thrive in this very competitive society with high prices and expensive homes.

In fact, poverty and social inequality ranked as the third big area of concern in a national survey done in 2020 by Ipsos, after jobs and healthcare. At this point, I declare my interest as the Chairman of a Singapore company that undertakes market research and consulting.

Sir, when we have discussions like this, it is often pointed out that real wages are still growing. But the Edelman survey, plus a great deal of anecdotal experience from my conversations with Singaporeans in the Serangoon ward of Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and East Coast GRC previously, suggest that this anxiety is very real. Many fear that the way food, house and other prices are rising, the way the job market is becoming more competitive, those with fewer advantages will truly struggle to build a tomorrow that is better than today.

Also, we should recall that real wage data may mask some things. Real wages may appear to be rising but that may mask the fact that certain demographic groups may feel the pain of inflation more than others.

Previously in the House, I have called for Consumer Price Index (CPI) data to be published by demographic group, for example, parents with young children or empty nesters, as inflation affects these groups differently. Also, within each income decile, there will be those who do less well than the median for that decile.

And lastly, the Edelman survey shows that whatever the real wage growth data suggests, the thinking of many Singaporeans about the future reflects a lack of confidence that they can thrive going forward.

This economic pessimism could be one reason for our globally low total fertility rate (TFR). In the previous housing debate, I also cited academic evidence for a causal link between high home prices and low TFR in Singapore. If left to fester, such economic pessimism could lead to a brain drain as people leave for more liveable countries. If that happens, that may tend to create an over-reliance on foreign manpower.

We need to address this economic pessimism fundamentally, not only through ad hoc measures, such as an additional grant here or an additional rebate there, helpful as that is. More far-reaching reforms are needed to make everyone believe that this society has their back. The WP has called for many such reforms in the past.

In the interest of time, I shall not expand on these, but I shall refer to them. One, a national minimum wage. Two, a redundancy insurance scheme. This is something the WP has championed for some time and I was intrigued by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's reference to some form of unemployment support. Three, seriously tackling the issue of poverty and breaking the poverty cycle. I have called for a war on poverty in this House. My hon friend Assoc Prof Jamus Lim has also weighed in on this topic yesterday, as have other WP MPs over the years. Four, reforming the HDB housing system to lower Build-To-Order (BTO) prices by revisiting the formula for land valuation as well as introducing various other reforms, as we argued in the recent housing debate. Five, revamping trades or vocational jobs to overhaul them for higher productivity, pay and conditions. I have spoken about this in the House several times.

Lest anyone say that the trade-offs have not been explained, these ideas taken together will slow the rate of growth of reserves, but will not draw down reserves. I believe slowing down the growth of reserves is wholly justified at this stage of our nation's history, given the needs we have with an ageing population in a turbulent world and given the much larger size of reserves now versus GDP, as they were in the past. My WP colleagues and I have explained this repeatedly, on multiple platforms.

We must invest to ensure a confident current generation, lest our fertility go so low that there will be few people in the generations to come.

Sir, before I move on, I want to refer to Deputy Prime Minister Wong's comment yesterday that the Opposition should offer concrete alternative policy ideas.

We have been doing this. We offer alternative policies that differ substantively from the ideas of the PAP, for example, on slowing reserves growth to enhance liveability, social justice and social mobility and reducing BTO prices based on tweaks to the land valuation formula. The alternatives we have championed in Parliament, in our manifesto, are too numerous for me to mention here. I only have 20 minutes. In fact, I only have less than five minutes left.

We championed an expansive acute hospital bill insurance scheme and permanently delinking BTO from resale prices long before this was adopted by the PAP Government. We championed anti-discrimination legislation and redundancy insurance, policies that the PAP are now considering in some form. The Deputy Prime Minister and the PAP know this. They know it.

Sir, I have a sense of déjà vu now, recalling how I was debating a similar issue about what the PAP said about our housing paper in this House just a few weeks ago.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let us be honest in our political debates. Honest. Not going for false but flashy soundbites that smear our opponents, that the media then viralise with huge headlines. I do not want my children to grow up in a post-truth society.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I come now to the third and last part of my speech, about the development of a Singapore model that can inspire the world.

As I said in my maiden speech, we have got certain fundamentals right. The glass is half full. Let us fill in the other half with measures to enhance our active citizenry, civil society and engaged, rational politics.

This thinking can extend to regional leadership in economic projects. Such projects can be designed to reflect Singaporean values of good corporate governance and efficiency, but also incorporating consultation and engagement with civil society and other stakeholders. And the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for such projects could advance goals, like poverty alleviation, reflecting Singaporean values of egalitarianism and inclusivity.

Singapore has positioned itself as a leader in economic openness, having the most free trade agreements (FTAs) in the region. But one of our distant competitors is putting a twist on this approach. The UAE's diplomacy focuses on playing a supporting role to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on, who have much bigger populations and armies, even as the UAE positions itself as the business gateway to the Arab World and Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

But, the UAE has taken this a step further. It invests in overseas assets with a very outsized investment in renewables. The scale of this is extremely large – just the renewables arm of one of their sovereign wealth funds have targeted 100 gigawatts of renewables at home and abroad by 2030, quadrupling the current commitment and being worth around US$100 billion. By comparison, Temasek-linked Sembcorp's 2025 target is 10 gigawatts; Keppel’s is seven gigawatts.

An example of UAE "dealplomacy" is where its government-owned renewables business, Masdar, committed to a 10-gigwatt mega-wind farm in Egypt in a deal on COP27's sidelines, which would save Egypt $5 billion in annual gas costs and offset about 9% of its emissions. In comparison, Singapore has supported renewable energy companies' expansion into the region and internationally, but largely on a commercial, non-diplomatic basis.

Why green investments as the backbone of these regional leadership efforts? Because green energy is cheap, lasting, critical and has the potential to make a far-reaching impact.

The International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that, if Southeast Asia were to build enough renewables to cut energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, it could also save US$160 billion as well as $1.5 trillion in health and environmental costs related to fossil fuels by 2050. But to pull this off, $7 trillion in investment is needed from now, till then.

In 2018, I spoke in this House about the idea of Singapore leading a flagship project in the region on renewable energy or some such theme to serve multiple economic and diplomatic ends. Such projects need not be primarily government-financed, but can raise financing in capital markets globally. Leading and catalysing such a regional flagship project will help bolster—

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Perera, you have a minute. Please round up your speech.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes, I am tracking the time. One minute.

Leading and catalysing such a regional flagship project will help bolster Singapore's economy and also Singapore's soft power in the ASEAN region, a region which has a potentially important historical destiny, namely that of a bulwark and zone of buffering and balancing between the great powers of China and the West.

And what if Singapore demonstrates how its traditional bureaucratic efficiency can be combined with policies that ensure openness, accountability and democratic ownership among an active citizenry? That could serve as a good example for this vital region that will inspire emulation and perhaps help form an ASEAN identity around such principles. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Sing.

2.38 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I just wish to make a point of clarification for Ms Sylvia Lim's speech. I heard the Member saying that the Government says that – essentially – we say that people under 21 years old did not have the skills to vote. May I check, when did we say this?

Because if I am right – I just checked the Hansard – on 24 February 2023, in my reply to Ms Sylvia Lim's question. I said, "If we look at the rights and responsibility of all our people from the ages of 16 until 21, there is a gradation of scale. At different ages, they have different rights and different responsibilities."

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. In fact, I had raised my hand with Deputy Speaker because I also went back to check and I realised that my recollection of the response was not quite accurate. So, I accept what Minister has said – the Minister did not say that the people between 18 and 21 did not have the skillsets to vote, but, what the Minister said was that there is a different rights and responsibilities for people between 16 and 21.

But I believe the question still remains, as to whether those between 18 and 21 should be empowered to vote. I apologise for recollecting wrongly.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan.

Mr Chan Chun Sing: I thank Ms Lim for the clarification. Indeed, we have not said that.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

2.39 pm

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Pioneer): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank Mdm President for her Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the 14th Parliament.

Mdm President has reiterated the importance of ensuring a broader and more open meritocracy that works well for all Singaporeans; one in which no one feels left behind. Whether it is in education or employment, the Government has made positive and concerted efforts to promote meritocracy.

As a labour MP, I have been lobbying in the past few years against discrimination and have been part of the efforts in the Tripartite Committee on Workplace Fairness to uphold the principles of fair and merit-based employment in Singapore. The interim report and update was recently issued and I look forward to seeing this piece of legislation next year, when it is introduced in Parliament.

The issue of age discrimination and ageism as highlighted by hon Member Sylvia Lim is one area which will be addressed in this piece of legislation.

In the education front, I can see the efforts at levelling the playing field and providing opportunities for all to maximise their full potential in the entire learning continuum from mainstream to adult education and continuing education and training both in and outside of employment.

Yesterday, the WP through hon Member Gerald Giam proposed through-train schools for the first 10 years. This is not a new idea, as my fellow MOE Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) member and former Chair, hon Member Denise Phua, had suggested almost a decade ago and on different occasions.

MOE, during the Committee of Supply, had explained considerations to right-site our students according to their learning needs and the associated challenges of implementation that we must carefully consider.

There are also those who want to retain the PSLE and want to have a choice of the secondary school they want to enter at some interval. Likewise, with subject-based banding, to be rolled out across all secondary schools in due course, it will allow students to discover and pursue their passions and interests while deepening their strengths and abilities and have a more structured and less painful process for learning.

We do not want an arms race or more stress due to examinations. We also do not want to cram children with even more content as character and values are equally, if not more, important. I am glad we have made significant changes to the education system and must continue to do so to improve.

I therefore agree and support what Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong mentioned in his speech yesterday on our refreshed meritocracy, which is a continuous one with learning opportunities, milestones, ladders at multiple junctures through this learning continuum.

It, therefore, holds true that it remains a treadmill journey and we need to constantly evolve and find new and innovative ways to imbue the love for learning in everyone; foster a lifelong learning culture and ensure our people stay ready, relevant and resilient – ready to do better, relevant to move forward in life and resilient to try again.

In my recent contribution to ETHOS, a publication of the Civil Service College, I reiterated the importance of adopting a mindset of lifelong learning to address the issue of skills mismatch. SkillsFuture, the national movement to provide Singaporeans with the opportunities to develop their fullest potential throughout life, regardless of their starting points, is Singapore's initiative towards inculcating that mindset and embedding it within our culture.

We have already seen how SkillsFuture has paid off for businesses. Results from a study conducted by SkillsFuture Singapore and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) showed that companies which tap on SkillsFuture to fund eligible training expenses report revenue benefits and higher productivity.

Our research in the Labour Movement also revealed that majority of business leaders have observed positive changes in their workers post-training, such as higher performance at work and being able to take on new job responsibilities. These findings are promising and we certainly hope that all businesses will provide their workers that access to quality continuing education and training (CET) and upgrading opportunities.

The Labour Movement will continue its work in advocating that employers provide adequate training support for their workers so that they may tap on opportunities that arise in the new economy and ensure a just transition for all.

However, I feel we can do more for the individual Singaporean in ensuring that this system, that supports lifelong learning, works for them too. The vision to strengthen our SkillsFuture ecosystem, such that everyone is enabled to do significant skills reboot during their working lives, is one that I firmly believe in.

Mdm President shared that such a skills reboot would help to keep Singaporeans employable or transit across to jobs in new areas of growth. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

What the entire SkillsFuture programme does is that it provides us access to a toolbox. Call it a CET toolbox – a collection of educational courses and training programmes that are meant to support and equip us on this journey of lifelong learning, enabling us to accomplish skills mastery and even second-skilling ourselves. Just like the SkillsFuture Credit, which arms every Singaporean citizen from the age of 25 with this toolbox. However, not all of them open this toolbox, much less use it.

Anecdotally, through my engagements with workers as well as with residents, this could be attributed to two reasons.

First, there are just too many options for training programmes out there.

Second, there is a perceived lack of guarantee that undergoing training would result in tangible outcomes for the individual's career, in terms of wages and progression.

Returning to my toolbox analogy, what this means is that: first, there are just too many tools in our toolbox, leading to confusion; and two, a lack of knowledge on how using a certain tool or a combination of tools would help us accomplish certain tasks, revealing a lack of clarity or information asymmetry.

The next question, then, is a straightforward one – how can we help Singaporeans navigate these tools, cut through the analysis paralysis, resolve the paradox of choice and have the confidence that the utilisation of these tools would empower them with the means to fix a leaky pipe, replace a light switch or assemble a table and become the version of the skilled tradesperson that they have always aspired to be?

In other words, how can we tighten the nuts and bolts of our SkillsFuture ecosystem to generate outcomes that will ultimately be beneficial for Singaporeans and their careers and, eventually, our economy?

Our workforce is made up of workers of varied profiles and it is imperative that we adopt a more targeted lifelong learning strategy for different worker segments – to ensure that everyone has fair access to opportunities, a level playing field for jobs, while, at the same time, balancing companies' manpower needs in the immediate and longer-term, to achieve equitable outcomes.

We have skills frameworks and annual reports on skills in demand, which are very instructive and useful. But I opine that a more individualised and speed to market approach is needed so that time and resources spent on training and skills upgrading lead to clear outcomes in terms of wages and career progression and ensure every worker stays employed and employable.

There is a way to enable this targeted lifelong learning strategy by tapping on the expertise of career coaches and counsellors. Professional, industry-accredited career coaches and counsellors work with us to explore our strengths and weaknesses, build confidence and chart our career paths.

They are invaluable help and support throughout our careers. Unfortunately, such individualised career services are either availed to the high-potential segments of a company, only in large organisations and multinational corporations (MNCs) or those who are retrenched or unemployed. In the same vein, there is a lack of industry-led accreditation of career coaches and coaching in Singapore.

For our young fresh graduates, mid-careerists in the throes of a mid-life or mid-career crisis and vulnerable segments, such as those who are not so young as well as inmates and ex-offenders – having a career coach to mentor them, to help them navigate the journey of upskilling and retraining with them, can make a world of difference.

And as we navigate a skills and employment landscape that is increasingly complex, the assistance and guidance by a career coach is becoming more of a necessity than a luxury.

Therefore, I propose that there be industry-led accreditation of career coaches and counsellors and expanding SkillsFuture Credit utilisation to include the engaging of professional career coaches and counsellors.

The advice and guidance rendered by the career coach would complement what SkillsFuture, in its existing form, already offers. It may even reduce or resolve the psychological barriers to training and ensure all Singaporeans that they have equal chances and opportunities at all stages to develop their skills. Whether they are in the midst of a life transition, or just looking to upskill, Singaporeans can look towards SkillsFuture as providing the full suite of services that would support them in that journey.

Toolbox in hand, Singaporeans can be confident that there is a master tradesman by their side to guide them in the effective use of tools to achieve skills mastery.

Taking a longer-term view, the SkillsFuture initiative could then be what reduces the skills and jobs mismatch, thereby reducing under-employment and skills shortages. It would maximise our intended structural outcomes in progressing the development of our people and economy, while ensuring that Singaporeans continue to have access to opportunities – regardless of their life stage – to help them find their true north and realise their full potential.

On a final note, I have previously lobbied in this House on many occasions in the past decade, the possibility of monetary support for those unemployed to help them tide over the difficult period before finding and landing the next job. The idea has been fleshed out in our joint NTUC-SNEF PME Taskforce Report recommendations and again during our recent #EveryWorkermatters conversations. All workers, including professionals, managers and executives (PMEs), especially those in their 40s and 50s, are visibly concerned and anxious over skills obsolescence and unemployment. In this respect, I welcome Mdm President's mention and Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong's speech yesterday, which alluded that the Government would study how we will extend support beyond the pandemic – well, similar to the COVID‐19 Recovery Grant and the SGUnited Jobs and Skills programme, to watch our backs and help our workers tide over unemployment and get re-employed again.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, with that, I support the Motion of thanks to the President.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gerald Giam.

2.51 pm

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I note that Mr Patrick Tay said that the 10-year through-train-school idea is not new. Ms Denise Phua proposed it more than a decade ago. I have not had the chance to check the Hansard yet. But be that as it may and in the interest of arriving at the best policies for Singaporeans, regardless of who raised it first, do Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Phua agree that the 10-year through-train programme from Primary 1 to Secondary 4 would be a helpful option for parents who want their children to bypass the PSLE?

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Patrick Tay.

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: If I may give a quick response to the hon Member Gerald Giam, I think there are constraints and I think it was highlighted again in my speech. I mentioned about MOE's response to this idea and suggestion by the hon Member Denise Phua. I think there are constraints because the Member is looking at the whole continuum from primary to secondary school. As of today, the teachers and staff already have very exacting requirements and demands on their time and resources. So, doing this will mean dedicating even more resources, and even stretching workers in this space and the entire education ecosystem. This requires serious consideration and, therefore, it is something we need to think carefully before we move on to the step.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Thank you, Madam. In response to hon Member Gerald Giam's question, I still think that there is potential good pathway to do away with the PSLE and have a pilot of an integrated 10-year programme. But I also acknowledge the challenges that Education Minister Chan Chun Seng mentioned in this year's Committee of Supply. So, the debate should not be on just having or not having that pathway, but really to go on to the next level, perhaps in the Forward Singapore conversations.

As to what it will take to create a pathway like this – the challenges – and to solve some of the root issues that the ground faces and will be having. So, I think the debate is not just to have or not to have – that is like a 10-year-old debate; whether to have or not to have – but really to go on to the next level. What does it take? Why it should happen or why should it not happen? And what kind of resources? What contraints will come in if we choose that pathway? I do support that potential pathway still.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Janet Ang.

2.54 pm

Ms Janet Ang (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Motion put up by hon Member of Parliament, Mr Murali Pillai. I join the hon Member to express gratitude to the President for her Address.

Mdm President's speech on behalf of the Government, was uplifting and covered a lot of ground and I thank her for inspiring all of us to run the next lap as one Singapore amidst an increasingly complex world. We have come a long way since gaining Independence and achieved what many would consider an economic miracle. The Economic Intelligence Unit recently just ranked Singapore for the 15th consecutive year, as the world's best business environment over the next five years. Trust in Government, as measured by Edelman, remains consistently high and we should not take that for granted. Our political maturity has also come of age with this Parliament having its first Leader of the Opposition appointed by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

However, all of us need to acknowledge that Singapore is at a point of inflexion. We have had a declining birthrate since 2017. And like many of the advanced economies, we are in the middle of a silver tsunami. To keep our economy vibrant and to support the needs of our ageing population, Singapore needs a large pool of foreign complementary workforce. Hence, the foreign residents today constitute 38% of the labour force and represent 27% of all residents in Singapore.

Singaporeans are faced with a dilemma of accepting this reality and creating a welcoming culture of integrating our foreign guest workers into our communities, or, allowing the continued tight labour situation to (a) negatively impact our service quality and the Singapore brand; (b) cause the burnout of our workforce due to their having to double-up for the shortage of labour; and (c) limiting our companies' growth opportunities, just to name a few. I would like to call Members' attention to a Straits Times article on 13 April with the headline: SBF calls for foreign worker measures to be eased as workload on frontliners piles up.

Singapore is, indeed, at a point of inflexion. It is timely that the whole-of-Government has engaged Singaporeans in the Forward SG exercise, led by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and the 4G leaders, as a start to the refresh of our social compact. I salute the 14,000 Singaporeans from civil society and businesses who have stepped forward to co-create with the Government in re-imagining what success for Singapore 2.0 could look like. I attended a couple of the sessions myself and I could feel the love by so many of our Singaporeans for our country. Most heartening for me to know is – the affirmation that Singaporeans wish to hold intact the core values that we cherish, as Singaporeans, that is: fairness, inclusivity, mutual support and the desire to give back to society.

In her Address, Mdm President spoke about the need for a broader and more open meritocracy that will work well for all Singaporeans. What would this Singapore-style meritocracy look like?

The Collins Dictionary defines meritocracy as a society or social system in which people get status or rewards because of what they achieve, rather than because of their wealth or social status. Hence, the idea behind meritocracy is that the most talented and hardworking individuals should be given opportunities to succeed, regardless of their background or social class or their gender. Many positive outcomes of meritocracy have been realised: (a) top of the list is social mobility and many amongst us can stand to be counted as beneficiaries; (b) another positive outcome is that meritocracy promotes a more efficient and effective workforce as individuals are rewarded for their achievements and their hard work; and (c) meritocracy is largely seen as a fair system, thus promoting justice and equality.

That said, there are also pitfalls to meritocracy. Meritocracy assumes equal access to all opportunities by everyone. And this is not always the case since those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds may not have the same resources or access and that can limit their chances of success.

Two, meritocracy can be limited by how we define merit. In Singapore's case, merit has been closely associated with paper qualifications and, hence, the phenomenon of the "paper chase". The narrow definition of merit to paper qualifications does not consider other qualities which, in fact, are competencies needed for the 21st century workforce and these qualities include, emotional quotient (EQ), creativity, ability to communicate with influence or even craftsmanship and other non-traditional skills. Most of our employers in Singapore recruit, pay, promote and advance their employees based only on paper qualification primarily.

Three, meritocracy can also create social division as those who are successful may attribute their success as solely due to their own merit, rather than recognising the role of their family, the larger environment and society that has enabled and empowered them to be successful. This individualism mindset will, over time, erode the values of our society.

Responding to Mdm President's call to action for a rethink of the approach to education and to work, so as to avoid the pitfalls of meritocracy, as it is today, I would like to start the dialogue along these two aspects and offer some "food for thought" along the way.

First, let us re-imagine meritocracy in education and I will raise three themes.

First and foremost, we need to go back to basics and remind everyone in the system of the following – embracing the dignity of the child and igniting in every child the joy of learning. It needs to be central in any education system and believed in by all stakeholders – parents, educators and teachers, principals, policymakers and society.

Singapore does a reasonably good job in this regard and our educators deserve a big kudos for all they do for our children. How we were able to keep our children in school throughout most part of COVID-19 with teachers having to pivot to provide hybrid-learning, is a case in point. The child is certainly central to our educators in Singapore.

Next, I am heartened to see that, increasingly so, more attention and resources are being given to children with special needs.

For youths whose circumstances are challenged, the Government is enabling more social services agencies to provide the appropriate care from preventive to developmental to rehabilitative.

And community initiatives, like Yellow Ribbon, to give youths who have made bad choices in their lives a second chance, is to be applauded.

And the Government's commitment to KidSTART and other programmes, which help to uplift the children in the lower-income households and give them an equal chance early in life to participate on a level playing field, is the absolute right thing to do.

And for older students who may need extra help but cannot afford tuition, I would like to propose that MOE invest in some kind of after-school "study halls", facilitated by teachers and student ambassadors to help these students with their revision, homework and preparation for examinations.

These initiatives will go a long way to narrow unequal access to resources and, in doing so, facilitate social mobility.

Three, the biggest challenge lies in changing mindsets. Meritocracy inevitably drives individual achievements and that is how the individualism mindset gets ingrained. To break the individualism mindset, a few things need to be reset.

First, expectations need to be reset for both the teachers, the principals, the school system and the parents: from focusing on grades to emphasising the dignity of the child; developing in the child the joy of learning and; inculcating in the child the values of fairness, inclusivity, mutual support and the desire to give back to society. I submit to you that the adults need to walk-the-talk and role model the way forward for the students. So, dialogue and alignment amongst the stakeholders would necessarily be the first step.

Two, teach our students that "we are all in this together". For this, perhaps, we can take a page from the late Nelson Mandela, and I quote, "In Africa, there is a concept known as 'ubuntu' – the profound sense that we are human only through the humanity of others; that if we are to accomplish anything in this world, it will in equal measure be due to the work and achievement of others."

Ubuntu is the philosophy of "I am, because we are". As Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong said yesterday, let our language be "more of us and we and, less of I and me".

Three, rewards motivate behaviour. The next step is to review the rewards system across the board. How are the teachers evaluated and rewarded? Are the students rewarded based on academic achievements primarily or behaviours of their values in action? How are parents engaged in the process to fulfill the common purpose of educating their child? Are students encouraged to share their knowledge and their skills with classmates who may need help?

Rewards motivate behaviour. We cannot ask the educators to deliver one thing, but measure and pay them on something else. Likewise, for the students, how will their behaviours be rewarded, both in terms of the way they are graded as well as the way they will qualify for admission to higher levels of education?

And so, I come to the next point. Specifically, admission criteria for students to progress can afford a rethink. How do we reward team spirit and team behaviour and, perhaps, penalise negative individualistic behaviours when crafting admission criteria? While we do want to develop our students to their best potential and have them be the Edusave Awards for Achievement, Good LEadership and Service (EAGLES) and soar, we ought to take a lesson from nature as even eagles in the sky fly in formation and take turns to be at the head of the "V". This formation helps them to fly longer distances. Perhaps, MOE and the schools and the parents might take this lesson on board and rethink the criteria used for rewarding students EAGLES.

Five, rethink Government scholarships. I have heard stories of how smart students attain Singapore Government's prestigious scholarships only to break bond and, worse still, the intention to do that was already there even at the point of application. The Government might want to rethink the purpose of Government scholarships and, perhaps, consider giving more scholarships to students who both have merit and financial need. The Public Service Commission may also want to review the penalties for persons breaking bond and make them punitive enough, likened to defaulting their National Service commitments, so as to incentivise the right behaviours and values.

Breaking bond is a crime, as you rob a fellow Singaporean from the opportunity to access the education and the experience that the scholarship provides.

Of course, there may be some scholarships which are in recognition of one's achievements. For such scholarships, perhaps, the Government can consider not imposing a bond but, instead, other forms of paying it forward.

Another recommendation I have, is for Government to send their scholars to serve their bond in local small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). This will spread out the talent to our local industry and, at the same time, these smartest of the smartest of Singaporeans will have a better understanding of issues on the ground and be better policymakers when they return to the Public Service.

Six, teachers play a significant role in all of this. The challenge of teachers is time. How can we help teachers by having them do less administrative work, so they have more student encounters? How can we help to unburden their stress and keep their mental wellness in glowing condition? A kind word, a thank you, a please, a smile from the students and from parents would mean so much. And I would like to add that teacher-student interactions play a big part in educating the child. As we have falling enrolments due to fewer babies born each year, one proposal that I hope MOE can consider and I heard it in the House just now as well, is to bring down class sizes to less than 30 students per class. This will really help enhance teacher-student interactions.

Seven, it takes a village to raise a child. Can the Government consider giving tax rebates to singles – the aunts and the uncles – who sponsor their nieces or nephews for their continuous education or tuition, in the same way like deductions for foreign domestic helpers in the tax form?

Let me now transition from education to the workplace. Unlike the past, our students today face constant disruptions. What they have learnt in the first 25 years will need to be constantly upskilled and reskilled to stay relevant to the industry and the workplace. Singapore's SkillsFuture is a brilliant and strategic vision. Its implementation will go a long way toward changing the view of meritocracy earned at point of graduation, to meritocracy earned over a lifetime. So, let us re-imagine meritocracy in the workplace.

Just as MOE has developed multiple pathways for success, there should be multiple pathways for success in the industry.

Allow me to focus my attention on the 60% of each year's cohort of students who attend the Institute of Education (ITE) and/or polytechnics. The industry has a big part to play to help themselves as this is the pipeline of their workforce. Over the years, the polytechnics and ITE have stepped up engagement with industry and in many instances, imbedded industry into the curriculum. This is very important to ensure that the students are skills-ready and job-ready when they leave the system.

Today, almost all students have the opportunities to do internships and attachments with companies as part of their polytechnic or ITE education.

I think that more can be done to incentivise companies to hire our polytechnic and ITE students as apprentices even before graduation and; for the companies' on-the-job training to be certified as stackable modules toward the diploma course which the students are pursuing, or even toward professional qualifications later on.

MOE's Work-Study Programme has been designed to facilitate such a pathway. Singapore Polytechnic's Industry Now Curriculum has imbedded such elements. Outcomes have been positive. But we need more companies to come on board.

This is where I see SGUnited Jobs and Skills, which was effectively applied during COVID-19, can pivot to incentivise companies to employ our polytechnic and ITE students as apprentices and progress them to full-time jobs after graduation. The target group should be the polytechnic and ITE students who are unlikely to take the university route right after attaining their diplomas. So, we can be more targeted.

Next, pay for skills, pay for value. In Singapore, I said earlier, most employers still hire and pay by qualifications and not by skills and value. I would advocate once again that SGUnited Jobs and Skills may be leveraged to target certain jobs which we want to have more Singaporeans in the roles but whose compensation package is currently not appealing for the Singaporeans to be excited to step in and companies need to be weaned off supposedly cheaper foreign labour. The target jobs ought to be aligned with MTI's Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) so that the support and incentives can be more targeted.

MTI's Accelerated Pathways for Technicians and Assistant Engineers grant to support manufacturing companies in training and hiring ITE graduates for critical technical roles is a good case in point. We should replicate that – fast.

Next, Government to lead the way. Between the Public Service, the Temasek-linked companies and the Government-linked companies, they hire a sizeable percentage of Singaporean workforce. So, I hope that they can lead the way from all the points that I have mentioned and start now.

Many of our SMEs do not have the same access to capital, tools, networks and leadership. How can we incentivise our MNCs and large local enterprises (LLEs) to bring along our SMEs who are the vulnerable community in the business world in their value chain and, in so doing, intervene to avoid the pitfall of meritocracy which SMEs may be disadvantaged? Government procurement, if open to SMEs directly or via the value chain, will certainly help minimise the pitfalls of meritocracy as well.

In conclusion, my hope is for our Singapore-style of meritocracy to be one which values the dignity of every person – no matter their abilities or achievements, upholds the spirit of community, that is, as Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong calls it, more about the we and us and less about the I and me; empowers attitudes of always learning and collaborating, embraces a culture of care and dialogue, compassion and giving, inspires each one of us to strive for excellence together for the common good and creates an economy that is at the service of society, where no one is left behind. I am confident that as One Singapore, we can make every tomorrow better than today. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Leong Mun Wai.

3.12 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion thanking the President for her Address.

The President's Address points to the urgent need to refresh our social compact. This includes, helping Singaporeans with more job support, strengthening the social safety nets, broadening the definition of meritocracy and promoting a strong sense of shared identity, where every Singaporean feels that they have a stake in our country. These are noble aspirations which the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) strongly supports.

However, to refresh or to redefine our social compact, PSP thinks that we need to, first, rethink fundamentally, some of the more important policies on jobs, public housing, education and work and ultimately, what it means to be Singaporean.

PSP has vigorously debated the Government on some of these issues – especially jobs and public housing in the past three years. Ms Hazel Poa and I had demonstrated what PSP, as a responsible Opposition party, will do to allow the voices of Singaporeans be heard.

Among many other actions, we have asked more than 300 Parliamentary Questions, tabled two full Motions on jobs and public housing and three Adjournment Motions, questioning vaccination-differentiated measures, public expenditures on the Sports Hub and SPH Media Trust and the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS) at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 3. We have proposed serious alternative policies, as a responsible Opposition party does. But regrettably, the Government does not generally seem to be prepared to consider our proposals seriously.

The Deputy Prime Minister's message yesterday confirms that one more time.

Based on our debates with the Ministers, we believe that the policy changes advanced by the Government are inadequate to address the problems on hand. For example, the job security of Singaporeans and the surging HDB prices.

Notwithstanding that, PSP is committed to work with the Government and all political parties as one Singapore team to empower our people, renew our social compact and secure a brighter future for ourselves and our children.

From my very first speech as a Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) in this Parliament, I have raised the concerns of Singaporeans who believe that the current socioeconomic policies are not working for them.

Many Singaporeans are very concerned that the benefits of job growth and economic growth are mainly accruing to the foreign workforce in Singapore rather than Singaporean workers, even though our workers are well-educated, well-skilled and hardworking.

We raised the widespread anxiety experienced by Singaporeans, regarding their jobs and livelihoods, during the debate on our foreign talent policy in September 2021. Regrettably, during that debate, instead of answering our questions directly and allowing the debate to focus on the more substantial issues, the Government tried to paint the PSP as a xenophobic, nativist and even racist political party. We categorically reject such allegations.

The PSP has always maintained that for Singapore to achieve greater economic success, we will always need the right foreign talent to complement a Singaporean core. We welcome the right foreign talent. However, when the quality, number and concentration of Work Pass holders affect the job security of Singaporeans, we must speak out.

Singapore is a global city state. Unlike the Americans in New York or the Chinese in Shanghai, our countrymen have nowhere else to go if they cannot afford the cost of living or are displaced from their PMET jobs. There is no hinterland for these Singaporeans to retreat to. They will have to leave Singapore and go to another country. We must treasure our citizens and cannot let this happen.

That is why, over the last three years, I have continued to ask so many questions and focused so many of my speeches on our foreign manpower policy, the wage and employment situation of Singaporeans and workplace discrimination.

Some of the specific policies that we have proposed in the last session of this Parliament include, an Employment Pass (EP) levy of $1,200 per month, increasing the qualifying salaries for EP and Special Pass (SP) holders in stages over three years to $10,000 and $4,500 respectively; and to implement diversity quotas that limit the total percentage of a company's workforce from any given nationality.

These are rational and constructive policy alternatives to level the playing field for Singaporeans. They are not meant to close our doors to foreign talents or target any nationality or race.

We have merely sought to advance the interest of our Singaporean workers and to give voice to their persistent anxieties and concerns over our immigration policy and their livelihoods. It is dangerous for the Government to misconstrue our concerns as being motivated by nativism, xenophobia and racism.

In this Session of Parliament, let us live up to the President's exhortation last week – for us to have constructive, respectful and responsible political debates that are based on facts and sound analysis. At the end of the day, we are all doing our best for Singaporeans. And a Parliament that is a fair arena for all parties is one that will earn further respect from its people.

In the last Session of Parliament, the MOM has introduced many policy initiatives under the leadership of Minister Dr Tan See Leng, such as the new workplace fairness legislation, the Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) and an increase in minimum EP qualifying salaries. However, the many exemptions granted undermine the effectiveness of these policies, as the MOM is given a large discretion on how to enforce these policies.

To be effective in restoring the balance in our local job market and levelling the playing field for Singaporeans, the PSP thinks that we need policies with hard targets – like the ones PSP has proposed.

We hope that the Government will continue to strengthen support for unemployed and underemployed workers and raise the wages of low-income Singaporeans at a faster rate. The PSP has proposed a minimum living wage to do this. We also look forward to contributing to the debate on the new workplace fairness law next year.

We have also pushed for improvement of the financial security of Singaporeans, which is most affected by the affordability and accessibility of public housing.

We had a substantive debate on this issue for some 12 hours in February, initiated by Ms Hazel Poa and me.

The public housing debate is yet another example that shows the value of having Opposition Members in this House. We have reflected an issue that many Singaporeans are deeply concerned about, advanced Singaporeans' interest and aired their doubts on the Government's narrative about affordable housing in Singapore.

Despite our very limited resources, the PSP has put up two key policy proposals to reset our housing policy – the Affordable Home Scheme and the Millennial Apartment Scheme. We have researched and thought through these policies before raising them in this House. They are rational alternatives that we believe will better achieve our desired outcomes of affordable housing and family formation, while delinking retirement adequacy from housing prices.

I welcome the Government to provide statistics to substantiate their rhetoric that our alternative policies will cause a crash in the housing market.

During this Session of the 14th Parliament, we will continue to scrutinise the Government's housing policies and keep a check on the Government's move to stabilise prices in the housing market.

In particular, Singaporeans are anxious to know what solutions the Government has, to resolve the lease-decay problem. For a Government which prides itself on efficiency and not shying away from politically difficult decisions, it is hard to understand why the Government has not announced further details for the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS) or other solutions for the lease-decay problem in the past five years.

We will continue to ask the questions that Singaporeans want to ask, but may not be asked by Members of the ruling party. That is our duty as a responsible and rational Opposition party.

We will also continue to put up alternative housing policies that we believe will be in the interest of all Singaporeans.

As always, we expect that these policies will be robustly challenged by the Government, but, we hope that these policies will not simply be brushed off as raiding the reserves or crashing the housing market – just because they do not fit into the Government's framework for the reserves of finances or challenge the Government's "sacred cow" policies like homeownership.

I hope that the Government can refrain from such posturing, so that we can have a more productive debate in this House. Like I mentioned earlier – a fair arena for one and all.

During her Address in 2020, the President said as masters of our own land, Singaporeans must have confidence in their rights and privileges of citizenship. Last week, the President spoke about deepening Singaporeans' sense of shared identity. These two issues are interlinked.

All Singaporeans should identify with the notion that we are masters of our own land and our shared identity should be grounded in the rights and privileges of citizenship.

PSP welcomes foreigners to complement the Singaporean Core, but first and foremost, the PSP will do all it can to protect the position of Singaporeans, as masters of our own land. PSP understands and empathises with many Singaporeans, who feel like they are second-class citizens in Singapore today.

Life is tough for many. Singaporeans feel like they are draining their resources just to stay afloat, instead of being empowered to swim towards a better life. Naturally, they feel resentment when they see an influx of wealthy new immigrants setting up family offices and driving up property and Certificate of Entitlement (COE) prices.

During my walkabouts, many Singaporeans have expressed to me that they are aggrieved that many naturalised Singaporean Citizens, who have arrived in Singapore comparatively recently, enjoy most of the benefits of citizenship and can gain from the resources that past generations of Singaporeans have accumulated, without having to serve National Service or even volunteer service in the SAF Volunteer Corps.

Eighteen-year-old Singaporeans make immense contributions to us being masters of our own land, by serving National Service. To recognise this, the Progress Singapore Party has supported lowering the voting age to 18, since our party was founded; and I repeat this call today. This is also the stance of the Workers' Party and Ms Sylvia Lim had just reiterated that in her speech today.

In addition, we must do more to prioritise Singaporeans and redistribute economic gains, so that these perceptions can be corrected and we can empower those Singaporeans who feel like second-class citizens today.

While we support an open economy, with the free movement of labour and capital, such movements must be carefully controlled and calibrated. In the labour market, the interests of Singaporeans must be prioritised. In the housing market, we must ensure that public housing remains affordable and accessible and that rising land prices, due to an influx of wealthy foreigners who are allowed to purchase private property, do not cascade down into the HDB resale market.

PSP will continue to fight for all these during this Session of Parliament.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, the urgent need for a refresh of our social compact means that we must rethink and may even have to discard many of the old policies, in order to bring Singapore to greater heights.

PSP believes that we need to have a new set of alternative policies that will serve us better going forward. In the last Session of this Parliament, we have proposed some of those alternative policies for providing good jobs and affordable public housing to Singaporeans. As members of a responsible Opposition party, Ms Hazel Poa and I will continue to propose more alternative policies for the rest of our term as NCMPs. We hope the Government will notice our serious alternative proposals this time. Singaporeans deserve better. For country, for people.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Wan Rizal.

3.31 pm

Dr Wan Rizal (Jalan Besar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

Meritocracy is a core value that has been instrumental to our nation's success. It is the principle that individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements, regardless of their background. It has driven Singapore's economic growth and helped create a prosperous, inclusive and diverse society.

However, we must also recognise that meritocracy is not a perfect system and I am glad Mdm President touched on this. It is important to acknowledge the role that socioeconomic factors and perceived structural inequalities can play in limiting opportunities for certain groups.

To address these challenges, we must continue to promote our brand of meritocracy that ensures everyone has the tools they need to succeed and one that has a broad definition of success. And this is where education plays a crucial role: in not only being a vehicle of social mobility but providing multiple platforms for individuals with different interests and passion to develop. This will, in turn, foster equal opportunities for all.

Madam, education is the cornerstone of our society, shaping the hearts and minds of future generations. In our pursuit of meritocracy, we must continually invest in early childhood education to provide a strong foundation for our children.

Early childhood is a critical period in which cognitive, social and emotional skills develop rapidly. By nurturing these skills from a young age, we can ensure that every child has an equal opportunity to succeed – regardless of background or circumstances.

In the fervent words of my maiden speech, I implored that we enshrine early childhood education as a fundamental right, a conviction I hold steadfastly to this day.

For me, this transcends the mere number of children attending school; it represents a profound transformation in our collective consciousness, a shift that underscores the indispensable value of making education not just accessible but unequivocally compulsory.

The Government has made significant strides in improving early childhood education. Therefore, I welcome the Ministry of Social and Family Development's (MSF's) addendum outlining plans to strengthen preschool education and ensure affordable and accessible quality childcare.

The KidSTART programme, for example, has successfully provided early childhood development support for children from low-income families, helping to level the playing field and give these children a better chance at success.

Madam, in addition to early childhood development, we must ensure that our education system provides multiple opportunities for success. MOE has championed this cause by offering diverse educational opportunities to cater to our student's unique strengths and interests.

Over the years, I have had students from various educational backgrounds in the polytechnic. Some came from the ITE, others through the Polytechnic Foundation Programme – they are actually "N" level students – and some were "A" level students, who decided to switch. Regardless of their background, I have seen them doing very well when pursuing their diploma in polytechnics – partly due to them pursuing their field of interest. Some continue to pursue their degrees afterwards, while others are in a job where their interests match.

As an educator, all I want is for my students to develop at their own pace and fulfil their passion and potential; and I have yet to be disappointed. This is a testament to our education system, which has evolved over the years to accommodate diverse interests and learning styles, foster creativity and promote critical thinking.

Madam, as an educator for over 20 years, I have been fortunate to witness – first-hand – the transformative power of education and its impact on the lives of our fellow Singaporeans.

One of my former students, Ibrahim, switched from the A-level route to do a diploma. He came from a humble background and faced some challenges in his educational journey. Nevertheless, he persevered and completed his diploma. What stood out was that he was positive, he was hard-working and was a natural leader – traits that go beyond grades. After a few years, he secured a place in university and landed a fulfilling job in his field of choice.

Ibrahim's story is a testament to the power of education and the opportunities it can provide. In this rapidly evolving world, our education system must adapt and innovate to foster well-rounded individuals who can thrive in diverse environments.

Ultimately, we, as a society, must recognise that success is not just about grades but also about developing character, values and life skills. By shifting our focus to this holistic approach, we can empower our youths to become resilient, adaptable and compassionate leaders of tomorrow.

Madam, next, I would like to address an issue I have been pursuing throughout my stint in Parliament – which is mental health.

Our society has made great strides in recent years, recognising mental health as a critical aspect of our overall well-being. We have seen public awareness campaigns challenging stigma and, most importantly, more people stepping forward to seek help.

However, our work is far from over. We must continue our efforts to destigmatise mental health, recognising that it is as important as our physical health. We have a collective responsibility to create an environment where everyone can access the support they need, without fear of judgement or discrimination.

The Government has recently invested in various initiatives to promote mental health. The efforts by the Inter-agency Taskforce on Mental Health and Well-being and expanding mental health services in polyclinics are commendable examples.

As we forge ahead, I would like to suggest a few areas for consideration.

Firstly, we must increase access and reduce costs as well as waiting time for mental health services. We can achieve this by enhancing the affordability and availability of mental health services through Government subsidies and expanding such services in the heartlands. Additionally, The Mental Well-being Circles must be adequately and rigorously trained and deployed to provide that much-needed first tier of support in the community.

Secondly, let us continue to invest in preventive measures – focusing on early intervention. By providing mental health education in schools and the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and equipping dedicated staff with the necessary skills and resources, we can identify and support students at risk of developing mental health issues.

Lastly, we must continue to fund and increase funding for mental health research. Research not only helps us identify factors contributing to mental health issues, but also informs the creation of effective prevention and intervention strategies. Additionally, research findings can guide the improvement of mental health services and the development of policies and programs tailored to individuals' needs.

As we strive to create a brighter future for Singapore, let us remember that mental health is not an issue that can be resolved overnight. We are better together. And it requires continuous effort and dedication from all of us, working hand-in-hand with the Government, healthcare professionals, educators and community partners.

Madam, let me share a story that has left an indelible mark on my heart. I once had a student named Sarah, not her real name, who struggled with severe anxiety. Through early intervention, dedicated support from her teachers and her family's unwavering love, Sarah overcame her challenges. Today, she is a thriving young woman, passionate about advocating for mental health awareness. Her story is a testament to the transformative power of understanding, empathy and timely intervention.

It is a reminder that together, we can create a society where everyone has the opportunity to flourish – regardless of the challenges they may face. As we work towards this goal, let us channel our collective passion, energy and commitment to ensure that mental health remains a priority on our national agenda. Sir, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): The Healthier SG initiative is testament to the Government's unwavering commitment to the health of all Singaporeans.

Through Healthier SG, the Government will enhance preventive care and empower citizens to manage their own health and undergo regular screening.

Recently, Minister Masagos, in his speech at the M³ Healthy Investment Family Festival, underlined the importance of addressing health challenges directly and investing in preventive measures for a healthier future.

I fully believe that the Healthier SG initiative will improve our community's well-being significantly.

I had previously shared my efforts to achieve a healthier lifestyle.

Last year, although I did not "appear" fat; but, through health screenings, I was told that, based on the Body Mass Index (BMI), I was overweight and I needed to make a major change in lifestyle. I am grateful that I managed to lose 15 kilogrammes and have managed to maintain the same weight since then.

By encouraging regular health screenings, we can detect health problems earlier and prevent their condition from becoming chronic.

Apart from health screenings, the Healthier SG initiative can improve our community's well-being by promoting a healthier diet, exercise and mental wellness.

I urge community leaders to work closely with grassroots organisations and residents to develop a health programme that suit the unique needs of their respective communities.

One example is the initiative by M³@Jalan Besar. At the end of the month, a pilot training programme for coaches lasting six weeks will be launched to build a network of like-minded community leaders to promote and manage healthy living activities. We aim to equip them with basic knowledge about healthier lifestyle programs and ways to plan programmes that are suitable for the demographics of their respective towns. They will also be trained to manage the Healthy Investment programme with the support of the Health Promotion Board (HPB), as part of the new Focus Area 5 area within M³.

Madam, health is our personal responsibility. We are obligated to take care of our health so that we can prevent chronic diseases and lead a healthier life. When we are healthy, we will be able to better support our families and communities.

(In English): Madam, in conclusion, let us be the voice for those who may be struggling in silence and let us be the agents of change that drive our nation towards a brighter and more inclusive future, a nation where mental health and well-being is valued and supported.

As we move forward, let us remember that progress and success are not just about achieving individual goals. Instead, we must work towards building an inclusive and compassionate society where every Singaporean, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to realise their dreams and contribute collectively to our nation's success and progress.

So, let us stand together, united in our commitment to this refreshed meritocracy. Let us continue to innovate, collaborate and co-create a brighter future for our children and future generations.

In the words of our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, "A nation is great not by its size alone. It is the will, the cohesion, the stamina, the discipline of its people and the quality of their leaders which ensure it an honourable place in history."

Let us honour his legacy by striving for a better, more inclusive, compassionate and resilient Singapore. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Masagos.

3.45 pm

The Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Deputy Speaker, across the world, social mobility has been a challenging issue. Many advanced societies have faced wage stagnation. Some youths in other countries do not believe that they will be better off than their parents. In addition, many wonder if they can achieve their aspirations, or they will be kept in the social class they were born into.

In countries where this hope has disappeared, the "have-nots" tussle with the "haves", there is a loss of unity and society is fractured, weakened. And when the absence of upward mobility is overlaid with racial or religious fault lines, the social fabric frays quickly. We must not let this fate befall us.

In Singapore, we have kept social mobility alive across generations. This remains our promise. We want to build a country where there will always be opportunities for families to better their circumstances and where their children have hope of a better and brighter future. Let me share key features of our society and what we need to do to sustain social mobility.

First, Government policies as enablers. Governments must always prioritise, invest in and preserve the social foundations of societies to provide a fair chance for everyone to move up in society. They must address the under-provision of at least three public goods: education, healthcare and housing.

Society must accept policies that even out disparities to help address disadvantages families may face.

Over decades, we have built a strong foundation in Singapore. We provide families with access to affordable education, housing and healthcare, enabling Singaporeans to pursue their aspirations and realise their potential – the story of Ibrahim cited by Dr Wan Rizal just now, is just one of many stories of Singaporeans that succeeded because of their education; and Sarah, for access to good health systems. Coupled with Government efforts to make Singapore attractive for investments, we enjoy economic growth and create good jobs for Singaporeans. Together, these have helped to uplift generations of Singaporeans.

These fundamentals continue to undergird our strategy today. We continue to make significant investments into public education, affordable housing and quality healthcare. It is why Singaporeans continue to sit shoulder to shoulder – and all can access quality healthcare at our public hospitals and their children attend school together.

Sustaining these policies across generations is no easy feat. But we have managed to maintain the provision and quality of these goods on an even keel, without ballooning social expenditures that, ultimately, the taxpaying public has to pay for.

Second, a strong sense of personal agency and industrious work ethic. For countries to be successful, its people must be earnest in pursuing their aspirations and work hard to earn their success. From the day Singapore was independent, we understood that no one owes us a living. We had to work hard to get where we are today. This ethos is deeply embedded in our psyche. Singaporeans know this and respect those who have earned their success and similarly, want to work hard to do well for themselves, their families and communities. It is this spirit that will propel this country forward amidst headwinds.

Third, those who have done well giving back to society. We have seen this in Singapore's early years where philanthropists and businesses raised funds and set up hospitals and schools. The community contributed to those in need among them. As our country prospered, we saw more individuals and companies giving back to society and uplifting others.

We must keep this spirit of giving back alive. Giving back to society is a key ingredient of our country's success, where those who have done well acknowledge the role society has played in enabling the person to succeed and find ways to benefit others and help others succeed too. As I said five years ago, this is how meritocracy can be moral: when the successful demonstrate a sense of duty to society, when they share the fruits of success with others.

And importantly, we all must work together for the common good. We must never underestimate the power of working together. When different entities can come together and work in sync towards a common goal, we can achieve a great deal. It is this quality – of private, people and public sectors working together – that helped us pull through during the pandemic and remain united. Not pulling in different directions and, ultimately, undermining society itself.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, we must harness these qualities and work together to tackle the issue of social mobility and to uplift those in need in our society. The Government will strengthen our policies to uplift lower-income families.

First, we will give all children a good start in life. We are convinced by evidence that investments in the early years build a strong foundation in our children's lives. This is why we have invested significantly in affordable and quality preschools. We are also providing more intensive support to support mother and child early on in life, through KidSTART. We do not wait for families to come forward. Instead, we reach out to parents as early as during the mother's pregnancy and work with a team of healthcare and social service professionals, volunteers and community partners, to support these children to give them strong chances early in life. This prevents disparities in the early years from snowballing into greater disparities down the road. Since we started KidSTART in 2016, over 6,000 children have benefited.

We will intensify our efforts to start children from lower-income families on the right path. We will scale up KidSTART nationwide by 2026 and continue to facilitate priority enrolment for children from lower-income families in Anchor Operator Preschools and MOE Kindergartens.

Investing in the early years is not just good science, it is also fiscally prudent. It gives us the best chance of setting children up for success and is more effective than tackling issues downstream.

Second, we will provide more support to families. Over the years, this Government has strengthened social safety nets. We have provided transfers and subsidies and targeted assistance to those who need them most. We have designed schemes to keep people in employment and ensure wage growth.

But we can do more. We will be proactive, because we know we need to identify issues early before they snowball into larger issues. So, that one thing does not lead to another: a health issue does not become an unemployment issue of another family member, which, in turn, affects their children's education. We will also ensure that lower-income families get the help that they need quickly and easily. Ultimately, we want families to achieve stability, self-reliance and social mobility – the three "S"es.

To do so, we will ensure our services are family-centric and easily accessible. This is what ComLink sets out to achieve, by providing wraparound support for families with children living in rental flats. ComLink is another programme that does not wait for families to come forward to get help. A befriender proactively reaches out to families to understand their various needs and aspirations and works with them to develop goals and action plans. Government agencies and community partners stand behind the befriender and work on the back end to coordinate suitable services and programmes for the families.

From four pilot towns in 2019, we have expanded ComLink island wide to 21 ComLink communities, each supported by a Social Service Office. We are further integrating social programmes under ComLink, such as KidSTART, UPLIFT Community Network and Project Dian@M³, so that families receive support from a single touchpoint.

To make it easier for families to receive the support they need, we introduced scheme bundles so that lower-income families on ComCare assistance can access other assistances easily. As data is shared on the back end, families can receive assistance without submitting the same information to different agencies.

We will ensure that our social services are comprehensive, convenient and coordinated, so that families can get the help they need quickly and easily.

Third, we will reinforce and support the personal agency of families who wish to improve their circumstances. Many families want to secure a better future for their family and are taking active steps to uplift themselves and their children. During our Forward Singapore engagements, some have suggested that we should find ways to encourage families who take positive steps, such as securing stable employment and ensuring that their children attend preschool, but to do so in a manner that does not erode their sense of self-reliance and personal agency.

When such families put in the effort, we know they are on the road to making progress in their lives. And as part of our social compact, it is good and right that we recognise such efforts. So, we are studying how to do this in a bigger way, under ComLink.

Fourth, we want more social service partners across society to uplift communities across Singapore. Uplifting those in need goes beyond social services agencies. It involves businesses, community partners, neighbours and volunteers. It involves all of us. We need partners to share their resources and know-how and distribute their social capital to uplift those who have less.

We want to harness the best of organisations to address the needs of communities in innovative ways. This means leveraging organisations' assets, expertise and networks to enhance opportunities for lower-income families. For instance, organisations can run mentorship programmes in their workplaces, widening the horizons of youths from less privileged backgrounds and inspiring them to work towards a brighter future.

Businesses have an important role to play. It is timely, then, that many businesses are moving beyond traditional corporate service responsibility (CSR), to weaving social impact into their very core. They know that their success is tied to the success of Singapore. Recognising their responsibility to the wider community, they are reshaping their businesses. Businesses know they are a better and more attractive company when they put equal emphasis on Environment, Social and Governance (ESG). They fulfil their social responsibilities from how they look after their employees, hire inclusively, to how they harness their businesses to make a positive impact on the community.

We need businesses to lead the charge and role model the ways in which they uplift communities. We will guide businesses in better measuring and expanding their social impact. We will celebrate and recognise businesses and other partners in this Year of Celebrating Social Service Partners.

We recognise that philanthropists, foundations and other entities, like family offices, also want to do good. We have extended our tax deduction rate of 250% for donations until end-2026. The Government will also do more to help private capital and family offices maximise their philanthropic impact.

In our efforts, we must also tap on the best minds and translate the best research into practice to make a tangible impact. I am glad that many academics, researchers and IHLs have taken a keen interest in and are actively working to strengthen and support our families, from evaluating programmes that seek to ensure every child gets a good start in life, to examining ways we can enhance family resilience, so that our families can bounce back after setbacks. We must tap on the wealth of knowledge and expertise at these IHLs to better and more effectively uplift our communities.

For example, drawing on its know-how in early childhood education and social work, the Singapore University of Social Sciences worked with the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) to launch a training programme to equip KidSTART practitioners with the knowledge and skills to better support the development of children from lower-income families. We will strengthen our collaboration with academics and IHLs to improve policies, social work practices and the delivery of services to meet evolving social needs in Singapore.

In my speech at the President's Address debate in 2018, I called for a Singapore brand of meritocracy. Today, I call on our IHLs, academics and researchers to conduct original research and build up a robust body of knowledge of social science that applies to our context, one that is made for Singapore.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, no Government can sustain social mobility by its efforts alone. Everyone has a role to play in supporting those in need. As part of our refreshed social compact, we must find ways to benefit others and help others succeed and do well together. Individuals, families and our society will be better for it. This is how an inclusive and caring society is built, by the hands of its people.

We will achieve much more when we work together than going in alone. To better support families, we must join hands across society: businesses, social service agencies, community partners, volunteers and the Government working hand-in-glove.

Over the past few years, we have expended significant efforts to organise ourselves better to support families, coordinating our collective efforts under ComLink. I recall a family receiving five bags of rice from five different well-meaning social service agencies and corporates, which the family had no need for. Our hope is that, with ComLink, community resources can be better harnessed to fulfil real needs.

What this could look like is: in each ComLink community, a volunteer befriender works with families to refer them to services, such as career coaches, to help them secure a job and nearby preschools and after-school programmes provided by the community to support the education of their children. Companies step in to provide mentorship and internship opportunities to the youth to nurture and grow their aspirations.

I have seen a glimpse of what is possible in ComLink@Jurong West, where UOL-Pan Pacific Hotels Group provides opportunities for children from lower-income families to access their facilities and enrichment classes through NUS students stepping forward as ComLink befrienders to journey with families.

Rather than each of us going at it alone and duplicating efforts, let us synergise our various efforts into an effective national movement to better support families in need. Let us cast our nets wider beyond our own sectors and work together in common cause to uplift those in need. Let us work together to keep social mobility alive in Singapore. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): Singapore must continue to be a country where there will be opportunities for families to better their circumstances. A country where they can fulfil their aspirations to secure a brighter future for their children. And where our people believe that our brand of Singaporean meritocracy works.

To achieve this, we need a strong partnership across sectors, with each sector doing its part: the Government developing policies that help our people progress; the community harnessing available resources to address its needs; and volunteers bringing their skills and talents to uplift the lives of those around them.

The mark of a strong social compact is when successful individuals give back to society. We appreciate the efforts of our Malay/Muslim Organisations (MMOs) who have long played important roles in uplifting the community. Many of our Malay/Muslim professionals have also stepped forward to serve and contribute to those in need. For example, Lawyers@M³ brings together lawyers, legal professionals and individuals with legal backgrounds to conduct talks on legal matters, Lasting Power of Attorney workshops, and pro bono legal clinics for the community. In their spare time, a group of soldiers also volunteer as mentors at ITE College East through Project Pathfinder, serving as role models for the students they journey with. The Muslim Healthcare Professionals Association also works with M³@Towns to bring health-related programmes and workshops closer to residential areas, to better benefit the community.

One of the traits that our community can be proud of is the progress that we made over the years, with the community and Government working together, by putting their minds and hands together to uplift the community. The self-help group MENDAKI has become a model that many parties abroad are keen to learn from. It was formed 40 years ago, at a time when our community leaders were concerned about the educational performance of our Malay children. They were committed to helping Malay children reach their fullest potential and attain success. Today, MENDAKI remains relevant as it uses education as a key driver to uplift the community.

MENDAKI successfully mobilised the energies and passion of its many volunteers to drive programmes like the MENDAKI Tuition Scheme and KelasMateMatika, for students across all levels today. These MENDAKI volunteers understood our customs and culture and thus helped to augment the Government's efforts to improve Malay/Muslim educational outcomes in tandem with other communities. Today, 99% of every Malay student cohort completes at least 10 years of education. This is a meaningful achievement, as the 10 years of education provides the foundation to enable them to further their studies at the post-secondary level and enable them to pursue lifelong learning. I am heartened by the progress made by the Malay/Muslim community, which was possible due to the awareness of the importance of education as well as the hard work and close partnership of all parties. Let us continue the efforts to enable our children to achieve their fullest potential.

Today, we must take reference from the latest findings from research and science. The research shows that the early years are crucial to a child's development. Therefore, a key aspect of our strategy to sustain social mobility in Singapore is early childhood development. We must ensure that children are enrolled in preschool by around age three. We are doubling down on our efforts to support families with young children through Project Dian@M³ and will also facilitate priority enrolment for children from lower income families into Anchor Operator preschools and MOE Kindergartens. Our Dian Ambassadors have started visiting these families fortnightly, working with families to read with their children and support the parents in being involved in the development of their young children.

Over the decades, the Malay/Muslim community has made great progress on all fronts. This includes achieving stability, self-reliance and social mobility, while continuously giving back both to the community and to the nation. As we face new challenges and as our society continues to grow and evolve, we will continue to work closely with community leaders, MMOs and our many volunteers. This will bring the community closer together to excel and uplift the lives of the most vulnerable. I am confident that our Malay/Muslim community is well placed to forge ahead towards an even brighter future as a Community of Success.

(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. We must be a society where Singaporeans will always have opportunities to forge a better life for themselves, regardless of their starting position. We must draw on the strengths of individuals and families, the social capital within our communities and resources from the public, people and private sectors to realise this vision. I know we can because we are Singaporeans.

Ahead of the 100th anniversary of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's birthday, let me share a quote which I think is evergreen, though he said it in 1965. He said, "10 years from now, it will be better than now. Today, it is immensely better than it was 10 years ago. It is better, even, than last year. And it is ours, provided we have got enough sense to be together and nobody can keep an industrious people to work and fight for its future." [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.12 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]

Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister Chan Chun Seng.

4.35 pm

The Minister for Education (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. As part of our Forward Singapore conversation, much has been discussed about refreshing our social compact.

This has also been the central issue at this debate, including in the speeches of the President, Deputy Prime Minister Wong and various Members.

Many have asked: what is a social compact? Others asked: what is our social compact?

A social compact, is simply our responsibilities towards one another; how we reward work and distribute the fruits of labour and success; and how we relate to and respect one another. So, three "R"s – our responsibilities towards one another; how we reward work and distribute the fruits of our success; and how we relate to and respect one another.

Central to the Singapore social compact has been meritocracy. People are recognised based on merit and achievements. We aspire as a nation for all to progress through our abilities, rather than birth rights, family connections or inherited wealth. These principles have brought us this far. It has spurred our people to excel individually. It has allowed us to accomplish much collectively.

Indeed, for a new country of immigrants, there did not and does not seem to be a better set of organising principles for people to operate within and excel. Many of our forefathers came to Singapore because this was a place that allowed them to realise their dreams, despite their starting circumstances and lack of connections.

Many of us are also here, today, because of the opportunities afforded to us by this system of meritocracy. This includes Members from all sides of the House.

Other systems, such as aristocracy, plutocracy and nepotism, serve the interests of the few, rather than of the many. These other systems would not have similarly motivated our people to aspire and strive, nor helped us to attract the best and brightest to commit their future to Singapore.

While meritocracy has allowed us to avoid some of these pitfalls, it is now under stress worldwide. There are increasing questions if meritocracy is indeed fair. Or can it be fair, especially over the long term? The process is also questioned by some who are unhappy with the outcomes.

To fix the problems, some real and some perceived, various countries have tried to fix the process in different ways. Some countries have tried affirmative action for the less privileged groups – by levelling the uneven playing field in resources and opportunities for the less privileged groups.

It sounds fine, until we have to figure out who gets to decide who are the less privileged and what opportunities we should set aside for them. It becomes even more complicated when everyone feels relatively deprived or less privileged from their own perspectives.

While meritocracy has generally worked well for Singapore so far, we also acknowledge that our system is not perfect.

We must recognise that meritocracy, by itself, is not a panacea for all of our societal challenges. Let me list a few potential pitfalls; and suggest what we must do to keep our meritocracy sustainable and resilient.

First, as the world and our society evolve, our needs are constantly changing. Indeed, our relevance and competitiveness as a country depend on our ability to evolve with the times.

Hence, meritocracy based on any single, static and narrow metric for talent and ability, will not allow us to build a resilient society with a diversity of strengths to meet tomorrow's challenges.

As society matures, those who have succeeded under the previous and existing metrics, will tend to want to perpetuate the same set of yardsticks – sometimes, to preserve their personal interests and comfort; sometimes, they assume that what has worked will continue to work in a different future and do not think of alternatives that society may need going forward. We must not allow any single, static and narrow metric to define success which can easily cause our society to stagnate and become irrelevant.

The second danger of meritocracy, beyond competing on a static and narrow metric, is to reward success based on fixed, defined and pre-determined points in life and time. Once the determining test is conducted and the results are known, then it is as if the life trajectories of our people are fixed and become too difficult to change.

This cannot be our society. People develop at different paces and demonstrate different abilities at different times. For society to allow everyone to do justice to their gifts, we must have a system of continuous meritocracy – where no single test or point in time determines the rest of one's life. This continuous meritocracy must extend beyond the education system, throughout life.

Employers and society have as much a part to play to recognise the skills and talents of our people; and not fall into the trap of credentialism of using any single dated metric. We must ensure that there is porosity in the ways that people can earn their spurs, contribute throughout life and allow them to bounce back from setbacks.

The third danger of meritocracy is stratification over time.

It is natural and perhaps inevitable that the successful will tend to mix amongst themselves, creating exclusive social circles instead of sharing social capital. It is also human nature to want to pass on our wealth and privileges to our children, be it through the accumulation of assets, like investments and property; or through access to additional education resources, like tuition.

But these natural tendencies risk creating an endowment effect in society. Access to opportunities and rewards could increasingly be determined not just by the merits of this generation, but the transfer of wealth and privileges from the previous generations.

Meritocracy becomes harder and harder for the less privileged, as their relative start state falls further and further behind the privileged.

We must not leave this unchecked, or this will progressively stratify society, undermining our cohesion and eroding our higher purpose to draw on the talents and capabilities from all in society, instead of the privileged few.

The fourth danger of meritocracy is the misplaced belief that one's success is attributed entirely to one's talent and hard work, without acknowledging the role that society has played in enabling the person to succeed; the need for them to give back, uphold the system and strengthen our society; and the need to continually push back against the forces of social stratification.

To keep our Singaporean meritocracy resilient and sustainable, this Government, together with our people, will focus on six key strategies.

First, we value our people's diverse abilities.

We will continue to move away from evaluating our people's diverse abilities by any single, static and narrow metric – be it the PSLE results, grade-point averages or whether they hold a degree or diploma.

Take Full Subject-based Banding (Full SBB). With the implementation of Full SBB next year, our education system will become more flexible and provide multiple pathways to cater to different learner profiles. Students will have the flexibility to pursue different subjects at different subject levels, which allows them to customise their learning in each subject to a pace suited for them, while developing other areas of interest. This, coupled with our plans to leverage educational technologies, such as AI-enabled adaptive learning systems, will help to provide more customised learning experiences for all our students.

We are also broadening the pathways in which students can access their education.

With more opportunities for Direct School Admission and aptitude-based admissions, our students will be able to pursue studies based on their passion and aptitude rather than purely academic performance.

We will continually review our admission policies to ensure that our schools remain open and accessible for students from diverse backgrounds while balancing other competing needs, such as preserving community ties and maintaining a variegated education landscape, to cater to different students' needs.

We will press on with our efforts to develop 21st century competencies in all our students so that they can thrive amidst constant changes in our world.

Our curriculum will continue to be refreshed regularly to meet our students' future needs. We will continue to emphasise important life skills and free up time and space for schools to strengthen learning dispositions and holistic development.

This will allow our students to develop an empowering portfolio of skills that will serve them well in whatever they end up doing, including adaptability, resilience and the ability to think critically and inventively.

To these ends, we need the support of parents.

As parents, we must welcome schools to have their unique value propositions. This can better cater to the diverse needs of our children and help them to realise their full potential. Hence, it is not necessary or meaningful for us to constantly compare why one school's offering may be slightly different from another's.

The more appropriate question is not "Is this a good school?", but "Is this a good or appropriate school for my child?"

As parents, we must also not fall into the trap of allowing broader dimensions of merit to translate into greater pressure to chase down more and every yardstick to "beat the crowd".

We must remember that broader dimensions of merit are meant to help our children fulfil their potential according to their diverse strengths and interests. This is not meant to provide more ways to compare our children with others in areas that are not suited for their strengths or interests.

We must remember to teach our children that, it is more important to surpass themselves throughout life than to surpass someone else in an examination.

Second, we will continue to create more diverse education pathways to allow greater porosity throughout life.

Building on efforts like Full SBB in MOE schools, our post-secondary and tertiary pathways will provide more flexibility to better support students' learning and progression.

For example, polytechnic students will be able to spread out their learning if they intend to pursue side interests or need more time to build up a stronger academic foundation. ITE's enhanced curricular structure will cater to a diverse range of learner profiles. Those who graduate with a Higher Nitec can look forward to further upgrading opportunities, such as the expanded offerings of ITE's Work-Study Diplomas.

Our publicly funded university degrees will also have a higher lifetime cohort participation rate so that more Singaporeans can look forward to obtaining a degree from our autonomous universities – not necessarily before starting work but at some point in their working lives.

Third, we will invest in our people throughout life – not just in the first 15 years when they are with us in our schools, but also for the next 50 years beyond our schools. Our people will need to continually upskill and reskill across their lifetimes to evolve at their own speed, create new value and stay ahead of the competition.

To support this, the Government has increased its investment in recent years in CET, including through the national SkillsFuture movement.

We will not stop here. We will intensify our efforts to help our people stay relevant and competitive.

As part of the Forward Singapore exercise, we will announce more details in due course on how we intend to help our workforce to upskill and remain relevant throughout life.

Amongst the various ideas are more targeted training support for mid-career workers, including SkillsFuture Credit top-ups and how we make training more accessible for working adults with competing commitments and responsibilities.

But the Government's efforts alone will not be enough. We will need the partnership of industry, the innovation of institutions and the growth mindset of individuals.

Industries cannot wait passively for the perfect worker to be developed for them. They must be active partners in shaping students' interests and skillsets even before they enter the workforce. Hence, I welcome more companies to partner our schools in our Applied Learning Programmes.

After that, industries must also be prepared to invest the time and resources to support our workers to upskill continually.

I can understand the challenges for industries to commit to the training of our workers, especially in uncertain times. But if we do not grow our own timber collectively, we will all be fighting over a stagnant talent and skills pool.

The Public Service, as an employer, will lead by example in supporting our workers to upskill continually.

Our IHLs will continue to innovate and enhance their programme offerings, including through work-study programmes and stackable modules that may be more suitable for mid-career Singaporeans who wish to upgrade their skills.

At the same time, our people will need to develop a growth mindset and passion for lifelong learning to make full use of these opportunities.

We will need this whole-of-society effort to enable our people to stay relevant and our industries to stay competitive in an ever-more challenging environment.

Fourth, not only must we respect a variety of professions, we must also fairly reward and remunerate the "heart" and "hand" work that is commensurate with the "head" work. Our society needs all these roles to complement one another to function well.

As an example, MOE is reviewing the remuneration and career progression pathways in the Special Education sector to strengthen the professional development of our special needs educators and improve the quality of services to better support students with special education needs.

We must ensure that our special needs educators who serve in diverse and demanding environments are recognised and appreciated for their efforts and contributions and for the challenging work that they do. We must also ensure that our special needs professionals have professional development opportunities, just like mainstream MOE teachers.

Indeed, there should be much more cross-pollination of ideas and mutual support between the mainstream and special needs educator fraternity and, similarly, within the special needs education sector.

I hope to have the support of all Singaporeans for us to move in this direction.

MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) will work closely with all our social service agencies to achieve this vision for the benefit of our special needs professionals and our special needs community. We will need to work together. We can achieve more collectively to better take care of the professionals in this sector instead of just thinking of optimising individually in respective institutions.

Beyond MOE, other workplaces that involve "hand" and "heart" work, including those in the essential services sectors, also need to play their part. They need to hire, train and reward workers fairly based on skills and competencies.

But we all know that this may translate into higher costs for some services provided by our fellow Singaporeans, which our society must be willing to accept and support. Otherwise, no matter how much we broaden the definitions of merit in our school system, none of it will ultimately work because it does not translate into tangible differences in earnings and at the workplace.

Fifth, as a society, we must always do more for those with less to uplift the less privileged. This has been and this will continue to be the guiding principle behind this Government's policies.

That is why we set up the Uplifting Pupils in Life and Inspiring Families Taskforce (UPLIFT), to rally the community to partner our schools in helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress educationally and to achieve their full potential.

That is also why we have a progressive tax system to contribute to the running of such initiatives.

Everyone bears part of the responsibility, but those with more, bear more and those with less, get more.

This is also why we want to do more for the less privileged in terms of housing, retirement adequacy, healthcare and many other areas. This helps us to ensure that the gaps in society are not too stark, opening us up to the politics of envy and threatening the harmony of our society. It also helps us to avoid the need for affirmative action to decide who should or should not be given opportunities based on who they are rather than what they can do and what they can be.

However, we must never degenerate into a system where everyone thinks they deserve more, relative to others.

Indeed, I see this as one of our major challenges.

I fear a day when we constantly feel a sense of relative deprivation from seeing someone else getting more help than us, instead of feeling a sense of gratitude at being helped or feeling a sense of satisfaction at being able to help someone else. We will then lose our social cohesion to the politics of envy.

Perhaps, we need to regularly remind ourselves that it is more blessed to give than if we are to just receive. As the Chinese say – 施比受更为有福.

The ultimate measure of our success as a society is not how many people we can help because they are unable to keep up, but how few people we need to help because we have enabled them to thrive. A sustainable and resilient meritocracy is one where the largest possible number of people are enabled to achieve and contribute to take care of the fewest number possible who are unable to achieve as much.

The ultimate measure of our success as a society is not how many people we can help because they are unable to keep up but how few people we need to help because we have enabled them to thrive.

Sixth, we need to imbue the right values in all our people from young so that they can grow to become individuals who are willing to give back to society and create more opportunities for others.

All of us must recognise that our individual success is never just due to our own abilities and hard work – that without the opportunities that society provided us and the help from others along the way, we may not be where we are here today.

So, even as we celebrate and enjoy the fruits of our own labour, we must not forget to give back to society and others around us, to share the networks and ties that have helped us so that others may also similarly benefit from the opportunities and access.

Today, our schools already facilitate this sharing of social capital across different schools. Through cluster-based programmes like co-curricular activities, Values in Action (VIA) initiatives and other holistic development programmes, students from different schools can come together, get to know one another, learn how to communicate and collaborate with one another and form friendships that go beyond their own schools.

Going forward, we will further strengthen our school cluster system to enable better pooling and sharing of resources and allow more students to benefit from wider networks and build their social capital. We can do more of these through co-curricular activities, VIA programmes and even selected curriculum.

We encourage everyone in society to partner us in these efforts. Contribute your time and talent, beyond treasures. Show our students the way forward and help to nurture a more giving generation in time to come. Share your networks and opportunities with the next generation of students, not just in your alma mater but in other schools as well, to help them succeed like you did.

I, therefore, call on the alumni of the more established schools to come forward, to step forward – to join hands with us – to contribute to the wider community of schools so that we can all progress together, faster and better.

This is something that all of us who have gone through the system and succeeded can and should do.

Some may ask – what can I contribute if I am not as successful? If I did not come from a school with a more illustrious history? If I do not earn a big salary, wear expensive clothes, live in a big house or drive a fancy car?

My answer is simply this – those material achievements are not the only yardsticks of success, nor should they define our ability to contribute. Neither should they determine the respect and dignity that one deserves.

Instead, we must define success by how much we contribute to others and the greater good and not just how much we achieve for ourselves. We should have the courage to step up and say, "I can always contribute something, according to my abilities, regardless of where I am in life". And everyone can say that and can do something about that.

I look forward to the day when our society defines success not just by one's achievements, but more importantly by one's contributions. When a true son and daughter of Singapore, who earns and deserves our respect, is one whose contributions not only commensurate with his or her achievements, but also one who contributes to the best of his or her abilities.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me conclude. In an increasingly volatile and uncertain environment, we need to avoid over-structuring our system and processes to give our people a false sense of security while eroding their development to handle an uncertain and untidy world. Instead, we must provide multiple pathways with diverse metrics of success while equipping our people with the life skills they need to thrive in the 21st century, to allow our people to chart their own way forward according to their own strengths and talents.

In an increasingly competitive world, we can easily fall into the trap of always looking at the right side of the bell curve and feeling eternally inadequate. Instead, we must remind ourselves of our gifts and responsibilities to help those who are less privileged than us.

In an increasingly unequal and uncertain world, we need to strengthen our sense of solidarity and collective assurance without eroding the individual's responsibility and sense of agency. We must come together as individuals, as partners, as employers and as a community to celebrate diverse forms of abilities and contributions, to recognise and respect the dignity of those who contribute in different ways to society, to help everyone upskill continually and move up the ladder throughout our lifetimes and to give back to society and others who have helped us along the way.

Finally, the Singapore Story is a living story. Do not be taken by hubris to think that we have "arrived" or can ever "arrive" and need not evolve or improve anymore. We understand the merits of our system and how far it has helped us to come this far as a society by unleashing our potential as individuals. Yet, we are not complacent to think that we can ever stop improving our system. Any living system that does not grow, will wither.

The mark of our success is not just how well we enable this generation to achieve success, but how well we establish the conditions for the next generation to be even more successful than us. Only so will we be able to continuously write new chapters of the Singapore Story.

There may never be a perfect system to develop all the perfect students or workers for our societal needs. But, we can all contribute our part to build a better or less imperfect system to continually inspire our people and all who believe in our dream to build a resilient and sustainable meritocratic system to bring out the best from all – to be a beacon of cohesion with unity of purpose in a troubled world; a society with a sense of collective responsibility towards one another; a society with respect for diverse abilities; a society that rewards hard work and talent; a society that recognises contributions beyond achievements; a society with gratitude for our blessings to want to do good for all beyond ourselves.

And, finally, a nation confident to defy the odds of history to survive and thrive beyond SG100. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Don Wee.

5.04 pm

Mr Don Wee (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Government's commitment to improve social safety nets to help Singaporeans better cope with setbacks in life. One group of Singaporeans which I would like to appeal for more support is families with autistic children – in particular, those from the lower-income families.

One in 150 children in Singapore has autism, higher than the global average of one in 160 but lower compared to countries such as the United States (US), Japan, Denmark and Australia, which is one in 60 to 70. Experts think that our high rates are partly due to greater detection from higher awareness and testing and, if data from developed countries like the US is an indication, we may detect more cases in the future. Hence, it is important that the Government expedites the set-up of a national infrastructure to provide holistic support for Singaporeans with autism, from diagnosis to end of life.

Early intervention is critical. The Ministry of Health (MOH) can or may ramp up public education efforts to increase awareness among parents to diagnose their children as soon as possible if they notice the symptoms. Parents should be reminded to follow up with their children's developmental milestone checks at polyclinics, clinics or hospitals.

Upon diagnosis, these children need to be given sufficient treatment and therapy at the optimal frequency to give them the best chance to develop to their highest potential. This is an essential and the best investment we can make in them, especially during the small window period when they are young, which will yield good progress and benefits over the long term.

Parents should also be provided with comprehensive advice by an appointed Government agency on how to navigate our system for the best care and protection for their children. This includes sharing with them the trust services of Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) supported by MSF and available insurance coverage. I urge the Government to work with the insurers to improve access to insurance coverage for persons with autism. They must not be discriminated against for unrelated risk factors, which is the most common and longstanding complaint.

For low-income families, we must ensure that the treatment is affordable to them and provide the appropriate subsidies so that they will be able to keep up with the therapy. Counselling and adequate support should also be provided to the family members who often suffer from caregiver fatigue and burnout as well as depression. We need more activity and care centres for children and adults with autism to engage them and allow family members to work with peace of mind and caregivers to take regular breaks.

For lower-income families, the lack of capacity in these centres often mean that someone in the family, often the mother, would not be able to work because she becomes the caregiver. This is a blow to their household income, plunging them into deeper financial difficulty.

The new daycare activity programme by the Autism Association (Singapore) making use of community spaces, such as public libraries and schools, to address the issue of the lack of capacity in daycare activity centres for those over 18 years old is a good start.

Autism lies on a spectrum, so while there are those who will be able to work and live independently, there are others are not able to do so. We need to establish care arrangements for them when their ageing parents and families are unable to continue taking care of them, especially the financially disadvantaged ones.

As sudden changes to their routines can be distressing for them, advance planning is important. The preparation includes introduction and exposure to facilities, environment settings, volunteers and care professionals as well as financial arrangements and legal documentation.

Next, I would like to appeal for more support and assistance for our SMEs. There are many schemes and grants available, but some business owners have trouble navigating and understanding the processes. They are confused by the red tape and even need external consultants to advise them on what they are eligible for. Unfortunately, the owners and consultants' own interests do not always align, as the consultants' earnings are based on certainty and quantity of their commissions. Accessible, timely and neutral advice from knowledgeable agency staff would make a very big difference.

As the President noted in her Address, Singapore will face more resource constraints – land, labour and carbon – in the near future. In addition, governments of major economies are providing support to boost their own industrial bases. There will be a greater drive for nationalistic projects. The global business environment will become more difficult for us.

I am heartened that our Government will provide more support to promising companies, including customised financial support for local companies to build sustained R&D and innovation capacity and to go global and grow into Singapore global enterprises. Will the Government consider publicising and sharing more about companies tapping capabilities in the IHLs as well as the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR) and engaging on platforms, such as the Global Innovation Alliance? This will help to raise awareness, inspire and encourage more Singaporeans to consider entrepreneurship.

Singapore is working hard to attain food resilience and the Government is stepping up investments in food research and development, such as aquaculture, urban agriculture as well as alternative proteins. This is an appropriate and important sector for our SMEs to participate in. We need to increase local demand so that the cycle of local supply and demand is sustainable.

May I also urge the Government to work with SMEs to improve their access to procurement opportunities? It is important for our domestic capability resilience to nurture and build local expertise in as many sectors as possible.

Decarbonisation provides generation-defining business opportunities and our Singaporean companies are well-positioned to lead the way. We need Enterprise Singapore to provide more assistance to SMEs so that they know how to measure emissions as many MNCs have started to request their SMEs suppliers to furnish their carbon emission data.

SMEs need to keep down their business costs, of which their vehicles' COEs constitute a portion, a big portion. Presently, car dealers bid for the COEs regardless of whether there are clients buying cars from them or not. They can keep and hog the COEs for months and trade and sell these COEs to other car dealers. If only individual buyers or companies, which need COEs, are allowed to bid for them, it may bring down the COE prices of Category C. I hope the Government can consider this suggestion. [Please refer to "Personal Explanation", Official Report, 20 April 2023, Vol 95, Issue 100, Personal Explanation section.]

Finally, I reiterate my appeal to MOM to review the foreign worker work permit quota since a number of SMEs – like the small or medium audit firms – face manpower constraints, especially those in the F&B sector. They are unable to hire enough Singaporean workers to meet their operational needs and are struggling to stay in business, even if they have enough demand and clients. I would like to conclude with my support of the Motion of thanks to the President.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Tin Pei Ling.

5.12 pm

Ms Tin Pei Ling (MacPherson): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion of thanks. The COVID-19 pandemic was a crisis of our generation but also a test from which Singapore emerged more united and our trust in each other strengthened. But we must not take this for granted.

As we reopen the Parliament, it is indeed timely to refresh our focus and renew our commitment to our people and Singapore.

Looking ahead, our operating environment is increasingly complex. Pressures in and outside of Singapore continue to mount and these can threaten to tear us apart. Game-changing technologies, rising cost of living, shift in social values and heightened international contestation are some of the key forces pulling us in different directions. And none of these is abating.

Therefore, even as we strive for progress and push for excellence, we must ensure that Singapore remains united. Our policies must remove barriers and minimise gaps, our Parliament must focus on building up trust, not tearing down and our society must be more inclusive and compassionate.

President Halimah spoke of broadening meritocracy and making sure that it continues to work well for all Singaporeans. I agree. There is no better alternative to meritocracy, but we need to temper it so that it is more compassionate and more relevant to today's context.

My take is that for those among us who can and want to excel, we ought not to limit them and should wish them well. For those who want to but cannot because of financial circumstances, then we must intervene more strongly to support and move them along. It is not just about giving equal opportunities but to direct more resources to help the abled but underprivileged.

We also need to maintain our egalitarianism. One thing precious about Singapore is that despite our different jobs and roles in the economy, we still see ourselves as Singaporeans of similar standing and similar in other areas too, for example, in our taste for hawker foods. "Towkays" and workers can all turn up at the same coffee shop to queue for "bak chor mee" or "roti prata" and share a table to eat thereafter. There is no expectation that one should be deferential or give way to another. The expectation is that they will be treated all the same.

Meritocracy can lead to differences in economic outcomes, but these should not lead to differences in social treatment. Our system must give all our people equal rights and opportunities. All of us must affirm our egalitarianism in both spirit and practice.

Allow me to share some specific thoughts.

First, on education and skills-based workforce. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke of creating Singapore to become a full-fledged learning society, from cradle to grave. Indeed, we must.

Disruptions brought about by technological revolutions have been a constant feature throughout history and the pace is gathering. The Great Reshuffle also means that jobs and skills needed are changing and will continue to change. For instance, according to LinkedIn's "Future of Skills", skills needed in the technology, information and media industry in Singapore have changed by 36.8% between 2015 and 2022 – just a span of seven years. And specific to this industry, seven out of the 10 top skills are considered new. These new skills, include new programming languages; but also softer skills, such as stakeholder management and strategic partnerships.

Clearly, we cannot expect to learn the universe in school, but we can acquire the basics from which we continue to build.

Our education should focus on inculcating a sense of curiosity in our young, so that they will always be intrinsically motivated to seek out new knowledge and skills.

Over the years, changes have been made to the system, but we could do more to foster a culture of curiosity. For example, could we focus less on standard answers but more on imagination and creative solutioning? Indeed, our education system has done away from PSLE T-score and replaced streaming with banding – these are encouraging moves.

But what about students who are inventors and storytellers or who have topics of interest not found in the textbooks? How can we recognise and reward them more formally? Can there be an "independent study" subject that allows the student to choose a topic of interest to deep-dive into and be given a grade that is just as important as an English or mathematics subject, so that we move towards learning that is more versatile, more blue-skies thinking and hopefully, less need for tuition, which is often cited as a costly endeavour that widens the gap?

As pointed out, learning does not stop after graduating from the mainstream education system. In future, as industries continue to be disrupted by new technologies, we can expect to change tracks many times in our working lives. Mature workers starting afresh in radically new industries several times, within a lifetime, will become a norm and it would no longer be something to feel embarrassed about.

To support this, adult learning should then focus less on long, structured courses with expensive certificates, but shorter and more targeted ones to build practical skills that can be readily deployed at work. Would the Government expand the SkillsFuture credits to enable this? And could we recognise these credentials by recording them as part of our national digital identity, creating a personal digital resume for each Singaporean? The Public Service can, perhaps, take the lead in formally recognising these short courses taken by officers.

Second, a mastering technology and not be mastered by technology. A key development driving the next wave of disruption is artificial intelligence (AI). Goldman Sachs estimated that AI can replace 300 million full-time jobs. This prospect sounds scary. But what is scarier is that the stiff competition to lead in the field of AI could mean a willingness to overlook ethical considerations and other consequences.

For example, ChatGPT caught the world's attention in recent times. We are all impressed by its almost-human capabilities. But has the company OpenAI really thought through the long-term social implications of ChatGPT before releasing it? Media reports would suggest that it had not. Consider ChaosGPT, which is the autonomous implementation of ChatGPT that is touted as, "empowering GPT with Internet and Memory to Destroy Humanity". While ChaosGPT has yet to work out how to really destroy mankind, but, by its autonomous nature, it will keep going until it achieves the goal it is given. And with each iteration of technological advancement, one can be sure that ChaosGPT will also get better.

Surely, OpenAI could not have invented ChatGPT to destroy ourselves. Even if there was a tinge of hesitation back then, it is now too late to pull back, because the launch of ChatGPT triggered a frenzy amongst tech giants like Google and Baidu rushing to release their own versions of generative AI. When technology confers power, an arm's race begins.

Some questions arising from this are: while people are still struggling, in trying their best to keep up digitally, would we have inadvertently moved the goal post so much that we widened the gap between the digital know and know-nots? And between those who have access to powerful technology and those who have not. What happens if enterprises increasingly feel that "it's okay" to ignore ethics, to be irresponsible and just do whatever to make money? What happens if fakes get proliferated and it becomes too difficult to discern what is real and what is not?

Given enough time, nothing is impossible with technology. But we, as humans, must collectively exercise the will to draw a line in the sand and be clear about what technology must never replace or do. In this case, Governments around the world have a duty to draw that line, coordinate legislation and enforce it. We must embrace technology to better lives, but we must master it and not be mastered by it.

Third, on foreign investments and talents in Singapore – value-adding beyond the money. We should continue to welcome high quality and committed foreign talents and enterprises to Singapore, to supplement our Singaporean Core.

The Global Investor Programme has been one way of welcoming investments to Singapore, bringing along invaluable industrial capabilities and availing job opportunities to Singaporeans.

But we want them to do more than just putting money here. We should make it an explicit requirement for them to contribute socially and to integrate more. For example, require the GIP applicants and Tech Pass holders to commit to: (a) delivering lectures to tertiary students or civil servants every year to enhance frontier industry knowledge; (b) mentoring local start-ups; and (c) adopting a community or charitable programme.

By explicitly requiring them to take part in these activities, we create opportunities for meaningful interactions and thereby, breaking down pre-conceived opinions and promote better mutual understanding. Having chosen Singapore as a destination, I am sure these distinguished business leaders will be happy to support good causes here.

Fourth, on meaningful ageing so that every day is worth looking forward to. Over the years, Singapore has done tremendous work to create the conditions for our seniors to age in place. Looking ahead, we must continue to pay special attention to our seniors. As family sizes shrink, we can expect more seniors living alone for longer. Hence, we must work to keep them socialised and keep them healthy, even as we continue to emphasise family values and prioritising family support. Our policies and programmes will also have to be designed with future seniors in mind.

In my opinion, learning is a great way to stimulate minds and build confidence. In embracing lifelong learning, we could introduce scholarships for seniors to pursue tertiary diplomas or degrees and celebrate these mature graduands, so that the scholarships are not just limited to youths or young people, but to our mature Singaporeans as well. Is it not exhilarating to defy age stereotypes and know that "I still got it"?

In essence, seniors should not be "waiting to die". This would reflect a certain grief over losing mental and physical capacities. We must work hard to deliver a different, better future for our seniors. Ageing need not be a countdown to life. Entering the silver years can be a new beginning – where there is life, people, new dreams and new adventures worth looking forward to every day.

Madam, often when we debate about income gaps and the way forward for Singapore, questions on whether economic growth should be a priority will inevitably arise. I believe that we should not be obsessed with economic competition or figures, but we must also not despise growth and progress. Because of our economic achievements, even the most vulnerable member in our society can access world-class education and healthcare, supported by bursaries and the 3Ms – namely MediSave, MediShield LIFE and MediFund. And because we have a strong reserve, we have the fiscal capability to surmount the pandemic and the quiet confidence to face the unknown.

Hence, we must excel in whatever we do, but for those who have moved further ahead, remember to look out for and help others who are still struggling. This is the more tempered and more compassionate meritocracy that we desire. We should aim for everyone to be one mass, not stretched thin and far apart and move ahead together. I think this is more powerful as an engine for Singapore.

Finally, we as Parliamentarians, have an important duty and role to play in building a united Singapore. We are the voice of Singaporeans. During debates, we must allow diversity of voices so that issues can be considered comprehensively. But we must do so with the aim of illuminating the facts, explaining the trade-offs and bringing everyone to a common ground, not to drive wedges and deepen social fissures that will fracture our nation.

We only have one Singapore. What we have today was painstakingly built over a whole lifetime and more. But to destroy this, could be as short as within just one day. We must not take this for granted. And therefore, I hope, as we reopen the Parliament, as we continue to chart the way forward for Singapore, we will continue to do so with Singapore in mind and to build a stronger nation for generations to come. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

5.25 pm

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Mdm Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to respond to the President's Address.

In February, news broke that Anglo-Chinese School (Primary), or ACS Primary, would relocate to Tengah in 2030. It garnered significant attention from the media and public, the alumni and parents. Some applauded the move saying that it would bring about a more diverse student population, which is a view I wholeheartedly agree with.

You see, I am of an age in which many of my friends and colleagues are planning for the primary school admission of their children. Many of them come from very humble backgrounds, working hard to get to where they are today. They were able to do so due to our strong emphasis in meritocracy and it speaks towards the success of our education system. For those with a more comfortable financial situation, these parents will naturally seek to pass on these advantages to their children.

However, the quest to do so has turned the provision of education and learning into something akin to a competitive arms race. My child is just shy of one year old. Nonetheless, I, too, feel the pressure when my peers talk about selecting preschools, whether to choose Mindchamps or Odyssey versus the preschool right under the block. Or what kind of enrichment classes should they send their child to – from Heguru to Kumon, speech and drama classes, art class, swimming class or coding class?

I hear of and know several parents who have moved to a location near a primary school of their choice, often paying a premium to do so. Some have resorted to renting houses near these schools. All very real things that parents have done to provide what is best for their children. But what about those who are not able to afford these opportunities? When pursuing the ideals of meritocracy, not everybody starts on a level playing field. Will they get left further and further behind?

This ties in with the first key priority in Mdm President's Address, which is how the Government will expand opportunities throughout life for all, regardless of individual backgrounds and circumstances. Mdm President's concern was on how we "must not allow advantages and privileges to become entrenched and persist over generations".

This is something I feel most strongly about. And this is what I will focus my speech on.

In theory, a meritocratic society means that a person earns their success through their talent and hard work. Aspirational but, in some ways, also an illusion. As illustrated, a child with a more privileged family background and financial situation may be scaffolded in ways that may allow them to achieve success more easily. Education may be a social leveller, but access to education may not be equal.

We must do our best to ensure that all children have equal access to quality education in Singapore. We have taken many bold steps in this – from removing PSLE T-scores to introducing Full SBB. We have also introduced an expanded KidSTART which seeks to provide a strong foundation for children from low-income households in Singapore by aiding their parents and caregivers in early childhood development.

However, I would like to touch on the intense competition among parents to gain a Primary 1 place for their child. The Primary 1 registration system essentially aims to address many different goals and does strive to ensure diversity in the student cohort. My concern though, is that for certain more popular schools, more privileged families may have more advantage for the different phases. For example, a family may move to a location to have an edge in terms of proximity. Parents working to make ends meet may also be unlikely to be able to spare the amount of time needed to fulfil the volunteering hours needed to qualify for Phase 2B. Alumni places in prestigious schools in affluent neighbourhoods may also contribute to the risk that certain schools may become more exclusive with a more homogenous, higher socio-economic status (SES) student population.

This is why I believe ACS Primary's move to Tengah is a forward-looking one. The move appears to have struck a chord among its alumni and has raised uncomfortable discussions on what we have to do as a society to achieve inclusivity and diversity. But, I think, it is a step in the right direction.

Can I dare hope that this move also emboldens the boards of other popular primary schools, particularly those in certain affluent neighbourhoods, to do the same?

Secondly, we need to promote a diverse range of pathways to success, valuing not just careers of knowledge and intelligence, but skills and care-based careers as well. These types of careers are equally important. At the height of the pandemic, we saw how the nation depended on the essential workers – our nurses, delivery drivers and cleaners – to carry on, even as the rest of the nation was safely sequestered at home.

However, they are often overlooked. Our society tends to value paper qualifications. An ongoing study by Assoc Prof Irene Ng of the National University of Singapore's (NUS') Social Work Department found that, those with university degrees earned more than twice those of ITE qualifications and secondary or lower education.

It is not enough to speak of an appreciation and respect for the nature of such work. To truly alleviate the dignity of such work or, in the alternative, to make such work viable for the highly capable among us to consider taking up, change must be reflected in the remuneration.

Therefore, I am heartened that Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Minister Chan reiterated that call in their speeches to make sure that the wages of skilled and care workers will be increased to reflect the mastery of their skills. In doing so, it sends a strong message to Singaporeans that skilled work is important and slowly shifts the social value placed on such work, creating a more inclusive and equitable society.

A recent article in The Straits Times had asked: how would you respond if your graduate daughter dated a plumber? Let us hope that with this, the answer will increasingly be "no problem".

Even in a highly automated world, humans are still able to offer a blend of knowledge, technical and care skills that surpass any present robot we have. As someone who works in the healthcare field, it is plain to see that robots just cannot replace the need for care and empathy from another human.

Lastly, achieving a broader, open and compassionate meritocracy in Singapore requires not only policy changes but also a fundamental mindset shift. We must recognise that every individual has something to offer and we must be willing to acknowledge and remunerate them for it. We must send a message to our youths as well, that their value does not lie in academic qualifications alone but in their other strengths as well and that when they have achieved success themselves, they too have a role to build the next generation. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I stand in support of the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

5.32 pm

The Minister of State for Education and Manpower (Ms Gan Siow Huang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I thank Members Mr Desmond Choo, Minister of State Desmond Tan, Mr Raj Thomas, Mr Patrick Tay, Ms Jessica Tan, Ms Tin Pei Ling and others, who expressed their support for lifelong learning, which is what underpins our national SkillsFuture movement. I also thank their many suggestions, on how we can make SkillsFuture more impactful and effective for Singaporeans.

Deputy Prime Minister Wong spoke on a new approach to skills yesterday, one that requires a fresh commitment to making continuous learning, upskilling and reskilling, a way of life. We will work with industry partners and training providers to offer courses to meet different training needs, encourage employers to support the development of their workers and recognise the skills the workers have acquired and, of course, support individuals to take ownership of their lifelong learning journey.

Mr Patrick Tay's analogy of a CET Toolbox is an apt one to describe the opportunities but also the challenges that adult learners face. There are three key things that are needed for the toolbox to work well.

First, the toolbox must have a wide range of tools to cater to different adult learners with very different training needs. Some require skills top-up for new tasks or roles that their jobs require. For these learners, short courses, like what Ms Tin Pei Ling suggested would suffice.

To cater to such learners, the IHLs are offering modular upgrading. SkillsFuture Singapore (SSG) has also launched SkillsFuture series courses that are short courses designed to address skills needs in high-growth emerging areas. Last year, 32,000 individuals attended SkillsFuture series courses. Others required more substantive skills reboot by pursuing a full qualification especially if they have left former education a long time ago or they are switching to a new sector or new job role.

Next, I agree with Mr Patrick Tay that people need to open the toolbox and know how to use it. With a toolbox of diverse tools, we acknowledge that navigation can be an issue for some. SSG is enhancing the MySkillsFuture portal to improve user experience and provide personalised course recommendation based on individual's careers and skills needs. We also have a team of SkillsFuture Ambassadors on the ground to provide advice to Singaporeans, who want to learn more about the courses and programmes available. We will study Mr Patrick Tay's suggestion to allow Singaporeans to use SkillsFuture Credit for career coaching services.

Third, I agree that tools must be able to get the job done. This speaks to our efforts to ensure that the courses are relevant to the industry and are of high quality; and the employers recognise the skills that their employees have acquired.

SSG has reviewed the course fee funding framework to ensure that SSG's highest tier of subsidies are channelled towards courses that deliver the strongest employment outcomes. These changes will be implemented progressively to allow our IHLs and training providers to adjust their offerings.

Employers must also play their part to recognise the skills that their workers have acquired through training, place them in appropriate jobs and remunerate them appropriately. To support employers in doing so, SSG is working with the trade associations and chambers (TACs) and professional bodies to recognise skills attained through courses or on-the-job training in selected sectors.

Moving to the subject of job security, our labour market move has posted strong growth last year. We are at full employment, with long-term unemployment at 0.7%. Our resident employment is higher now than it was pre-pandemic. However, we are mindful of the global economic uncertainties and how this may affect jobs here. At the same time, many businesses, especially SMEs, have told us about the acute shortage of labour.

The Singapore Business Federation (SBF) has asked us to allow businesses to ease foreign worker measures. Ms Janet Ang, just a while ago, also said that the shortage of labour here can cause burnout of our local workforce and limit our companies' growth opportunities.

We thank Mr Leong Mun Wai for his suggestions, many of which had been raised and debated at length in the past two years. At this year's Committee of Supply, MOM outlined the strategies and measures to help Singaporeans seize opportunities in the economy and be empowered to take on the good jobs. We will walk with Singaporeans every step of the way through new initiatives, such as Career Health and Careers Finder.

But MOM cannot do this on our own. We seek everyone's understanding that we need partnership with the industry, employers and the unions on this journey.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, let me now speak on support for parents with young children. I have met many parents in my work at MOE and, also, as an MP. Most desire to be good parents and want the best for their children. But parents may not always know what is required, as every child is unique and constantly growing up.

I will touch on the support for parents by three groups: fellow parents, employers and the community. It is important to have a strong ecosystem of support for parents to make parenting a fulfilling journey. I believe children are more likely to grow up resilient and confident if parents guide and support them well.

First, on the support for parents, by parents. Almost all MOE schools have Parent Support Groups (PSGs) today. While the main objective of PSGs is to enable partnership between the school and parents to strengthen support for our students, they have also become a source of support for parents.

Many of our PSGs are led by parent volunteers with experience in parenting and who are willing to serve as resource and peer supporters to fellow parents. Some of the parents continue to serve as PSG leaders after their children have graduated from school. I encourage parents to contribute or participate in the activities planned by the PSGs.

There is much that PSGs can learn from one another too. MOE has set up PSG Support Circles, which are communities for PSGs to come together to support fellow parents in nurturing resilient and confident children. Some of the common interest topics that they have chosen to cover, thus far, include cyber wellness, mental well-being of children and forging stronger parent-child relationships. These parent-led initiatives seek to equip fellow parents in detecting signs of distress in children, learn where they can get help from and how parents and teachers can work together to support the development of children.

An example is the "Let Us Chat" Programme, that seeks to strengthen parent capabilities in building good relationships with their children to enhance their children's mental well-being. This PSG programme has been shared with at least 30 schools. It focuses on understanding ways to build children's self-confidence, self-awareness and self-regulation, encouraging an attitude of lifelong learning instead of over-emphasis on grades and understanding the underlying causes of children's behaviour through productive parent-child conversations and relationships. Indeed, there is much more parents can achieve by learning together with fellow parents.

Next, on support by employers. For parents who are working, having a workplace with supportive bosses and colleagues can make a lot of difference. It is understandable for parents with young children to need some time off occasionally to bring their child to the doctor, look after a child who has fallen ill or simply to cheer their child on who is receiving a prize or performing in school. For employees with genuine needs, we have to find practical solutions for them to continue to meet their responsibilities at work and at home.

Over the years, the Government has progressively enhanced leave provisions for childcare, infant care, maternity leave and paternity leave. These are definitely useful and well-appreciated by parents with young children. I remember my maternity leave was eight weeks when I had my first child 20 years ago. When I had my second child, maternity leave was 12 weeks. By the time I had my third child, maternity leave was increased to 16 weeks. So, I really see, in my own personal journey, progression in Government policies supporting families.

Today, a working couple has altogether up to 22 weeks of leave in their baby's first year. From 2024 onwards, Government-Paid Paternity Leave will be doubled to four weeks and unpaid infant care leave will be increased from six days to 12 days per parent. Taken together, this means a working couple will have up to 26 weeks of leave in their child's first year. That is half a year of parental leave to bond and care for their newborn.

This is helpful for most working couples, but may not be enough for those who have not found viable childcare arrangements and those who have greater caregiving needs.

I encourage employers to create workplaces that are supportive of employees with children. Employers that value their employees' well-being could benefit from stronger talent attraction and staff retention. Employers who would like to find out more of what they can do, may refer to the Tripartite Standard on Work-Life Harmony.

The Tripartite Standard lays out a set of recommended employment practices that recognises the varying priorities of employees at different stages of their lives and also how employers can support them in managing both work responsibilities and personal aspirations. The practices in the Tripartite Standard include providing at least two enhanced leave benefits, such as extended childcare leave; and putting in place employee support schemes, such as annual family days, for employees to enjoy extra time-out with their families.

We also have the Tripartite Standard on flexible work arrangements (FWAs), which sets out best practices for employers to provide FWAs, be it flexi-place, flexi-time or flexi-workload. More companies are offering flexible work arrangements now than before the COVID-19 pandemic. This allows parents to better manage their work and family responsibilities concurrently.

To entrench flexible work arrangements, MOM and the tripartite partners will introduce a set of Tripartite Guidelines by 2024. The Guidelines will require employers to consider requests for flexible work arrangements fairly and properly.

While employers have the prerogative to accept or reject a FWA request, they must have valid reasons for their decision. At the same time, employees should be reasonable in their requests and use FWAs responsibly. Some FWAs may have resource implications for the company, which employers understandably need to consider when assessing the request.

For FWAs to work for both employers and employees, adjustments may also have to be made to businesses and HR practices, possibly also to the way work is configured, to allow for the flexibilities.

I would like to encourage employers to press on with efforts to make FWAs a reality for their employees, where they can. In turn, I am confident that employers will reap the benefits of a more engaged and motivated workforce. This is a win-win outcome for everyone.

Ultimately, successful implementation of FWAs requires trust between employer and employees as well as among colleagues at the workplace. Besides an understanding boss, a supportive workplace culture is important to enable working parents to achieve better work-life harmony.

Finally, the community can make a difference in supporting parents. This is especially helpful for vulnerable segments in our community. Community initiatives, such as mental well-being circles, mentorships, free tuition, grocery distributions and respite for caregivers, are just some of the many examples of how the community can chip in to help families in need.

Many of these initiatives are led by non-government organisations (NGOs) and grassroots volunteers. We should encourage more of these ground-up initiatives and coordinate their efforts to achieve the best possible outcomes for the families being supported.

The year 2022 was the Year of SG Families. We want to build a Singapore that is made for families. My wish is that Singapore will be one of the best places to raise children.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about the refreshed social compact of collective responsibility, where we need to be less about "me" and more about "we". It is about what each of us can do to support fellow Singaporeans.

The Government will continue to find ways to support families. We will do our best to build a more caring and inclusive society with affordable housing, healthcare, childcare and education to cater to the different needs.

To help defray the cost of raising children, we have also enhanced the Baby Bonus Cash Gift, Child Development Account First Step and Baby Support Grant for eligible Singaporean children.

But these steps alone may not be enough.

As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. Some families are blessed to have the help of grandparents and extended family in taking care of children at home while the parents are at work. Some families have alternative childcare support from domestic helpers, friendly neighbours and childcare centres in the neighbourhood.

Not everyone is so lucky. Fellow parents, employers, colleagues and the community can play a part as well to make parenting a more joyful and fulfilling journey for all. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

5.48 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I join my Parliamentary colleagues in this Motion of thanks to the President for her Address.

Indeed, I agree with Mdm President that Singapore is one of the few countries in the world where trust between the Government and the people had strengthened after emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic. The events of the last three years highlight the important role Government leadership plays in unifying people and providing a clear direction forward for a nation to work towards.

Not only must leaders be competent, they must also demonstrate in the things they do and say that they have the nation's and the people's best interests at heart. Only by working together can the people and the Government overcome the challenges in their path.

Leaders need to understand the big picture, balancing sometimes conflicting interests and ensuring that the pursuit of short-term goals do not compromise our long-term prospects.

The Government has implemented sound policies and measures but, sometimes, those who need help fall through the cracks for all kinds of reasons and we need to identify local community leaders and helping hands, including those in the private sector, who can close the gap in the last mile of assistance delivery. Madam, in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Leaders need to understand the big picture and balance sometimes conflicting interests to ensure that the pursuit of short-term goals do not compromise our long-term prospects.

The Government has implemented quite comprehensive policies and measures, but under certain circumstances, those who need help may not receive assistance for all kinds of reasons. We need to identify suitable community leaders, volunteers or private sector helping hands to close the gap in the last mile to ensure that they receive assistance.

(In English): One example I know of was that of a family in distress. The head of this family was the eldest of a group of siblings. The family lives in my constituency.

The eldest daughter was trying very hard to be independent and cope on her own, while tapping on various assistance schemes. A staff at an organisation providing help was able to earn her trust and managed to persuade her to accept certain changes in the care arrangements for her siblings. Without this particular staff, in spite of the many available assistance schemes, the family would not be able to benefit from them.

The ability to plug the gap in the last mile can determine the success or failure of our measures. Very often, the person to bridge the gap is a neighbour or a volunteer who is not as constrained by the rules and regulations of the system and can thus take certain steps to close the loop. We certainly need to nurture and strengthen our social and neighbourhood connectedness to enable the desired mutual help to happen.

Of course, the essential ingredient here is trust. Government leaders have to earn the trust of our people so that in times of emergency and crisis, people will trust that they are doing the right thing for the good of the community and country.

Leaders also have to be very mindful of how they act and what they say. The impact of even very simple gestures and words can be significant on the lives of the people they interact with.

If I may share another example. President Halimah graced the opening ceremony of the Dyslexia Association of Singapore Henderson Learning Centre in March last year. She spoke with a student, Ardyani.

Ardyani's education therapist, Ms Miranda, had shared with the centre manager, Mr Bala, that since then, she had noticed that Ardyani has become a little bit more cheerful and confident, participating a little more during lessons and also talking a little bit more to her classmates. Ardyani's mother also noticed that her daughter is less shy in engaging others.

Ardyani herself shared that she felt very much encouraged by the President's kind words and gestures during their interaction. Leaders should realise that the impact of such small gestures in inspiring others, be it to encourage someone or to provide some form of support, can really go a long way.

There are many leaders amongst us – be it in the Government, private sector, social service sector or among community leaders. I certainly hope and urge all of our leaders to continue to stay close to the ground and to our people, reaching out, touching lives and building more trust day by day. I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Yip Hon Weng.

5.55 pm

Mr Yip Hon Weng (Yio Chu Kang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Mdm President for sharing her views on the Government's plans and priorities for the remaining term of the Government.

Today, I will focus my speech on the topic of ageing, specifically, the concept of productive longevity.

We have made significant progress to support successful ageing in Singapore in the preceding half term of the Government. We raised the retirement age to help seniors stay active and engaged in society. Our Central Provident Fund (CPF) schemes were updated to better cater to the changing needs of the ageing population. We have strengthened our healthcare system through Healthier SG by focusing on preventive care. We are also scaling up healthcare and long-term care facilities in the community to better support our seniors.

But there is still much more to be done. Being a country with one of the highest life expectancies in the world, but also one having the lowest birth rates, we face a double whammy. We must address the reality that every household in Singapore will eventually have a senior member.

It is projected that by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above. This ratio is expected to increase further.

This rapid expansion of our ageing population means that the productive engagement of our seniors is no longer optional. It will be an absolute necessity. We must encourage our seniors to engage in gainful activities that will not only benefit themselves, but also their families, communities and society as a whole.

I will speak on three general areas – work, contribution and care for others – three areas which I believe are critical elements for productive longevity.

First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, work. Steve Jobs once said, "Your work is going to fill a large part of your life and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do." Wise words, indeed. We can continue loving what we do even as we grow old. We must, thereby, support our seniors to work longer – for those who want to, are healthy enough and still have the passion to do so.

The relevant initiatives in this year's Budget are a step in the right direction. It is heartening to note that our senior employability rate is healthy, compared to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Correspondingly, we should focus on creating quality jobs for our seniors. This enables them to utilise their depth of knowledge and experience obtained over a lifetime.

The health benefits associated with ongoing mental engagement are numerous. Moreover, mentoring and job-sharing allow seniors to pass on their skills to younger and less experienced employees.

That said, it is important to recognise that many older workers desire part-time work with flexible options which allow them to spend time on leisure and with their families. I fully support the call for more flexible work options for seniors, as previously emphasised in my Committee of Supply speech.

There are several ways that we can implement these options, such as sabbatical leave, job-sharing, micro jobs and phased retirement.

These concepts are relatively new to our workforce. As such, there may be resistance and scepticism from employers. The Government should take the lead and show how they can be implemented with minimal disruption while still reaping the benefits.

I urge the Government to take more proactive measures to introduce and incorporate these concepts into more places of employment.

Second, Mdm Deputy Speaker, is the concept of giving. We must actively encourage our seniors to volunteer and share their skills with others. Silver years can be a time for renewal where individuals can explore new passions and interests, engage in meaningful activities and continue to contribute back to society. The numerous benefits of volunteering for seniors include better self-rated health, higher life satisfaction and prevention of cognitive decline over time.

Organisations like RSVP Singapore are excellent partners in growing senior volunteerism. However, we should assess our current volunteerism framework and determine how we can increase volunteerism rates.

How do we compare globally with other countries on this front? Are there specific targets that we have set ourselves in this area? Besides, it would also be helpful to consider other demographic factors, such as income level, gender, race and religion, to ensure that volunteering opportunities are inclusive and varied.

Third, Mdm Deputy Speaker, we should enable care. Care for seniors and recognising caregivers' contributions. This includes providing informal caregivers with more support and professionalising caregiving as a career to meet the rising demand for caregiving needs. The role of a caregiver is a challenging one that requires significant physical and emotional effort.

With our demographic shifts, we are also now seeing a greater number of seniors caring for other seniors. In my Yio Chu Kang estate, I have a 70-plus-year-old daughter caring for a 90-plus-year-old mother. This is becoming a regular scenario. Regrettably, we often see the bulk of caregiving responsibilities being shouldered by a single individual – typically a wife, mother or daughter.

There remains a significant gender disparity in caregiving, with women assuming a disproportionate amount of the workload. Can we take steps to encourage men to participate more in caregiving? Achieving this will require us to challenge the societal norms and gendered attitudes that place greater emphasis on men building careers and less on caregiving responsibilities.

It is essential to enhance caregiver training. This is to ensure that caregivers have the necessary skills to look after their loved ones competently. There are currently over 40 training providers offering more than 200 Caregivers Training Grant-approved courses. Nonetheless, it is pertinent to evaluate the effectiveness of these programmes. What is the current take-up rate and how beneficial do participants find these courses? Additionally, we need to increase awareness about the availability of these courses and ensure that the accessibility and scheduling meets the demand. How can the Government provide additional support in this area?

Expanding caregiver support is critical, as Singapore's population ages and more people require informal caregiving. MOH has taken steps to enhance caregiver support. Besides training, as mentioned earlier, over the years, enhancements have been made to financial support, caregiver respite services and platforms to help with care navigation. There have also been continued attempts to encourage FWAs. It is also good that we are recognising that caregivers themselves, too, need self-care to prevent burnout. Can we explore ways to improve caregiver support, such as offering additional caregiver leave?

As the demand for caregiving services continues to grow, we should recognise caregiving as a viable career choice. Professionalising caregiving may attract more people to the profession and improve the quality of care provided. Presently, caregiving is often associated with tasks like medical escorting, personal care and housekeeping.

On the contrary, caregiving extends beyond these roles. There are opportunities for specialisation and leadership, including caregiver trainers, managers, schedulers and care assessment professionals, just to name a few. To formalise these roles and provide the necessary training, we need to develop a scheme to professionalise caregiving.

As part of long-term planning, we should also consider formal education to provide a solid foundation for professional caregiving and certification. For instance, many community colleges and healthcare agencies in the US offer courses to obtain home care certification. Highly skilled caregivers have more opportunities to service clients, especially those with specific needs, such as dementia or physical challenges.

In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, with higher life expectancy, how will the "good life" look like? How can we fully embrace the opportunities that comes with living longer? I have shared in my speech that one way is to embrace productive longevity. It is to be empowered to lead our lives the way we want to – to work, contribute and care for others. To do so, we must also reframe our concept of ageing: first, it is not about when, but now. I circle back to what I said earlier in my speech – an often-quoted statistic – that by 2030, one in four Singaporeans will be aged 65 and above.

But we must remember that ageing continues, as we speak. Currently, almost one in five Singaporeans are aged 65 and above. We see it all around us. I certainly see it in my estate in Yio Chu Kang. Over the past three years, I have seen how our residents have aged. It is very visible. More seniors are moving around in the neighbourhood with wheelchairs and walking aids. More requests for aged care services. More wakes to attend.

Second, it is about opportunities, not about liabilities. Productive ageing requires a shift in our thinking from a paradigm centred on ageing as being problematic, to one which views seniors as resources – assets that can continue to contribute to society in various ways. It is about opportunities for growth and contribution, rather than casting the aged as a liability.

Finally, we need to shift from "them" to "us". Ageing affects not just our seniors. Ultimately, it is about all of us. Growing old is inevitable. We will all grow old one day. A simple shift on using more inclusive terms, such as "we" and "us", in place of "they" and "them", helps all of us to remember that we are all ageing. Personally, I sometimes do get comments from my residents that I look young. But I remind myself that the operative word is "look" and that we will all grow old one day and be forced to reckon with our own mortality. We will all need to come to terms and embrace the experience of ageing.

Finally, we all have different versions of what is the "good life". Notwithstanding, most will agree that to leverage productive longevity, we will need to embrace our silver years – to work, to contribute and to care and by acknowledging that ageing is not about when, but now; it is about opportunities, not about liabilities; and it is not about them, but about us.

Only then, can we turn the good life into a great one.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

6.07 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. Let me begin in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): I do not think anyone would object to the fact that more support should be given to our disadvantaged groups and lower-income earners to improve their lives and incomes.

The key, though, is how we should do it more effectively and more sustainably. Just blindly subsidising people might leave them idle and run the risk of consuming the whole savings?

As the saying goes: "it is better to teach someone to fish, rather than to give him a fish."

A fish can relieve your hunger pangs in the short term, but not for too long. If you want to have fish throughout your lifetime, you must learn how to fish. That is the best policy.

(In English): "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Hence, there is a need for the Government to continue to invest heavily in education, SkillsFuture, reskill and upskill training. The Workfare Income Supplement scheme, Progressive Wage Credit Scheme and Special Employment Credit and so on and so forth are equally important. Whatever more to do or to be done, we should continue to leverage and enhance on our existing schemes.

I agree with the President that in an increasingly troubled world, we must stay united and strengthen our bond as one united people. We are not only facing an aged population; we are also facing a declining fertility rate. Our TFR hit an all-time low of 1.05 last year.

Our old-age support ratio, computed as the ratio of the working-age population – meaning those 20 to 64 years old – per person aged 65 and above, has been declining, from 10.5 in 1990 to 3.8 in 2022, last year.

However, the average education level of our population has increased over the same period and so has the average income. Hence, would the Ministry be able to advise if the current old-age support ratio is acceptable, in view of the rise in the average Singaporean's income and the continued investment in education and lifelong learning and training for Singaporeans? We may also need to consider if we should let each generation self-finance their needs in old age, for example, using their life contributions to the nation to avoid burdening our children and grandchildren.

At the same time, to survive and stay competitive, Singapore must remain open. But there is a limit to how many foreigners or new citizens any country can absorb before the sense of shared national identity is affected. We must maintain our Singaporean Core and, at the very least, prevent our TFR from declining further. I certainly hope that it is partly due to 2022 being the year of the tiger in the lunar calendar, which usually sees fewer births among the Chinese and not another indication of a shrinking future generation.

The pro-family measures announced in Budget 2023, with the Baby Support Grant extension, cash support, increased Paternity Leave and Unpaid Infant Care Leave, are, indeed, supportive of parenthood. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister's Office in the addendum to extend more help to parents caring for infants.

We, as a nation, must continue to try to do more to boost marriage and parenthood.

Firstly, the Government may need to play a bigger and more active role to bring our young men and women together. The proportion of singles in the age group below 50 years has increased and, more significantly, the increase is highest among those below age 35 – the age group which is most conducive for having children. We understand that people generally prefer to meet members of the opposite sex in so-called "natural settings", even though, for many, their networks and social circles are limited.

Nonetheless, we should review how we can improve on facilitating social interactions for our potential couples. For example, I think it would be helpful to review and get feedback on the activities and events organised by the Social Development Network (SDN). What kind of activities and events do the young find attractive and relevant in today's context? For example, do the participants get to learn or experience something meaningful, even if they do not meet someone special?

If that is the case, SDN will be able to attract more participants, enlarging the pool and increasing the chances that singles will meet other interesting singles there, as SDN should also be able to offer a value-add which is to provide the assurance that all participants are screened and they are who they claim to be.

The Ministry of National Development (MND) is making the effort to ramp up BTOs for all applicants, especially for first-timer families. We welcome the good news. It has many supportive policies which I commend, but I would like to make a request for future flats to be built bigger, like the older flats built in the 1980s and 1990s. A sense of greater available space is more encouraging for families to have a second or third child.

From our experience from COVID-19, there is a need to review to expand the programme to build early, before the sale of the BTO flats, with shorter waiting time of 12 to 18 months.

Many families with young children depend on migrant domestic workers (MDWs) and nannies to help out with caregiving. However, the standards of their service can vary widely. Is there any way for MOM to set up a training, assessment and accreditation scheme, which parents can use to inform them of the capabilities of the maids or nannies they are considering to hire?

There is a shortage of infant care, childcare and kindergarten teachers or centres in certain areas. For parents, it is important for their children to be enrolled in centres near their homes to minimise travelling for the kids. Will the Government look into the distribution of these centres and staff, how to attract teachers into these sectors and minimise the attrition rate?

Next, I would like to move on to request for a review of measures to manage our national income gap. We have to continue our effort to minimise the social divide in our society. Values which divide high- and low-income groups should be discouraged and harmonious social integration needs to be strengthened.

This also applies to the workplace. There is a need for employers to establish policies to nurture a harmonious and caring work culture in our workplaces. A good leader in the company is not only measured by tangible results. He must be able to motivate all his team members with different capabilities and abilities to work hand in hand and care for one another as a team.

We are a competitive society, but we must learn to embrace compassionate meritocracy, especially since we need to have more of the young in our workforce to support the aged.

Last but not least, I would like to appeal for more assistance for the middle-income group who are burdened by inflation and rising costs and yet are not qualified for most of the assistance schemes, which are targeted at lower-income groups. I would like to conclude with my support for the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Ms Foo Mee Har.

6.16 pm

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank our President for her Address.

I support the determination of our Government to refresh our social compact and broaden meritocracy. Our efforts to build an egalitarian society where everyone will be treated equally with dignity and respect must continue. At the same time, we must reaffirm Singapore as an open society, expand our economic space and stay connected to global growth opportunities for Singapore to stay relevant and provide a bright future for Singaporeans.

It is against this backdrop that I would like to speak about family offices in their role in contributing to Singapore's development. I declare my interest as the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Wealth Management Institute (WMI). WMI is the host of the Global-Asia Family Office Circle, a network platform that provides a trusted environment for the family office ecosystem to convene as a community to learn about best practices in family office governance, as well as opportunities in Singapore and Asia in areas, such as innovation, sustainability, co-investments and philanthropy.

The number of wealthy individuals and family offices in Singapore continues to grow, which is a testament to Singapore's strength as a hub wealth and asset management.

There has been much interest about the arrival of family offices in Singapore recently. From my experience, they come from a diverse range of countries from around the world, including Greater China, South Asia, ASEAN, the Middle East, US and Europe.

Many of them represent some of the most successful entrepreneurs and business owners across the globe, including notable investors, leaders in renewable energy, pioneers of world-changing technology platforms and leaders of Asia's largest family businesses.

These families do not just bring capital but also knowledge, networks, skills and talents as well. These are assets we can channel to support new innovation and enterprise, allowing businesses based in Singapore to benefit from mutual technological innovation and talent transfers.

Some of these families also bring long track record of giving generously, sometimes stretching back across multiple generations. They have built schools and hospitals, funded scientific advancements, supported conservation efforts and contributed generously to relief efforts, including disaster recovery and pandemic recovery.

Madam, these family offices are coming to Singapore for a variety of reasons. Some are seeking safety and stability, whereas others are expanding to Singapore in search of attractive investment opportunities to support growth in Asia – and Southeast Asia, especially.

We are also seeing greater involvement of the next generation of family principals who are increasingly focused on areas, such as impact investment, venture capital and alternative Investments.

Madam, family offices are typically extremely private. So, recent reports of flashy and ostentatious behaviours are restricted to a minority.

Inflows of funds are subjected to MAS' stringent rules of comprehensive client due diligence, including establishing a clear and legitimate purpose of the use of family office structure, ascertaining the ultimate beneficial owners and corroborating the sources of wealth and funds.

We should welcome this inflow of family offices because they can bring many positive long-term benefits, but more can be done to accelerate their integration and contribution; and most importantly, orientate them to Singapore's norms, values and ways of working.

Madam, the arrival of family offices in Singapore is still a relatively new concept. We have seen strong growth in a short period of time. This means that the industry is still nascent and many family offices are still in the initial stages of development.

Family offices typically go through three phases as they set up in Singapore. First, they set up the governance, then investment; and finally, philanthropy and impact.

The first stage – governance – is about establishing an effective operational base and putting in place a governance framework under which the family office will operate. Good governance requires careful consideration. How should they set up their legal and trust structures? What systems should they put in place, from financial monitoring to cybersecurity? What should their board and risk management processes be? How can they attract and hire the right talent in Singapore? Who should they appoint as their advisors? How can they meet the evolving regulations in Singapore which have been introduced to raise the bar?

As they establish themselves, family offices contribute towards job creation – both directly and indirectly. Even though family offices are typically small in team size, they have to meet requirements on hiring, annual business spending and local investments. The key impact of their set-up, in terms of job creation, will be driving the additional demand and job creation and professional services, such as wealth management, asset management, fund administration, trusts, legal, tax and consulting.

Since 2020, WMI has had over 1,500 enrolments for family office-related programmes, in testament to the strong appetite for upskilling in this area.

Madam, with the office and governance structure in place, family offices then focus on investments. Family capital is valuable because it can be a useful complement to institutional capital – it can be more flexible, agile and catalytic, often in line with the values of the family.

Investments are often the main purpose of the family office. However, before they deploy a large amount of capital or any amount of capital, family offices need to build a robust understanding of the investment landscape so that they can home in on areas of opportunity. Fundamentally, they seek good financial returns and sound business models to invest in and this often takes time to understand and evaluate the different investment options available. Also, the market environment in recent years has been challenging.

They also need to find like-minded partners for co-investments. Many family offices tell us they prefer to co-invest with other families – but only with those that they know and trust. A newly-arrived family office will need to build up these trusted networks before they can co-invest effectively.

One current gap is the lack of a systematic on-boarding process to integrate newly-arrived wealthy individuals into Singapore's enterprise and investment ecosystem, so they can become active members of our venture community. There is also a need to help them become aware of the promising research and tech innovations that we have in Singapore from our startup communities and research institutes and where they can help commercialise and scale promising new ideas.

Family offices tell us they struggle to navigate the fragmented and fast-changing landscape. They share that they need to work hard to understand who the credible players are and what the roles of different ecosystem actors are.

Newly set-up family offices need more help to connect the dots of the full spectrum of what Singapore has to offer. We need to help orientate them towards the local ecosystem and curate a systematic introduction to the different areas within the innovation community. This will help fast-track capital deployment.

Madam, the third area that family offices consider is how to contribute to impact and philanthropy initiatives, usually across a wide continuum of different ways of doing good. Many family offices actually have a stated objective to give back, in line with their family values.

But conducting effective philanthropy is a thoughtful process going beyond cheque-book giving. The inspiration is often deeply personal and tied to the values of the family. Based on these values, families will decide what their impact goals are and which causes to support, what assets they could contribute and how to leverage different giving structures. Giving structures take time to establish.

Increasingly, wealthy families want to go beyond straightforward grant-making type philanthropy. They aspire to tap their financial resources and networks in creative ways to make impact. We must evolve our charity policies to support new forms of giving, including venture philanthropy, concessionary capital to impact investing.

Madam, in my previous speech, I spoke about generations of Singaporeans having benefited from visionary philanthropists and organisations, including the likes of Tan Kah Kee, P Govindasamy Pillai and Ngee Ann Kongsi, among many others. They have contributed to important social services, public healthcare and education and cultivated a culture of giving that is central to Singapore's social compact.

Today, many among the new generation of wealth owners have a similar aspiration to contribute meaningfully to society. So, what is needed is greater effort to drive awareness and momentum to support both local and regional causes. We should also encourage sharing from family offices who are already major philanthropists, to provide aspirational examples for others.

Initiatives, such as the recent launch of the Impact Philanthropy Partnership, led by WMI and the Private Banking Industry Group with the support of MAS, will help galvanise more family offices in this area.

Madam, in conclusion, today, as Singapore continues to be an attractive destination for global wealthy individuals, our doors will always be open for those who desire and can co-create purposeful wealth with us. To preserve our social compact, it is critical that they are orientated to integrate with Singapore's social norms and have the right support and access to networks, so that they can ramp up their contributions in terms of investments and impact.

Through this, we can make the most of this unique opportunity to shape this growth towards a more inclusive society for the benefit of all. With this, I support the Motion.

Mdm Deputy Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai, would you like to adjourn the debate?