Debate on President's Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong Ye Kung.

2.45 pm

The Minister for Health (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Thank you, Speaker. This is just in case I have one paragraph left and the time runs out. I rise in support of the Motion.

Every generation needs to confront their unique challenges. For this generation, it has to grapple with climate change, geopolitical tensions and uncertainties the Prime Minister talked about yesterday, rapid technological advancements that can disrupt jobs and industries.

What about domestically? I think the biggest social transformation for this generation will be ageing, which is the topic of my speech today.

Ageing is unlike other elements of health – it is human condition which we can neither prevent nor cure. The United Nations (UN) defines a country as "ageing" if the share of its population aged 65 years or older crosses 7%. So, magic number 7% means you are ageing. It is considered "aged" if the share exceeds 14%, and once that share reaches 21%, it is considered "super-aged". That is the UN definition. So, let us look at some countries.

France took 115 years to transit from "ageing" to "aged", and it became "aged" in 1980. Sweden took 85 years and then became "aged" in 1975. The US took 69 years to become "aged" in 2013.

Singapore? We took 19 years and became "aged" in 2017. One hundred and fifteen years, 85 years, 69 years – and we, 19 years. And then the gap for Singapore between "aged" and "super-aged" is estimated at only nine years, which means we will attain "super-aged" status in 2026.

Today, we are one of the fastest ageing countries in the world. We are not alone. Many countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Germany and UK are already where we will be in 2030. The impact of being a "super-aged" society is profound. Just let me cite a few.

First, it causes population dispersion as young people gravitate to cities to seek better jobs and opportunities, leaving rural areas old and depopulated.

This is happening in Japan. It is projected that by 2040, close to 900 municipalities, which is nearly half of Japan's total, could disappear. To counter this demographic polarisation, Japan is taking some aggressive measures. They are giving cash incentives to young people to say, "Move out of the cities, come back to the rural areas". They are also merging towns.

Second impact: when people get older, the way they consume, they save, they learn and the way they work change. And this has significant economic consequences.

One immediate concern is the shrinking workforce. China has confronted this issue for some years already, but it came to further prominence when China reported a fall in their population by 850,000 in 2022. So, that is the first time China's population shrank in the last 60 years.

Notwithstanding, with a large population, China is in no danger of running out of workers. It still has eight million or more graduates every year. But the demographic shift has probably prompted China to rethink its economic development path, away from growth in labour intensive, export-driven industries, to higher quality, higher productivity activities.

Third, ageing has cast a big question mark over the sustainability of social welfare systems. Many pension systems around the world are becoming no longer viable. Because there are more and more older people drawing from the central pension pool, and fewer and fewer young people contributing into it.

France has projected a pension system deficit of 10 billion Euros a year. The country has enacted new laws only recently to raise its official retirement age, and hence also its pension age, from 62 to 64 – just two years. But that alone has led to massive public protests.

Finally, ageing is driving the ballooning of healthcare spending, especially in OECD countries. The UK National Health Service is facing a crushing patient load. It is described as facing the "scissors of doom": one blade represents patient load and disease prevalence and that is going up; the other blade represents resources and manpower and that is going down.

In Singapore, we have been thinking about the problem of ageing for a long time. We first started thinking about changes to the retirement and CPF system with the Howe Yoon Chong Committee 40 years ago. The Government set up the Committee on Ageing Issues almost 20 years ago and formalised it into the Ministerial Committee on Ageing in 2007. So far, the Ministerial Committee has coordinated and launched two comprehensive action plans. If you are wondering, the Minister for Health is the Minister-in-charge of the Ministerial Committee.

Because of this strong foundation, we are in a position to cushion the impact of ageing and perhaps even reap dividends from it. Sir, today, I will speak on how we are preparing for an ageing society.

If we continue pressing on along this journey we started, we will have a bright, dynamic, vibrant and happy future. While Singapore will inexorably become a "super-aged" country, it can also remain a superb country.

My speech will cover five key areas of impact. Together, they are the enablers for Singaporeans to live a meaningful and happy life, whatever their age.

Let me start with the first area which is in urban development. We fortunately do not face the challenge of population dispersion like Japan. We do not have many rural areas – the furthest is Lim Chu Kang, maybe.

We also have a significant advantage in that 80% of our population live in public housing and HDB can play an active central planning and development role in ensuring inclusive communities.

A few years ago, Senior Parliamentary Secretary Eric Chua hosted me for a constituency visit to Queenstown. It is one of our oldest towns, with more than 20% of its population aged 65 and older. So, Queenstown at that time is almost a "super-aged" town – 1%-point short.

But Queenstown is like a time machine that gives us a glimpse of what the future will look like in every town in Singapore. By 2030, most towns in Singapore will be like Queenstown, in terms of the residents' age profile.

Last week, I made another visit to Queenstown. I can see that the place is transforming. It is now labelled a Health District, an initiative that I launched with Minister Desmond Lee some time ago. As a Health District, many agencies came together to implement various initiatives to improve the health and well-being of Queenstown residents. This includes integrated planning, evidence-based design of the living space, and then many community initiatives, including physical activities, befriending programmes and healthcare services, to support seniors.

What left the deepest impression on me was HDB's effort in planning ahead. To ensure inter-generational mixing, HDB is redeveloping the old areas, launching new BTO projects to inject a younger population into the town.

A BTO project now occupies what used to be the former Queenstown town centre. Stallholders from the former Commonwealth Drive Food Centre have moved into a new two-storey Margaret Drive hawker centre located in the development. I was told that the chicken rice stall is still there; it is preserved.

Another BTO project integrates a block of Community Care Apartments for Seniors and is strategically located next to the soon-to-be redeveloped Alexandra Hospital.

As we redevelop and rejuvenate older towns, we continue to encourage inter-generational mixing in younger towns, such as Sembawang – my constituency.

HDB has incorporated a range of flat types, including studio and 2-room Flexi apartments, into new BTO developments in places like Sembawang, and they cater to singles and seniors, and as a result, we have a more inclusive town.

We have the Proximity Housing Grant, priority schemes for parents and children to live with or near each other, and larger 3-Gen flats which further encourage inter-generational mixing in all our housing estates.

These are changes at the town level. At the neighbourhood level, the physical environment is becoming more friendly and liveable to all ages, all over Singapore. Wherever possible, Active Ageing Centres, three-generational playgrounds and childcare centres are located side by side. Such facilities are a mainstay now in HDB estates.

There are visibly more congregation and rest points, exercise parks, lifts at pedestrian overhead bridges to allow barrier-free access and roads redesigned to slow down traffic through implementation of more Green Man+ and Silver Zones. When I was growing up, living in HDB estates, I could see the traffic circles disappearing, replaced by traffic lights junctions because they are more efficient in carrying heavier traffic. Now, at this age, I am seeing the junctions being replaced by traffic circles again in order to slow down traffic, to cater to a more senior population.

At the flat level, HDB has selected more than 300,000 flats built up to 1986, for the Home Improvement Programme (HIP). It has been a massive effort and HDB is now moving on to select newer flats built in the following 10 years. HDB has also announced earlier this month that the Enhancement for Active Seniors (EASE) programme will be expanded to include more features, such as customised ramps and wheelchair lifters.

So, you can see that our living environment is bending its form to suit today's society's shape. All these are deliberate efforts to help us prepare for an older society.

The second area is that we need to adapt our economy to an ageing population. The most imminent impact is on the labour force. The growth rate of our resident labour force has already slowed down. Between 2002 and 2012, it grew by 30%; but in the next decade, it only grew by 15%.

But the fact is that we still managed to continue to grow the workforce, despite the onset of ageing in the past two decades. This is due to a few reasons.

One, more Singaporeans are able to stay economically active for longer. The labour force participation rate for resident seniors aged 65 and above has almost tripled over the last two decades, and it is about 32% now. We should continue to support the aspirations of older workers to continue working and contributing.

We have also been gradually raising the retirement and re-employment ages, from 60 and 65 in the past, to now 63 and 68. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) aims to raise them to 65 and 70 by 2030.

I think it is worth noting here that raising our retirement and re-employment ages does not affect the retirement savings that people have built up in their CPF accounts, and it is unlike in France and many other developed Western countries.

Hence, the main impact of raising these ages is that workers are protected from being dismissed due to their age by their employers. Workers can choose to retire early should they want to. Hence, raising the retirement age in Singapore is an unmitigated good to workers.

Employers must certainly do their part, for instance, through job redesign and reskilling, and learn to benefit from tapping the silver workforce.

Two, and equally important is female participation in the labour force. With universal education and greater opportunities, labour force participation rate for women increased from about 51% to 63% over the last 20 years.

This House debated the White Paper on Women's Development last year. Our work to ensure equal opportunities between men and women must continue, so that our wives and daughters can fulfil their full potential.

The Workforce Singapore has launched the herCareer initiative to support women to come back to work. By 2024, we will give this a further push by introducing the Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements.

Three, we complemented our local workforce with foreign workforce. The quality of the Singapore workforce is world-class, but there are just not enough Singaporeans. So, in many labour-intensive industries, we will continue to need foreign manpower. Some of these, like construction, are sectors which locals are less likely to join. Others, like healthcare, need more manpower to take care of more seniors. We will need more foreign manpower to complement the local core, which will remain the majority.

For Employment Passes, MOM will continue to calibrate its policies, to bolster our local talent pool with an international pool. The Complementarity Assessment Framework (COMPASS) evaluation system is more sophisticated, sensitive to both economic needs and the social impact of foreign manpower.

Four, our economy will continue to upgrade and evolve, to rely more on brain than brawn, to enable machines, computers and AI to augment the ability of the human worker and indeed, drive growth through productivity improvements.

That is why we are driving research and development through the National Research Foundation, implementing Industry Transformation Maps (ITMs) and growing high technology and high value sectors, such as biomedical, financial services and information technology (IT).

Governments around the world have two common manpower worries. We are concerned that technology will replace human workers and then, if that happens and on a large scale, there will be too many workers and too few jobs.

We are also concerned about the imminent shortage of manpower due to an ageing population and so there will be too few workers and too many jobs unfilled.

So, instead of losing sleep over contradictory worries, one perhaps may be the solution for the other. The confluence of both major trends, AI and technology and ageing, can be an opportunity to elevate our economy. But education, training and a personal responsibility to evolve our attitude towards our career with age, that will be key to unlocking this potential and this possibility.

Sir, Finland has a per capita GDP of over US$53,000, lower than Singapore, but high. It is already a super-aged society, as more than 20% of its population is 65 and above. Yet, pre-COVID-19, it had been growing at around 2%-4% a year. It had produced several world-class companies. It had a vibrant startup sector.

Singapore will become older, but we can remain economically dynamic and vibrant, as long as we continue to remake our economy and prepare our people for it.

Let me move to the third major aspect in preparing for a "super-aged" society and that is, retirement adequacy.

I mentioned the pension crisis earlier. Many pension systems were designed when life expectancy was much shorter, between 50 and 70 years old. Now, with people getting older and fertility rate falling, pension systems have become unsustainable. Some governments have had to borrow to plug the funding gap. The accumulated national debt is then passed to the next generation to shoulder.

In Singapore, we are fortunate to have the Central Provident Fund (CPF) system. For many Western developed countries, the starting point is "defined benefits". This means there is a national pension pot. Everyone pays into the same big pot while you are working and after retirement, every retiree dips into the pot to draw their defined pension benefits.

The starting point of our CPF system is "defined contribution", where workers save up in their personal accounts, employers and the Government contribute into the accounts too, and workers draw down from their own personal accounts when they retire, until the funds run out. With the CPF system, we avoided the major problems faced by pension systems around the world.

The CPF system, however, is not without its challenges. One challenge is that life expectancy differs from person to person. So, those who live longer may see their CPF savings run out before they pass on.

Hence, in 2009, we introduced the CPF LIFE scheme. Singaporeans turning 65 in 2023 who meet a stipulated level of savings in their CPF accounts are automatically enrolled in CPF LIFE. When they retire, CPF LIFE uses risk pooling to provide a steady stream of monthly payouts for as long as they live.

Another challenge is that some segments of society do not save enough in their CPF accounts.

Hence, in 2007, we introduced Workfare, to top up the salaries of lower-income workers so that they can save more for retirement. In 2016, we implemented the Silver Support Scheme, which provides cash support for seniors who have accumulated less retirement savings in their working years. The scheme was further enhanced two years ago.

MOM will continue to look at ways and means to improve retirement adequacy of Singaporeans.

The fourth area is to reform the healthcare system, what I feel is probably the most important. Like pension systems, most health systems in the world are designed when life expectancy was much lower. These systems focused on hospital care, which is the most costly part of the whole healthcare ecosystem. But so long as the population is young, the system works fine.

But as life expectancy rose, so did the disease burden. The old designs start to break down. It is like you have been training very hard for a sprint and then, you realise your race is a marathon.

The situation is also like an overflowing kitchen sink. We can keep mopping and soaking up the water on the floor, but the work is endless and the effort increasingly trying. At some point, we need to figure out how to turn down the tap.

In healthcare, this means slowing down the onset of severe diseases and making people healthier. If this cannot be done, the sheer disease burden driven by ageing will overload the healthcare system. Worse, it can cripple the finances of governments.

Hence, building on the foundation established over many years, we developed Healthier SG, our preventive care strategy which we will launch in July this year.

Healthier SG delivers preventive care by building up primary care, family physicians in community and polyclinics and it becomes the foundational layer of healthcare.

But at this level, family physicians in primary care, they cannot work alone. For the minority of more serious cases, they need to escalate the care upwards, to secondary and tertiary care in our hospitals. But then, for the great majority of less serious cases or even healthy residents, they need to devolve the care downwards to community and family care.

The communities we live in, the families we hold dear to, are places that create and sustain health. Studies show that 60% of health is determined by social factors, within communities and families.

It is about having a good family environment, hygienic living conditions, nutritious food, education for children, good employment opportunities and public amenities like parks, libraries and sports facilities. And where health interventions are needed, they are more social than medical and often verge on common sense – sleep well, eat well, have rewarding relationships, exercise, do not smoke, undergo periodic health screening and vaccinations.

However, it is the common-sensical easy things that always get put off because there are no immediate consequences and therefore, they fall prey to inertia. Community support can help us overcome those inertia.

In particular, with community support, there are great opportunities for seniors to age healthily in communities. And this is the next area where big changes need to take place. Hence, beyond Healthier SG, the next major area of priority for the Ministry of Health (MOH), is to build up community care, to get us all to do what is right for our health, to support ageing in communities. I am glad that quite a number of Members has spoken about this.

It will be a continuation of Healthier SG and as a national programme as ambitious and extensive as Healthier SG.

Forward Singapore has been described as a refresh of our social compact. A social compact is usually understood as an unwritten contract between the individual and the state, the responsibility of the individual to contribute to the larger good and the obligation of the state to provide assurances and opportunities to its citizens.

So, under Healthier SG, how does this concept apply? The Government will provide the support and structure for individuals to take care of their own health. But then, beyond the relationship between individual and the state, the community is at the core of the healthcare social compact.

Finally, the fifth area. There is also the significant factor of good governance. Preparing for ageing, be it in the areas of urban planning, economic development, retirement adequacy or healthcare reforms, requires anticipatory policy-making, which is the hallmark of the Singapore Government.

We have made preparations for an aged society in these areas well ahead of time. We have had more than a decade of head start before the problem caught up with us.

Good governance also involves responsible stewardship. I described how the pension systems in the Western developed countries are contributing to significant national debts, which burden future generations. So, inherent in the pension crisis is the Government's inability to look after both the current and future generations of their people.

We consciously avoided those problems and, in fact, have built up a national nest-egg in our reserves. We are drawing income from it and want our future generations to continue to benefit from it.

Sir, since we are on the topic of governance, let me respond to the points made by Mr Leong Mun Wai – but he is not here today but Ms Hazel Poa is here – and also Mr Leon Perera on Tuesday.

Mr Leong Mun Wai alleged that the Progressive Singapore Party (PSP)'s concerns and questions were often dismissed by the People's Action Party (PAP) Government and there were occasions where the PSP was painted as, I quote, "xenophobic, nativist and racist".

The Government has always acknowledged the concerns raised by various Members of the House, including by the PSP Members. This includes Singaporeans' anxieties about jobs and competition in a globalised and fast-changing economy, affordability and accessibility of HDB flats and so on. We have always acknowledged those problems. And it is raised by all Members of the House, regardless of their party. And we are working hard to adjust policies and make deliberate efforts to address these issues.

But I hope Mr Leong Mun Wai will also acknowledge the serious concern we have in the way he raises and debates issues. I was personally involved in a couple of these issues.

This House would recall that we had a debate on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with India. That was July 2021. Running up to the debate, there was much demonising of CECA, that it allowed unfettered entry of Indian nationals into Singapore. The discourse took on a worrying racial undertone.

As a former FTA negotiator, I asked to deliver a Ministerial Statement in this House. And that was July 2021.

I acknowledged the concern amongst Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods. I explained to the House how an FTA works – in particular, the chapter on movement of natural persons – and how CECA preserves our right to immigration policies and setting work pass conditions for foreign nationals who want to work in Singapore. I also had a fairly long exchange with Mr Leong.

But when Mr Leong filed a Motion on foreign talent policy in September 2021, two months later after the Ministerial Statement debate, he continued to refer to CECA as a cause for widespread anxiety among Singaporeans on jobs and livelihoods and did little to reduce the raw emotions and misimpressions on CECA that had been stoked.

It was as if my Ministerial Statement and explanation in July 2021 did not take place. I recall during that Motion debate, he eventually conceded that some people would think that his statements on CECA had racial undertones, against the Indian community.

In January 2022, Mr Leong made an allegation that teachers in Ministry of Education (MOE) were treating vaccinated and non-vaccinated students differently. I was Multi-Ministry Taskforce (MTF) chair and I got quite worried whether our vaccine-differentiated safe-management measures (SMMs) had somehow inadvertently been imposed on young children.

Because this was a serious allegation, Minister Chan Chun Sing stood up and asked for details. Mr Leong then clarified that his information source was a Telegram chat and there were no details.

All of us, including Mr Leong and the Progress Singapore Party (PSP), and everyone in the House, we know that race issues can be played up, especially in multi-racial Singapore.

We can debate, we can spar, but we should not pit one group against another, over and over again, always looking to tear at the seams of our society and if we keep doing that, it will sow disunity and divide our society. In multi-racial, diverse Singapore, our harmony is hard earned. Let us not take it for granted. In fact, let us be very careful to preserve it.

Mr Leon Perera had asserted that the Government tries to push a single "dominant narrative", without regard to the alternatives raised by the Workers' Party (WP).

I think it cannot be true. If not, we would not be having such extensive debates on so many issues in this House and hearing out each other.

Further, every political party will have its own dominant narrative based on its manifesto, based on its values. PAP has it. WP has it. It is part and parcel of political contestation.

Many Members, including WP Members of Parliament, have raised many ideas in this House. You have. We welcome them and where appropriate, we take those ideas in while formulating or reviewing our policies. And where we have a different view, we will explain why.

I would say that many of the ideas raised in the House, including by the WP, are not fundamentally at odds with existing policies. They build upon the policies that we already have and make them better, cover more areas.

Sometimes they are shades of the same policy and we need not exaggerate their differences.

In the case of preventive healthcare or carbon tax, WP's proposals are actually similar to the Government's policies.

Very often, WP, as Opposition, wants more of what is already being done. Whatever the Government proposes, ask for more. So, here is one difference between our two Parties. I do not think it is a major one and it is again part and parcel of political contestation.

But a fundamental difference arises when it comes to WP's ideas for the Budget. Why is that so?

Because to do more, one has to spend more, and one has to say where the money is coming from. However, the WP never supported the Goods and Services Tax (GST) system. So, an alternate budget without the GST simply cannot work and is not a viable alternative. The sums just do not add up. You cannot give up a major source of revenue and yet want to spend more in so many areas.

I am new to this subject. I may have misunderstood WP's position. Perhaps, it has changed its long-held position and now accepts that GST is needed, but merely objects to the increase from 7% to 9%.

Then to make up for the loss of two percentage point of GST revenue, the WP has proposed, amongst other things, changes to the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula. So, instead of drawing half of NIRC for Government spending, WP proposes to draw a higher amount or a higher percentage at 60%.

The PAP Government will not agree to it and this is a fundamental difference too because it has to do with our beliefs and our values.

We debated this issue in the Budget Debate last year and Deputy Prime Minister Wong had explained the Government's position. Let me try to explain again but now using a little bit of my own words.

Our view is that the reserves belong to all generations of Singaporeans, current and future, even though they are not born, they cannot vote and their voices have yet to be heard. As responsible stewards, we will nevertheless safeguard their welfare and interests.

To achieve this, the current formula is deliberately designed to divide the NIRC equally – half for current generation to spend and the other half adds to the savings for the future. The half-half apportionment is a formula that is simple, is fair, and I think, is wise.

It is very tempting, even seductive, to say let us shift half-half to 60-40. But we debated and enshrined the fiscal rules in our Constitution not that long ago. We should not at the first sign of need, push for changes in the rules, just to take the easy way out. We should hold on to the equal apportionment principle for as long as possible. This is good stewardship and it is the PAP's position and that is why there is a fundamental difference here.

Sir, I mentioned earlier that ageing is the unique challenge of this generation. But previous generations had their unique challenges too, be it the plague, the industrial revolution, the World Wars, unravelling of the global monetary system, threat of nuclear holocaust, Cold War.

Specific to Singapore, this and earlier generations had to weather the threat of communism, racial riots, becoming an independent nation, severe recessions, COVID-19 and we overcame them all.

It is the overcoming and not the problems and challenges, that defines a generation.

I had earlier said that ageing is a part of the human condition. As someone who is one Zodiac cycle away from becoming an "aged", and as the Health Minister, I consider ageing a stage of life to be greeted like an old friend and certainly not a pathology.

Sir, I spoke about Finland's positive economic performance earlier, even though it is a "super-aged" society. Another interesting fact about Finland is that the World Happiness Report ranked the Finns as the happiest people in the world, six years in a row.

A recent New York Times article caught my eye, reported that the reality of the state of happiness in Finland is actually more complex. The report says the Finnish people are happy about their strong social safety net, but they also worry a lot about their security and domestic political situation.

The report went on to say this, "the happiest people in the world aren’t that happy…more like content." It went on to say that there is a way of life in Finland called "sisu", which roughly translates to "grim determination in the face of hardship" that apparently brings you happiness. You can understand how "sisu" came about, given Finland's harsh climate living conditions and a strong sense of insecurity due to a long common border with a big and historically unfriendly neighbour, Russia.

When you have such a long yet inaccurate English description struggling to translate a specific concept, you know this must be some kind of unique characteristic embedded in the DNA of a particular people and in this case the Finns. For Singapore, what is it? They have "sisu". I do not think we want to say "kiasu". [Laughter.]

But for Singapore, a small island along the equator, in the middle of Southeast Asia with a diverse population at the intersection of the world, I think we have a different trait, a quiet unity, optimism and stout heartedness that we can together, overcome all challenges.

Sir, it is ironic that the challenge of ageing came out of good things – people living longer due to medical advances and better quality of life, fertility rate coming down as aspirations changed and women get more educated.

But perhaps the state of being a "super-aged" society can ultimately and overall be a good thing too – where people live long fruitful lives; where there is health, longevity; where there is warmth and care in every community, and we look out for each other.

And perhaps one day, after we tackle the challenges of a "super-aged "society with our Singapore spirit, we can reach the stage where society treats age as nothing but a number and 65 need not be that artificial line that divides the two sides of the dependency ratio. One may be advanced in age, but still feel young and even if the body feels old, the heart remains young. Thank you, Sir. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the key to happiness is having a tea break. I propose to take a break. But unfortunately, not. Mr Leon Perera.

3.26 pm

Mr Leon Perera (Aljunied): Sorry to stand in the way of the break. I will keep it very brief. I just wanted to thank the Minister for his responses to my speech and I just have two points of clarification.

One is, I think, the Minister did refer to the fact that we have different views on the NIR ceiling, so I just like to ask Minister if he would acknowledge or agree that there is philosophic difference, but it is not a difference that we have not explained. We have, when we put out our proposals, talked about where the financing is going to come from. Assoc Prof Jamus Lim and another WP Member of Parliament have explained and put forward proposals for financing and different ideas that we put across and the Minister referred to one of them which is raising the NIR ceiling. So, would he acknowledge that, that has been done as opposed to not being done?

And would he also acknowledge, in the same vein as some of the things that he said that we do put forward concrete ideas and the PAP may disagree with some of those ideas and we can debate them and agree to disagree, but they are alternatives and I mentioned some of those alternatives that we have put forward in the past in my speech.

That is the first one and the second one is really on the point about future generations. I would ask Minister if he would agree that it is a balancing exercise because if conditions become too difficult, if liveability becomes damaged too much for the current generation, that would affect our fertility and there may be fewer people in the future generations to enjoy the benefits that the reserves and other things are meant to provide. So, would the Minister acknowledge that there is also some balancing that needs to be done on that front.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Let me address the second issue of balancing. And, of course, Deputy Prime Minister Wong is the Finance Minister, but I am expressing my view. I think the balance is best struck when it is 50-50, with equal apportionment. If I may, Speaker, there is a Hokkien song, "Jit Lang Jit Pua, Kam Qing Buay Suah" (一人一半，感情不散). If you divide things in half, you preserve the relationship, you preserve the peace. And the song did not go "Jit Lang Luck Chup Bak Xian, Jit Lang Sze Chup Bak Xian, Kam Qing Buay Suah" (一人60%，一人40%，感情不散). No, it does not say you have 60%, you have 40%, you preserve the peace. [Laughter.]

There is wisdom to half-half. There is – I do not know if Members remember when we were young – we learnt the story of the fox dividing the meat amongst two parties and the fox deliberately tear it 60-40. The one who gets the 40% of the meat protested to say the other piece is bigger. So, the fox took a bite of the 60%, he deliberately took a bigger bite and then the situation got reversed. The other one who got a smaller piece said that the other piece is bigger and so the fox kept taking bites, until in the end you have nothing left.

I remember that lesson, not because it is an interesting story – because at a formative age, that was to me a lesson in values. It was not a lesson in reducing the growth of meat consumption for the long term but it is about how we preserve peace and sometimes, 50-50 is the best and the most wise way of doing so.

That is our position. It is a matter of values, principles, for future generations that are not born, we should honour "half-half" and it is in our Constitution now. We do not want to change it too easily.

On Mr Leon Perera's first point, as I said in my speech, yes, there have been many ideas raised by the WP, as well as other Members. But on GST and the Budget, I still do not know – and this could be due to my ignorance because I am not in finance – I still do not know if the WP supports the GST system. And in your alternate budget, whether you are contemplating not having the GST system, because I do recall WP has always been against the GST system.

And if that is the case, I would say that that your alternative does not make sense. It is not a viable nor serious alternative because without that source of revenue, it is not possible to do more. But if your position is: you accept the GST system, but stay at 7%, and not go to 9%, then I think I may have a different view; and I will explain.

Mr Speaker: As I was saying, I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting —

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Sir, Speaker, I had a question and I wonder if the hon Member would like to clarify.

Mr Speaker: Alright. Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Sir, I thank the Minister for the question. So, our position, as explained in the debates relating to the GST —

The Government Whip (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mr Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt, but may I offer some advice to Mr Perera that, perhaps, he might like to speak a little bit louder so that the microphones could pick him up for the benefit of all.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, yes, I have a very soft voice. I get that from my father.

My response to the question is that if you go back to the debates in this House that we have had about the GST hike from 7% to 9% and the positions we laid out, the position that we have adopted, at least from that time, which I believe was 2018, is that we accept the reality of a GST at 7%, because the amount of revenue that is generated by a 7% GST is so substantial and has become such a structural part of the Government revenue mix, that to want to bring that down to zero would involve too many other trade-offs.

So, we do accept that the GST at 7% is something that we do not oppose, but we oppose the hike to 8% and 9%.

That was the position that we have conveyed and debated in this House from those debates from 2018. I was there as well until the current time. But I think some of our Members may also expand on this subsequently.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for that clarification. So, the difference between us is the 2%-points in GST and how you make up for it. In your proposal, amongst other things, it is to shift the NIRC – which, as we explained, I think we have a fundamental disagreement on that.

But may I say this, Speaker, that we can debate the issues, we can point out where are the shades of differences, where are the areas where the PAP Government says, "we do this" and the WP Opposition says, "let us do a bit more"; and where are the areas with fundamental differences.

In the end, for this whole system to work, for this House to be a constructive Chamber for debate, for us to serve the people well, we have also to decide between us, that we have to uphold good politics.

What is it that the people really want? What is it that Singaporeans really want?

From the ruling party's point of view, we say "Singapore is a vulnerable small place, we will have significant challenges. We need a strong, competent Government – clean, with integrity and able to deliver the goods; and we will have checks and balances, but we need the agility and the strength, in order to serve Singapore well.

For the Opposition in WP, you will tell the people, "You need a checker against the ruling party. You need a co-driver. There has to be checks. There should be checks and balances."

What is best for Singaporeans? I say the answer to many Singaporeans is probably both. They want a strong, competent Government, but they also believe that power cannot be absolute. There should be checks and balances.

And so, it is our duty, if we want to serve the people well, to make sure we have good politics between us. What does that mean?

If I may just offer my view – for the ruling party, it means being able to recruit good people, with strong integrity, strong Government, competent. In particular, we need to be able to listen to people more, empathise, understand pain points and be able to address them. And where we have to implement policies that are not so popular, that will even cause a bit of pain, but for the long-term good of the people, we need to explain sincerely, honestly, why we need to do this. We need to put in place institutions, systems, checks and balances within our system; it is part and parcel of institution building.

Then, for the Opposition, the main thing you need to do is to present alternatives, so that people have a basis of decision, have a basis to compare. And, in doing so, first, you got to do homework, put forward proposals that are credible. There is so much data out there, there should be no excuses that there is not enough data. In any case, if you need specific data, you can always submit a written question to ask for specific data.

And then, when there are sensitive issues, like section 377A, take a stand and not hedge. Because it is important to take a clear stand, so that the people have a measure of what the party truly stands for.

Third, when it comes to alternate proposals, take principled, consistent approaches, have consistent considerations. It cannot be that in 2015, you proposed zero population growth for foreigners; and then, when there are not enough workers – now what? It cannot be that in 2019, the housing paper said cut back and do not build too many houses, but now that we are short, you say build more and the contexts are different. So, you need consistency in your considerations in your policy proposals.

Finally, because all oppositions always ask the Government to do more, you also need to explain how benefits are to be financed.

And then, applied to all political parties, we need to ensure our leaders and our representatives carry ourselves well, so that people know that we are people of integrity and honesty. That we have a heart for the people, we are doing this for the people.

And then, there will be moments of truths. When bad things happen, members misbehave or something illegal gets uncovered within the party, how we handle them. These are moments of truths. They give people a deep evaluation of what is the core of this political party.

So, this is what I feel all of us need to do, to ensure there is good politics that serve the people.

We are opposing parties, we are contesting. A lot of words are said to each other, it is part and parcel of political contestation. But in many ways, we are also working together. At a time when the political landscape of Singapore is evolving, the people want a good, strong Government, but yet they want checks and balances in the Opposition. Every election, they are thinking through what is the equilibrium? And so, the situation is evolving. We are contesting, but we are also working together to find the equilibrium for Singapore.

I share what I think we need to do to uphold good politics, because then, we will serve the people well.

Mr Speaker: Ms Hazel Poa.

Ms Hazel Poa (Non-Constituency Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just respond on one point that Minister Ong raised earlier and leave my colleague Mr Leong to give a fuller response when he is back in Parliament.

And that is the point about targeting a particular race. I just want to clarify that we are not targeting any particular race. At the debate on the Motion on foreign talent policy, what we did was to point out that the growth rate of foreign manpower from a particular nationality is growing at a much faster rate than other nationalities, and that is factual. And so, today, we have COMPASS, which includes nationality as one of the criteria. So, I think that is recognition that this is a valid concern.

I just want to specify that it was never a matter of race.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I thank the Member for that clarification. We have always acknowledged the angst and the anxiety of Singaporeans on many issues, but we will see. Let us see how the debate moves on from henceforth.

I just want to remind Mr Leong, and also, Ms Hazel Poa, how we raise issues matters a great deal.

Many of us Members of Parliament, we tend to the ground in our constituencies. There are often neighbourly disputes. Sometimes, disputes between two units with occupants of different ethnicity. So, you can have problems like noise, or your flower pots along my corridor. You can approach it based on what the problem is – find a way to remove the flower pots. Or you can approach it with a certain racial undertone, the same problem, but different ways of approaching, different ways of describing it; and the latter can create sworn enemies out of neighbours.

So, have a care. In Chinese, there is a saying: "人言可畏" – words can be very scary. So, be careful what we say. We need to preserve the harmony that is so hard-fought and hard-earned.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leon Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just very briefly to respond to the Minister. I thank the Minister for acknowledging that, and I fully agree, I think all of us would agree that at the end of the day, while we may have philosophic differences in the means to achieve the end, we all share the same goal in the end of a stronger Singapore, a better Singapore, a better country for all our future generations. So, I thank the Minister of acknowledging that.

I just want to make a few points very quickly in response. One is that, he talked about the role of the Opposition as offering alternative ideas. A few of us spoke about alternative ideas – just in the course of this debate and also previous debates.

I want to point out that we have offered differentiated policy proposals. In some cases, the Government has moved closer to the proposals we have made in the past. In some cases, not. But I think that it is clear that we have offered differentiated alternative policies and I cited a number of examples in my speech.

The second point is then on financing. So, now that I have clarified that we are talking about – assuming that we have 7% GST in the revenue mix but opposing an increase to 9% – I would point out again that the financing proposals we have put forward in the past, which would generate approximately $3 billion to $3.5 billion in incremental revenue, would address that GST shortfall. It is not that we have not explained it; it is not that we have hidden the trade-offs; it is not that we have no explanation for how to finance that gap. We have explained it multiple times in the past.

And the last point I make is on the reference to the housing paper that the WP put up in 2019, we did not actually propose a cutback in BTO supply or halting BTO supply. The proposal that we put forward was that BTO supply and construction should continue, but should taper down when flats start to hit year 70, because we had a very specific proposal on what can be done when flats hit year 70. That is going to happen only in, I think, about 12 years' time. So, it was not a call for an immediate cut or any kind of cut in BTO construction at the time. I think I have explained this multiple times, but I just thought that, clearly, I need to just explain it one last time.

Mr Speaker: Minister Ong.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will also explain my side of the story one last time. As I mentioned, substantively, what matters to Singaporeans is that they want to see what is the difference in policies between the two parties.

And, as I summarised just now, there are a lot of policies on which we are actually on the same page. I mentioned carbon tax, I mentioned preventive care, and there are others which are really shades of the same policies.

But as the Opposition, you will always ask the Government to do a bit more. It is your job to do so and it is our job to think about it.

For example, we just discussed worker safety. MOM is totally on top of this. But there are additional suggestions and MOM will think about it.

But I think what matters most to Singaporeans in deciding between the parties are the fundamental differences. And here, I think there is one, when it comes to NIRC, because value systems and belief systems are involved.

I talked about healthcare, that we got primary care; above that, we have secondary and tertiary care; below that, we have community care. I think just debating policy differences is just "primary care". If you want a full-fledged good political system that serves people, we got to go beyond that. The ruling party needs to do what is required – listening to people, explaining things well, including difficult policies, keeping yourself clean and honest, always think of the long term, correct mistakes, if it commits mistakes and constantly refresh itself.

And for the Opposition party, do its homework, do not say "no data" as an excuse. Take a stand, even on sensitive issues, such as section 377A. Take a principled, consistent approach to your policies and explain how benefits are to be paid for. And for all of us, carry ourselves well, ensure we are parties of integrity, honesty. And if anything goes wrong, handle it well, so that the people know where we stand.

Mr Speaker: And on that note, we need not "sisu" anymore. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the chair at 4.05 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

DEBATE ON PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Minister Grace Fu.

4.05 pm

The Minister for Sustainability and the Environment (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Speaker, what has clearly emerged from our debate in this House this week is our common desire to build a better Singapore for Singaporeans, not just for today, but also for the future. This has been a clear theme throughout our development as a nation.

Since Independence, we have looked beyond our immediate needs, taken a long-term perspective to plan for Singapore's growth, and incorporated environmental stewardship in our development.

Take tree planting, for example. As the Chinese saying goes, 前人种树，后人乘凉. When our forefathers planted trees, it was to create shade for the future generations. The trees our forefathers planted continue to provide us shade today, creating lush green spaces where we can rest and recharge.

Another example is our efforts to clean up our waterways. When our forefathers cleaned up the Singapore river, it did not just solve the immediate problems of public hygiene and public health, but also transformed the Singapore river over decades. Today, the river channels into the Marina Reservoir, providing clean water for our daily needs. It is now a distinctive icon of our bustling city.

Like tree planting and waterway clean-ups, our efforts in environmental stewardship are made possible through the dedication of many generations of Singaporeans. As President Halimah Yacob said in her Opening Address last week, and I quote, "We are here today only because of what previous generations of Singaporeans did."

Times may have changed, but we need to preserve our forefathers' values of putting before self, the interests of the family, the community and the country; of self-sacrifice; and of hard work and determination in the face of adversity.

As we respond to a changing world and its new demands, we will need to find ways to steward Singapore towards a new and more sustainable future.

There is a growing awareness that mankind's current reliance on fossil fuels is no longer sustainable. Humanity needs a fundamental change in the way we power our economy, our way of life.

The Paris Agreement signalled a global commitment to cap global warming to 1.5°C and there is a clear need for the world to act fast to reduce emission quickly. Even so, the cumulative greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have already created deep and lasting impacts on our ecosystems, raising temperatures and sea levels, increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, disrupting food production and exacerbating the risk of infectious diseases.

There is a need for us to adapt and prepare for a future that is warmer, with more unpredictable weather and their full consequences.

We have also realised that our pursuit for convenience through the linear "use and throw" consumption model will have to change. It depletes our planet's scarce resources and burdens our environment with the waste that it generates, often degrading the surroundings that we share with other living creatures. And as we consume more and dispose more in Singapore, we exhaust the finite space left in our one and only Semakau landfill.

To keep Singapore going and sustainable for future generations, we must adjust how we live as a society and how we grow our economy.

How can we achieve economic and social development, while protecting the environment that gives us life? How can we account and be accountable for our environmental externalities? How do we change our societal norms and behaviours to live more sustainably? What does it take to prepare ourselves to be a more environmentally sustainable and resilient country, so that we can have a better Singapore for tomorrow?

I would like to echo the many Members who spoke on sustainability during this week's debate. Many Members, such as Mr Saktiandi Supaat, Mr Sharael Taha, Mr Murali Pillai, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Shawn Huang have reminded this House that sustainability remains one of the integral issues during our time.

Mr Don Wee spoke about positioning small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to capture green economy opportunities. Mr Leon Perera spoke about renewable energy and the investment opportunities it brings to the region. And Ms Nadia Samdin called for collective action to support the sustainability agenda.

Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong spoke about how we have to adjust our social compact, not just among ourselves, but between this generation and future generations to come. In charting our model of sustainable development going forward, our social compact is our guiding light as we navigate the colossal change that climate action entails. We need to re-examine and reaffirm our social compact at three levels.

First, the social compact between "me" and others. How do I, as an individual, relate to other individuals? What is my obligation and responsibility towards others around me?

Second, the social compact between "my group" and other groups. Every one of us is part of a group or several groups in the society. We may be part of a for-profit business, a public sector agency, an organisation in the people sector or a special interest group. In our social compact, what are the respective roles of our group vis-à-vis others? How should we come together to address the complex challenges of today and advance our common interests?

Third, the social compact between "my generation" and other generations. What should my generation do and more importantly, set aside for the future ones? What should the current generation invest in? What can we afford to let our future generations do and decide for themselves? What are the common values that thread and weave across multiple generations of Singaporeans, binding us together and making us stronger as One People?

The social compact between "me" and others. We live in a dense, urban environment. Our choices and actions impact not just ourselves, but others around us.

Take our hawker centres, our community dining rooms where people from all walks of life go for their daily favourite local fare. Our hawker centres are microcosms of our everyday relationships. They reflect the societal norms and accepted behaviour across all segments of society. As diners, when we return our crockery and clear our tables after our meals, we are being considerate to other diners who use those tables after us. When we bin our used tissue after a meal properly, we reduce the risk of infecting our fellow patrons, our cleaners and our stall holders. This reduces the risk of disease transmission.

As diners, we cherish and support our hawkers who serve up delicious, yet affordable food tirelessly. We want our hawkers to have a better living, to have a standard of living that progresses with the rests of us and we are prepared to pay more for their hard work over time. We must also be prepared to pay more for cleaning services over time so that our cleaners can also enjoy higher wages and a better living. This helps to keep our hawker heritage alive and encourages the next generation of hawkers to join the trade.

Simply said, our individual choices and actions matter. Not only do they directly impact those around us, but collectively, they shape our norms, our cultures and determine the collective tone of our society.

We must normalise good habits and exhibit sustainable behaviour. We owe it not just to our environment, but also to one another to keep our shared home clean, green and safe.

The social impact between my group and others. Our efforts are not only confined to what we do as individuals, but also when we contribute in our capacities as members of groups and organisations.

I have touched on dining in hawker centres and let me move along the food chain and look at the retail of foods.

At the heart of a sustainable Singapore is all of us being more resource efficient. We need to move away from our use-and-throw culture. The buy-use-throw consumption model is a convenient one. However, it also puts a tremendous amount of stress on our resources, both in having to produce more and having to throw away more.

The shift to a more sustainable consumption model requires all groups in the society to play a part.

Consumers bring reusable bags when grocery shopping and recycle the packaging of goods where possible.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and schools help spread the message and educate the public in using alternative packaging for bagging garbage in the households.

Businesses redesign their processes to reduce the resources we use to produce and the waste that we dispose. For example, to reduce packaging waste, businesses use the right materials to increase the rate of recycling, use the right design to make recycling easier and reduce the amount of packaging materials used.

The Government introduce policies such as the Extended Producer Responsibility framework and measures like the disposable carrier bag charge and Beverage Container Return Scheme.

Industry organises the collection and treatment of recyclables and help shape consumer behaviour by making environmental costs more visible.

Closing our waste loop is challenging but achievable. There are costs involved and it requires change of habit across all parties. But as we reduce our draw on earth's resources, we use this common mission to form new partnerships and discover creative solutions.

I would like to give two examples of how businesses, community groups and the Government collaborate to co-create and co-deliver sustainability solutions.

CRUST Group is a food tech start-up that works with other companies to turn surplus food ingredients, like bread and fruit peels, into beers and sodas. CRUST group has partnered bakeries, hotels and supermarkets to upcycle their surplus ingredients and create new unique products, which can bring in additional revenue while reducing their own food waste.

Another example, the community in Tampines, with funding support from the National Environment Agency (NEA), installed a food waste digestor that converts food waste into compost and nutrients for vegetable farming and landscaping. Food retailers in the neighbourhood, such as wet market merchants and supermarkets, segregate food waste for the digestor. This cuts down the resources needed for disposal: reducing the number of trips made by waste collectors from four to one per day; decreasing the amount of waste sent to the incinerators by 400 kilogrammes every day; and saving the carbon emission from waste treatment. They also generate compost to replenish and nurture the community garden and landscape.

These initiatives show how our social compact is shifting in the right direction. Groups pool together resources and expertise to collectively address complex issues. We are encouraged by such efforts and will continue to find ways and means to further catalyse such partnerships.

The inter-generational social compact — the social compact between "my generation" and other generations.

I started my speech by paying tribute to the work of our forefathers and stressed that we must do the same and pay it forward. While the full impact of climate change may not hit us now, it is clear that we need to make the investments now to secure a brighter future for our next generation.

The inter-generational social compact is clearly illustrated in our approach to coastal protection. Sea level rise emerging from climate change is an existential threat to Singapore. About 30% of our land area is less than five metres above mean sea level. Without effective adaptation measures, rising sea levels, storm surges and extreme high tides could result in transient sea levels rising up to five metres. This will pose great risks to our community, our infrastructure and our livelihoods.

The work to strengthen Singapore's flood resilience against sea level rise is a multi-generational one. It will take many decades. It will take long-term investments in adaptation solutions and the capabilities needed to bring these solutions to fruition. These investments will need to start today and from today's generation if we are to successfully meet this long-term future challenge.

At the 2019 National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee said that around $100 billion or more may be required to protect Singapore against rising sea levels. Most of this will be spent on coastal barriers, both nature-based and man-made, and drainage infrastructure to protect Singapore against sea level rise.

We have yet to determine the specific solutions that we will put in place, for each segment of our coastlines. We have started the site-specific studies, starting with the stretch from the city to the East Coast. What we know is that this requires steady investments over the years. The solutions will take time to put in place and we need to put the pieces together in good time, ahead of the rising tides.

Even as we work out and implement our adaptation solutions, we will need the capabilities and knowledge to do so. We have a $125 million Coastal Protection and Flood Management Research Programme (CFRP) to support the development of innovative coastal protection and flood management solutions, and we established the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) earlier in 2013, 10 years ago, to understand the science of climate change and to model its effects, as the basis of our climate adaptation efforts. These are the ways we see the inter-generational social compact, in how the current generation does it part for future generations.

Another example is our food security. We currently import more than 90% of our food needs. We have ample supply and we have access to a rich variety of foods from all over the world. However, if we look beyond the immediate term, we see the mega trends of climate change and extreme weather events, geopolitical tensions and disease outbreaks that will cause volatility to food production and place increasing pressure on our food sources.

This is why we have set our "30 by 30" goal – to have the capability and capacity to produce 30% of our nutritional needs locally by 2030. This is about buying insurance against systemic food supply disruption, so that future generations are in a better place with food security. This initiative, at its core, is a commitment to future generations.

Our journey will take years. It will require sustained contributions from the private, people and public sectors and for all parties to stay the course. The Government will do our part to support and enable our farms. We will set the stage through infrastructure developments like the Lim Chu Kang Masterplan (LCKMP), which will transform the area into a high-tech, highly productive and resource-efficient agri-food cluster. We will invest, now, in infrastructure works such as land preparation, coastal protection, power and water supply and waste management facilities.

Farmers take bold steps to increase the productivity of the farms through investing in technology. They are not starting from scratch; several are second or third generation farmers who inherit the experience and wisdom of their forefathers.

Green Harvest is one such farm that has combined farming expertise with technology. As a joint venture between Kok Fah Technology Farm and Teambuild Construction Group, Green Harvest brings together their collective expertise in agriculture and construction to break new grounds. They have constructed Southeast Asia's largest hydroponics glass greenhouse, which uses high-tech automation to grow vegetables efficiently and productively without the use of pesticides. The farm has started production since July 2022 and I have already seen some of their produce on our retail shelves.

As our local food supply ramps up, consumers and industry buyers also step forward to provide the demand that our farms need to be commercially viable.

When we buy local, we are supporting our local farms and F&B businesses that use local produce. We are co-investing in our food resilience for the future. It is a symbiotic relationship – the local farmers give our F&B industry and consumers certainty in supply and quality; and reduce the vagaries caused by extreme weather events.

The supermarkets and F&B buyers in turn give our local farmers certainty in demand, thus reducing their business and financial risks. Local produce may cost more but they are more reliable and fresh, attributes that are valuable to consumers and businesses. By building up our local food production today, we are gaining food security for tomorrow.

Building a resilient future requires investment today. Our current generation must make the long-term investments in capability-building. Through research and development, we sow the seeds for a broad spectrum of innovation and technological solutions that will allow us to thrive in a more uncertain world.

By pursuing innovations in sustainable novel foods, or planning and building long-term for coastal protection, or investing in energy-efficient water treatment technologies, we ensure that Singapore can remain resilient to climate change into the future.

By pioneering the deployment of low-carbon energy in support of our net zero ambitions, we lay the foundations for building a green economy in a carbon-constrained world.

By deepening our understanding of climate science and its regional impacts, we discover new opportunities for international collaboration.

By collectively changing our consumption and living habits, we reduce our footprint on the environment and support sustainable businesses.

We recognise that we are caretakers and stewards of a country that will endure beyond us. Even as we live in an increasingly uncertain and disrupted world, characterised by resource constraints and climate change, we are not helpless bystanders.

Our forefathers showed what could be done in our early years of independence.

It required grit and determination, and a belief that we needed to place environmental stewardship alongside socioeconomic growth and development.

It required investment in infrastructure and capabilities that only the future generation can draw benefit from.

It required making difficult trade-offs like setting aside financial resources, or transforming our industry, so that our limited resources work better for us in the long run.

Just like our water story, through long-term planning and careful deliberations, not only do we overcome our resource constraints, we turn our challenges into our strengths.

As we face the new challenges ahead, let us continue to translate our convictions into actions. When we work together, as we have in the past, we can create a sustainable Singapore in the decades to come. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

4.29 pm

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

I would like to start by talking about our meritocracy. Meritocracy has been a central topic in the first two days of this debate, so, as one of the few speakers remaining, I thought it is perhaps fitting that I round back to this topic.

But rather than talk about what more, or what else, the State can, or should, do with regard to our meritocracy – be it more intensive redistribution, wage restructuring or reforms to our education system – I would like to focus instead on what else each of us, citizens, can and should do for our meritocracy.

And each of us – all of us – can and should do much more. Why? Because in Singapore, I believe that meritocracy represents both a privilege and a responsibility of being Singaporean. Meritocracy represents both a privilege and a responsibility of being Singaporean. Let me explain.

First, meritocracy remains the best basic organising principle for our society. I think no one in this House will quibble with this point. There is broad agreement within this House but I think it is worthwhile to also highlight the point for society at large, for Singaporeans at large. And the point is that we do have a consensus in Singapore, that we will use "merit" as the basic principle to determine who is sorted to which station in life, at which stage in life, across our life courses.

This consensus may have been more tacit than explicit but it exists. It is a robust consensus and it is also useful to bring this consensus to the fore from time to time and remind ourselves clearly of its existence – that meritocracy remains the best basic organising principle to keep the Singapore Story going.

But in order for this meritocracy to work, we must also allow meritocracy to operate fully and be fully expressed in our society. We cannot and should not put an artificial lid on meritocracy. We must allow it full expression. This means, in the simplest terms, allowing the best, the most "meritorious" amongst us to run as far and as fast and soar as high as they can.

They will not be held back. Instead, they will be supported and cheered on by the system. This is the privilege that our framework of meritocracy in Singapore provides to Singaporeans; that every person can look forward to run and fly and chase rainbows and fulfil his or her full individual potential within the framework of meritocracy that we have. It is not a half-hearted meritocracy because we as a society have committed to allowing it full expression and it is one privilege of being Singaporean – to be able to operate and flourish within this framework.

But with privilege comes responsibility. They are two sides of the same coin. A framework that allows each of us to run far and fast and chase rainbows will also lead inevitably to some amongst us who cannot keep up, who need a lot more help to keep up. And so, it becomes our responsibility, our personal responsibility, each citizen's responsibility, that while we enjoy the privilege accorded by our framework of meritocracy, we also each do our part to make sure that no one falls too far behind nor falls permanently behind.

Each of us has a responsibility to reach back, pull others along and help everyone to keep up. It is in our collective interest to do so, but I think, more fundamentally, it is also our basic responsibility as Singaporeans, our basic responsibility to one another and to society at large to do so.

Now, if I may put it another way. Decades ago, when we started out as an improbable nation, meritocracy defined Singapore. Regardless of race, language or religion. Instead, ability, industry, merit; these would make the measure of a man or woman in Singapore. And these would also make a society, our society based on justice and equality. And so, on this basis, our improbable nation got everyone onto an escalator, the escalator of progress and prosperity. And we not only survived, we succeeded. The escalator of meritocracy moved us from Third World to First.

But as we continued being successful and our framework of meritocracy created some winners who could pass on more opportunities and other advantages to their children, it became clear that we need our meritocracy to be updated and rebooted. We need our meritocracy to be broader and more inclusive, if it were to remain fit for purpose for Singapore and Singaporeans.

And so, work on the next lap of meritocracy began more than a decade ago. And in Senior Minister Tharman's words back then, moving our society from a hierarchy of grades to a meritocracy of skills. It also means opening up a whole range of pathways, a whole range of escalators, not one but multiple escalators that Singaporeans can get onto, all escalators going up, progressing in tandem.

And this work continues today, as Deputy Prime Minister Wong has laid out in his speech on Monday. Much more remains to be done to make our meritocracy ever broader and more inclusive.

But I see a third lap, a third chapter, in the evolution of our framework of meritocracy going forward. One that is not only broader and more inclusive but also emanating from each citizen's basic responsibility, a meritocracy that is ever more participatory, a meritocracy in which every citizen is an active part of the solution, actively reaching back, helping each other keep up, so that even as the best among us run ahead, the gap is never pulled too wide and the gap is never permanent because everyone is helping everyone else to keep up.

In this third lap of our meritocracy, we can make sure that no one is left by the sidelines of the multiple escalators that we have, unable or unwilling to get onto one. It would take each of us to care, to step off the escalator from time to time to get those of us by the sidelines onto the multitude of escalators, onto some escalator, so that all of us can move up together.

I call this third lap of our meritocracy a generative meritocracy, not just broader and more inclusive, but generative. Generative because I believe it will set forth a new wave of active citizenry in which all of us recognise and embrace our basic responsibility to keep meritocracy going and take action. This will be active citizenry at its best.

And generative because the difference that we can make through this movement is not only to help others, but as Minister Chan Chun Sing has put it in his speech in this debate, we can enable others to thrive. We have an opportunity to apply ourselves to enable others to do well for themselves. That is the difference we can make.

And finally, I believe it is generative because instead of a meritocracy in which some winners take all, together, we can create a meritocracy in which all are winners. And this is not just a hope that can be left to the state, the Government to make happen. It will take all of us to make it happen. Embracing our responsibility, active citizenry at its best.

And in my mind, this will be a wonderful manifestation too of what Deputy Prime Minister Wong has described as our "renewed commitment to one another in the path ahead". I hope we can find application of this renewed commitment specifically in our meritocracy, make our meritocracy a key plank of this renewed commitment to one another and make our meritocracy a generative one that keeps going because of all of us, because of our collective efforts to one another.

And one final point I will make on this, is that in our efforts, we have to focus especially on the next generation, the children of those with less and make sure that they, the young ones in our framework of meritocracy, they especially can keep up. We have got to double down on breaking the chain of transmission of disadvantages and stymied opportunities from one generation to the next. And it takes all of us.

How so? Well, for one, I hope we can do much more to come forward as mentors to these children. Mentors, on a sustained basis, committed to the long haul. Mentors, who start by meeting the child where he or she is, mentors who accept before attempting to fix. I hope many of us can come forward to be such mentors, be role models and just be there for children born to lesser means. In this way, we can help them to keep up in a generative meritocracy, help them to get onto the multiple escalators, enable them to thrive and do well for themselves.

Mr Speaker, besides meritocracy, there is another core value that I hope to affirm in my speech today and that is multiculturalism and multilingualism. This is a precious thing in Singapore and we have got to cherish it and keep growing it.

First, we need to do more to celebrate our traditions, embrace our traditions, preserve and sustain them. I think it means, among other things, that ethnic, cultural and religious organisations all need to look at renewal, drawing in younger Singaporeans and being deliberate about succession.

Second, for the majority race, I think it bears remembering always that it is harder to be a minority in Singapore. So let us be sensitive, reach out and strive for an ever deeper understanding of one another.

And third, for all of us, we should take extra effort to make sure that the words we utter and the deeds we do, would not end up being misconstrued, misappropriated or even weaponised by others to cause hurt and division especially in this world of social media. Because things can be easily appropriated in this day and age, sensationalised, amplified and once the genie is out of the bottle, sometimes damage done cannot be undone. So let us all be extra conscious and extra deliberate.

Perhaps only in Singapore do we have, just this month alone, folks observing the ancestral festival of Qing Ming, in fact, some groups observe this for up to 10 days beyond the actual day, and at the same time, we have Jewish friends this month celebrating Passover, friends celebrating Puthandu or the Tamil New Year and we have Christian friends concluding their observance of 40 days of Lent while Muslim friends were getting into the thick of their observance of Ramadan. And of course, in a couple of days, our Muslim friends will be celebrating Hari Raya Puasa.

All in the same month, only in Singapore. It is a beautiful harmony and long may we, all of us, commit ourselves to keep this going. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] In this debate, meritocracy in Singapore has been a topic of particular interest, and the Government has also laid out ways to improve the system. In actual fact, our meritocracy encompasses a very important and fundamental social principle – that there is no ceiling for meritocracy. This is our core consensus and commitment with regards to meritocracy, and it also implies that those who reach the top based on this consensus have a greater responsibility and obligation to help those at the bottom.

In other words, the social consensus of not setting a ceiling for meritocracy means individuals need to have the awareness and sense of responsibility to help those at the bottom. In this way, meritocracy will no longer be based on competition and distribution. Instead, it will be based on mutual assistance and benefits, as well as a win-win mindset, with a vision to create a new meritocratic system as one united people.

Therefore, I hope that as the Government works to improve the meritocratic system, every Singaporean will better understand their individual social responsibility, and take on this responsibility more proactively, by actively helping Singaporeans lagging behind in the system and lend a helping hand to those at the bottom. I think this is critical for all Singaporeans to move forward together.

Meritocracy is one of our core values in nation-building and governance, while another core value is multiculturalism. In the social media era today, good things are seldom propagated, but bad things are particularly viral. Even without foreign intervention, if we are not careful, domestic views or behaviour may become the very weapon that weakens our multiculturalism. Hence, I hope that we will be more prudent and exercise greater caution when we speak and act, to think carefully before we speak or react, in order to protect our precious multiculturalism.

(In English): Mr Speaker, I have spoken about meritocracy and multiculturalism and the role each of us can play to keep these going. Meritocracy and multiculturalism are core values in Singapore. Let me conclude by making a broader point about our core values and about our confidence as a people.

In this debate, we have heard polls being cited, polls indicating that Singaporeans lack confidence, lack optimism in our future. Actually, I have seen similar polls myself, polls that have not been cited in this debate, but polls that show confidence or optimism even in the single digits by percentage for certain metrics.

But I think we got to be circumspect in drawing conclusions from these polls. For one, the design of survey questions itself is a notoriously difficult issue that can skew survey results. But the bottom line is I think, I believe that we can all be confident of our future, together. We have every reason to be confident. And chief amongst these reasons is our collective core values, like meritocracy and multiculturalism. We have imbibed these values so much that sometimes, they just operate in the background and we do not realise that they are with us, that they are us.

But these core values, like meritocracy and multiculturalism, were what our founding generation got right from the beginning and these allowed them – the founding generations, who had much fewer reasons, and much less resources to be confident about their future back then – these core values allowed them to pull through nonetheless, to succeed spectacularly and hand over to us the Singapore that we have today.

And these same core values, if we remind ourselves of them, stay alive to them, refresh them as it may require to meet needs of the hour and draw optimism from them. I believe these same core values, our "sisu" will drive us forward and help us forge ahead, confidently, as one Singapore. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: Minister of State Alvin Tan.

4.47 pm

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

Three years ago, I delivered my maiden speech in Parliament in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. I ended my speech describing a scene in JRR Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy. The wizard Gandalf was mentoring the young hobbit Frodo Baggins. Frodo wished that the terrible events that had befallen the world need not have happened in his time. To that, Gandalf responded, "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us".

I also shared that "years from now, in this very House, our future generations will judge us by how we have met that moment".

We have done much with the time given to us during the pandemic and have since met that moment by most accounts. Collectively, we steered Singapore through the proverbial “crisis of our generation”, just as Frodo and his team did at the end of the story.

Today, I will focus on our young Frodos – our youths, since Members have already spoken about other segments of society this week. I will share how our youths have indeed met that moment together with us and how they can continue to serve, shape and lead our country even as that moment passes and another moment approaches.

Mr Speaker, I have been working closely with our youths for almost two decades, including the past three years in my many roles in office – in the social and economic spheres. Every week, I meet with youths in my capacities as Deputy Chair of the National Youth Council (NYC), Advisor to Young PAP and many youth organisations, also in businesses, schools, unions, the interfaith community and the community.

Ms Nadin Samdin raised the importance of ensuring meaningful youth participation, not just for quotas or at dialogues. I cannot agree more. So, please allow me to share with this House and our fellow Singaporeans, how our youths are taking action and how we are continuing to enable them to shape, serve and lead in our social and economic spheres.

Let me begin in the social sphere with inter-racial and religious harmony, a topic we just touched on.

We have youths carrying the torch lit by our founding leaders to strengthen racial and religious harmony. Youths like Nazhath Faheema, Benjamin Tan, Mohd Anas, Farisha Ishak and Joakim Gomez worked closely with Ms Nadin Samdin and I and my Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) team to refresh our Inter-Racial and Religious Confidence Circles (IRCCs) into our new Harmony Circles, making them more diverse, more youthful and more digital.

Last month, at Masjid Khalid, I met with 75 Harmony Champions, mostly youth leaders from the ground-up organisation, Roses of Peace, to discuss how to continually refresh our interfaith work on the ground.

In my local Harmony Circle, we just welcomed 39 new volunteers. There are many youths, many women and many members from diverse backgrounds, including the digital savvy team at Masjid Al-Falah, led by the young Ustaz Khairul Anwar who is my Harmony Circle Vice Chair, and our secretary Lily Lim, an outstanding young Singaporean undergraduate of Iranian roots.

Why is interfaith work important? Look within and around us. I have always cautioned that if we take our eyes off this important work, we will not have the foundations upon which to build our society and our economy. It is imperative that our youths continue to carry this torch.

We also have youths who care deeply about our people's mental well-being and they have followed-up with action. Shane and Shamantha Yan's Growth Collective, Sabrina Ooi's Calm Collective, Simon Leow and Sherman Ho's Happiness Initiative, Asher Low's Limitless and Cho Ming Xiu's Campus PSY are just some of the many ground-up youth initiatives that are driving our Singapore Mental Well-Being Network in its efforts to raise awareness of and destigmatise mental well-being issues, as well as train peer supporters to support one another.

In my Moulmein-Cairnhill (MOCA) Division, my Youth Network is working with our Neighbourhood Committee to build our local Mental Well-Being Circle. Nationally, we have thus far six of these Circles and counting, 400 trained volunteers and around 30 partners, and we are scaling up these efforts across the community and to workplaces.

We also have youths who care deeply about migrant workers living among us and who are helping to build Singapore. Youths like Rachel Divashini from the Alliance of Guest Workers Outreach (AGWO), Benjamin Kuan from HealthServe and Wesley Lim from It’s Raining Raincoats (IRR) are working with us on the ground to care for, recognise and create space for our migrant worker friends.

In my MOCA constituency, youths like Alister, Aaron, Andy and Qi Wei set up OMG for Our Migrant Guests, to bring our residents and migrant workers together to celebrate festivals and recognise their work. They are partnering with the voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) I mentioned earlier in this meaningful and important work.

Our youths are also serious about tackling climate change and are actively participating in our SG Green Plan. Youths like Woo Qiyun, Samantha Thian and Tan Shi-Zhou are leading the way in this regard. In MOCA, one of our most successful initiatives is "Our Green MOCA", where youths are involved in activities such as greening our Cambridge Neighbourhood, Green Hackathons, Climate Conversations and even led a mural painting project at Our Green Hub. Last year, our young Green MOCA Young Ambassadors also connected DBS with ACS Junior on their sustainability game outreach to raise awareness about food waste, e-waste and conservation locally.

So, our youths care about and are taking action on the issues I just highlighted. But we are also keenly aware that bread and butter issues, social mobility and progress and opportunities are top of mind. Ms Sylvia and Mr Henry Kwek spoke out on these issues in their speeches. There are many ways that we are collectively addressing this. I will touch on a few.

For example, we are partnering with our youths as they lead ground-up initiatives and efforts to equalise opportunities, through initiatives like mentoring. Youths like Kelley Wong at Young Women’s Leadership Connection, Clarence Ching at Access Singapore, Hafiz Kasman at Kinobi and Mock Yi Jun at Advisory, are driving our Mentoring SG movement, ensuring that youths have access to mentors and opportunities to learn, grow and thrive in their areas of interest.

The Astra Collective which Mr Henry Kwek's Kebun Baru team is partnering is a member of Mentoring SG and we are supporting their work and helping them to expand their reach into communities like Kebun Baru.

Mr Xie Yao Quan's calls for mentors is thus also pertinent and relevant.

Mentoring SG has thus far created 4,000 mentoring opportunities for our youths, supported 40 mentoring organisations and welcomed 13 corporate partners and these numbers are growing.

When we set up the Mentoring SG office later this year, we will look to track the jobs and careers outcomes of our national mentoring efforts. This is an important upstream effort to prepare our youths for the fast-changing world and economy. So, please do join Mentoring SG which is a key initiative under our Forward SG Movement.

Beyond mentoring as a way to equalise opportunities and guide our youths, another key way to tackle social mobility and bread and butter issues is to create jobs and career opportunities for them, ensure also that they have the skills to take on these opportunities.

Allow me to share how we have created these opportunities and examples of youths who have turned up, seized them and are distinguishing themselves in their careers and shaping our economy in their own unique ways.

When I left the private sector to join the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) back in 2020, I was asked to help look after our tourism sector, which was hardest hit by the pandemic. During the depths of the crisis, I met weekly with many of our tourism workers, gathering feedback on how best to support them and help the sector recover. At this month’s Tourism Industry Conference, I shared about a young SHATEC trainee I met during the downturn. She told me she was picking up skills at SHATEC during the downturn to "catch the wind" for when tourism recovers. Another young Singaporean in the tourism sector is Matthew Yong who is now Assistant Chief Culturist in Capella Hotel Sydney. During COVID-19, Matthew decided to upgrade his skills, believing correctly that the hotel sector will thrive and boom post-COVID. These youths made the right call. They took the down time to upskill and many like them are trailblazing new ideas to build a more sustainable tourism sector.

I have also met youths who are seizing opportunities in emerging sectors that we are growing, like tech, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, robotics and agri-food tech. Let me share a few examples.

I serve as Advisor to Cyber Youth Singapore (CYS), led by Ben Chua and his team. CYS prepares youths, including those studying in Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) and polytechnics, to acquire cybersecurity skills and secure internships and jobs in the cybersecurity sector which we are growing. I meet them regularly to help shape their programme and direction.

Leading up to their Cyber Youth Summit in June, I had a fruitful exchange with student leader Marcus Tan and his fellow students at ITE College Central last month to share about opportunities in the cybersecurity space. Our youths are tech-savvy and passionate about shaping our digital future and are in good stead with leaders like Ben and Marcus taking the charge.

Our youths are also taking on new and exciting jobs in the emerging advanced manufacturing space that we are nurturing. When I visited companies like the semiconductor manufacturer Micron and biotech firm Amgen, I met young employees using Augmented Reality (AR) and robots to produce innovative products for the semiconductor and biopharma markets respectively.

We will continue to support them through our various SkillsFuture offerings, trade associations and unions to prepare them to take on these jobs.

We are also preparing our youths for a future of automation and robotics, a theme I shared at our MTI Committee of Supply (COS) in February. At the Sixth Anniversary of the National Robotics Programme (NRP) at Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD), I met youths from Victoria School and Raffles Girls’ School who were deeply involved in the design, programming and deployment of reconfigurable robots. Singapore has the second-most robot intensive manufacturing sector in the world, just after South Korea. We will continue to support the use of robots in high-tech manufacturing and create futuristic jobs for our people through our work at MTI and the National Robotics Programme (NRP).

Another area we are literally growing is agri-food tech. Last week, I inaugurated the launch of a new agri-genomic farm by Singrow, an agri-food tech startup that develops and grows the world’s first climate-resilient strawberries. While there, I met many youths from National University of Singapore (NUS) and our polytechnics, including Janice Tong who is studying Biomedical Sciences in Singapore Polytechnic. They were using AI and Machine Learning to improve crop yield. Janice is a smart and confident young lady. She explained to me how she first interned and then got a full-time role in one of the agri-tech companies located in our Science Park.

We are supporting these companies and workers like Janice through our Enterprise Singapore schemes as they deploy robotic arms and digital monitoring systems to automate our agri-food tech sector.

I also regularly visit our startups regularly to get feedback about our StartupSG and other Enterprise Singapore schemes. I was at Block 79 recently to engage startup founders and ecosystem players and attended the NUS Entrepreneurship Society’s University Conference (UNICON), its flagship student-led entrepreneurship and tech conference that features many promising startups.

Through my engagements with this industry, I have met many young startup founders looking to break ground, including Alexandra Zhang from Factorem, a precision engineering startup manufacturing 3D printed parts for larger firms using AI. Startups, like Factorem, are making strides and we are supporting them to realise their potential.

While doing so, we are also continuing to help our young business owners navigate the various schemes and grants we have available and find one that is suitable for them, in order to address the challenges that businesses might have in identifying schemes that meet their needs, as Member Mr Don Wee raised.

Startups and SMEs looking to grow beyond Singapore can also tap on platforms such as our Global Innovation Alliance.

Next, our financial sector. Our financial sector is a bright spot in our economy. It accounts for 14% of gross domestic product (GDP) and close to 200,000 jobs, with many offering higher wages relative to other sectors and we are continuing to grow the sector. And financial institutions and fintech companies are looking to hire our students across universities and polytechnics.

Next week, I will be at Ngee Ann Polytechnic for the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and the Institute of Banking and Finance's Growing Timber series, where we will plan how to grow opportunities for our youths in the sector and help them take on these jobs. I will share more details at the event and look forward to meeting our youths, including many who have made their mark in the sector.

I first joined the financial sector as a youth 13 years ago in Boston and New York, and then moved to Hong Kong, and then back home in Singapore. I have seen many of my former batch mates in the financial sector now leading their organisations or building new companies. We will grow our timber in the financial sector and our youths will benefit from this work.

Mr Speaker, I have barely scratched the surface of what I have learnt of and about our youths today. Many have been leading and taking action on social issues crucial for our nation-building and preparing for, seizing and even creating job opportunities to secure their future. There is cause for optimism. And our youths have indeed met the COVID-19 moment with us and have accomplished much since.

But as Prime Minister Lee cautioned yesterday, there are many storms ahead of us, with geopolitical challenges and new risks and opportunities to contempt with, such as artificial generative intelligence and climate change. Our youths will need to navigate these waters and we will, of course, brave these storms together with them.

Sir, in my many meetings with our youths, they will typically ask what advice I would have, drawing from my experiences in the private and public sectors. I have always responded with two words "turn up". At this point, please allow me to speak directly to our youths and unpack what I mean by "turn up".

First, turning up means being present. Much has been said this week about ChatGPT and the mainstreaming of Artificial Intelligence (AI). A Financial Times article by Ian Hogarth cautioned against the perils of opportunities of "God-like AI" and Stanford University, the State of AI report, explored issues around Artificial Generative Intelligence or AGI. How then should you, as youths, navigate the future?

AGI cannot build society. It cannot build racial and religious harmony. It cannot strengthen mental well-being or mentor a new generation. Rather, you must turn up, gather physically, attend one another's festivals/events, learn about one another's beliefs and backgrounds, meet face-to-face, hold someone's hand and guide them and journey with them through life by being present. Be human in the coming age of "Gold-like AI".

Second, turning up means being prepared. Our collective handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has further strengthened Singapore's global reputation and appeal. Despite the pandemic, we attracted over S$51 billion in Fixed Asset Investments (FAI) over the past three years and created new and exciting jobs in the sectors I have described earlier.

To reap the benefits of these investments, our workers, our people and you, our youths, must be prepared to take on these jobs, create new ones within our growing ecosystem and build value for themselves, for society and for others.

It has often been said that no one owes Singapore a living. I have worked in the private sector most of my career. I have learnt that we need to create value, show value and share value to be relevant in the market. We must produce what the market wants. We do not have the markets and opportunities bigger countries have. But you can tap on the many schemes and programmes we have designed for you. Use what you have learnt through our educations system. Use SkillsFuture to pick up skills throughout your lifetime. Use our economic schemes to help your enterprises grow and succeed. Take on internships, apply for jobs and excel in them. Create value. We need to be prepared, remain exceptional and strengthen our raison d'etre.

Third, turning up means to persevere. We did not come this far just to sit on our hands. While we continue to create value and stay relevant, we also need to be mindful about recent global trends, like quiet quitting and lying flat, which will slow us down and set us back. The world and its challenges will not be kind. That is the hard truth. You must be courageous, diligent, determined to keep innovating and pushing barriers.

I agree with Mr Shawn Hwang that our youths must have determination, ambition, passion, centred on a strong set of values, strong set of identity, strong set of culture, youths with a "go-getting spirit" that Mr S Rajaratnam described that Prime Minister Lee quoted yesterday, youths who will not just run the race but stay the course, rise to the occasion and meet the many moments that will come your way.

Mr Speaker, in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the wizard Gandalf was helping young Frodo and his band, often behind the scenes, providing guidance, support and resources, rallying troops. But the battle and adventure was Frodo's and Frodo's alone. So too his decisions, the outcomes of his decisions and the lessons he had to learn. Gandalf gave Frodo the platform to learn, grow and thrive. And at the climatic end of the story, Frodo and team played a decisive role.

Like Gandalf, we must continue to provide a conducive and enabling environment for our Frodos – our youths, to learn, grow and thrive. To try, to create, to innovate, to fail, to learn, to try again. The Ministry's addendum to the President's Address outlined our Government's plans to continue to build such an environment for our youths and Singaporeans at large.

Sir, I enjoy engaging our youths. They are full of ideas, passion and energy. Recently, I hosted three Forward Singapore exercises with youths, living and working abroad. It reminded me of the nine years I spent abroad as a youth living overseas. These youths are exploring the world, connecting with people, making their mark. They remind me of my friends and cohort of youths who were overseas. Some in my cohort had gone on to fund companies, lead global firms, making their respective differences in the social and public sectors to which they had been called.

As I spoke with these youths, we exchanged ideas of the Singapore we hope to shape. One of them asked me what opportunities are there for them back home. I encouraged them to stay overseas, explore, learn more, make their mark but always have Singapore in their minds and in their hearts; and to ultimately come home with the skills, networks, ideas and organisations they are building to build our country. After the session, I have received a few LinkedIn messages from the youths. One of them which simply said, "we will". Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker: I am now trying to figure who is Smeagol or Gollum in this whole narrative. Certainly, it is not Miss Rachel Ong, who will be next.

5.09 pm

Miss Rachel Ong (West Coast): Mr Speaker, I speak in support of the Motion of thanks to our President. In her speech, the President outlined key priorities for Singapore for the remainder of this term of Government – one being the need to expand opportunities throughout life for all, an inclusive meritocracy.

This right and necessary work for Singapore's next growth phase lies not only with our Government. The President's speech is indeed a clarion call for a closer and more intentional partnership between our people, public and private resources.

To ensure Singapore becomes a more inclusive meritocracy for our persons with disabilities, or PwDs, and their caregivers, I believe the active participation of the non-SMEs in inclusive employment is critical.

May I take this opportunity to applaud the initiative taken by some of our non-SMEs who have embraced inclusive hiring. They include Uniqlo, Cushman and Wakefield, Shangri-La Hotel, UOB, NLB as well as others who have tapped into Workforce Singapore's Open Door Programme to support employment of PwDs. Thank you for being our pioneers of inclusive employment.

Non-SMEs or enterprises with turnover exceeding S$100 million contribute to 29% of enterprise employment, or 1.3 million jobs. Given their scale, even if only 1% of their workforce is committed to PwDs, 13,000 jobs will be created. This equates to employment for 60% of the 21,000 PwDs of working age, who are still outside of the workforce.

But the impetus for non-SMEs to build a more inclusive workforce cannot be rooted in social responsibility alone. There must be a clear understanding of the tangible competitive advantages PwDs bring to the workplace, even after factoring in adjustment costs. Accenture rightly coined this, "The Disability Inclusion Advantage". Here is why.

The first advantage is that inclusive workplaces lead to higher work productivity. Last week, I had the opportunity to spend some time at SPD Contact Centre, a partnership between SPD and startup firm Octopus8. Octopus8 is a business process outsourcing and software firm with an intentionally inclusive workforce. What I found interesting was that Mr Lawrence Luan, founder of Octopus8, did not start this work with the intention of being a social enterprise. In fact, he had not heard of the term "social enterprise" until much later.

Prior to starting Octopus8, Lawrence worked in a multinational company (MNC) serving clients in business process services. Lawrence was asked how he decided on this uncommon workforce profile from a solely business perspective. He shared that at his previous work in the MNC, he saw how PwDs in his workplace provided fellow colleagues a different perspective of life. Lawrence shared that when his colleagues learnt of how a PwD staff took painstaking years to learn to speak, fellow colleagues were themselves convicted for using the ability to speak on grumbles and complaints.

When another PwD staff would take over two hours to commute to the office each way, the rest then saw the privilege of work. The lived realities of PwD colleagues continue to inspire greater productivity and grit in daily work done by non-disabled individuals. This, in addition to the fact that a well-placed PwD can well perform or even better than the average non-disabled staff. In the course of his consulting work, Lawrence also observes that when an organisation includes PwDs as part of their workforce, it often leads to a review and simplification of their business processes. This ultimately benefits everyone and raises productivity. The outcome is also corroborated by SG Enable's commissioned study published last year.

The second advantage is that PwDs foster innovation and problem-solving skills. Reena Rajas-vari was my very close friend and colleague of eight years before she passed away last year, to cancer. I share her story because she lived a most remarkable life despite turning blind at a prime age of 28.

After taking years to grieve the sudden loss of sight, Reena regained purpose and committed to creative ways to unlearn and relearn how to go about the daily tasks and be independent again. An athlete by nature, she took up sound-tennis while going on regular hikes and mountain climbing. Her love for fashion gave her impetus to create her own system to coordinate her clothes, shoes and jewellery despite not being able to see. On the work front, no one could inspire and facilitate corporate programmes on resilience and innovation as effectively as Reena did. Her creative problem-solving skills and tenacity shared in training workshops, went on to inspire our corporate clients to do the same.

When someone wakes up thinking about how to do mundane things differently, that is innovation on display, a skillset. If companies would take time to uncover these innate and valuable skillsets in PwDs, place them in positions to thrive, I have no doubt that we will find some of the best gems in our local talent pool.

Far from being anecdotal, the business case for an inclusive workforce is backed by a 4-year research conducted by Accenture on 140 companies.

The paper revealed that the 45 companies that excelled in disability inclusion achieved on average: (a) 28% higher revenue; (b) double the net income; and (c) 30% higher profit margins than the remaining companies.

Appropriating the “Disability Inclusion Advantage” fully requires both PwDs and enterprises to take risks and be open to making adjustments. May I share the six proposed adjustments.

First, willing to redesign jobs and leverage technology. A young man with cerebral palsy had come to interview for a data-entry job as that had been his training. However, during the role assessment, it was evident he was unable to perform the task efficiently. But this young man had a noticeably sharp mind and engaged well in conversations. As such, the recruiter encouraged him to give Digital Marketing a try. Though he had not been offered any other position apart from data entry, he decided to take on the opportunity. The employer then made arrangements to provide this young man with assistance in typing tasks linked to the marketing role, allowing this staff to focus and eventually excel in client engagement.

He flourished in this lane and was eventually offered a job at a Government agency with double his original pay. This young man discovered his niche and progressed at work because his employer cared enough to take the time to identify his talent, redesigned the role to maximise his genius. This intentionality proved to be life-changing.

Our enterprises need to be willing to invest in their PwD talent. The good news is with technological advancement, some of the tasks that once hindered PwDs from taking on job roles can now be automated. Work that once required onsite presence can now be done remotely by PWDs with mobility issues. We need only take the first step to give our PwDs an opportunity.

Second, improving skills identification and training capabilities. The training support accessible to each PwD in their earlier years, differs. Placement officers in companies or social service organisations may need to work more collaboratively with PwDs or their caregivers to further uncover skills that may have been overlooked due to early training bias, as in the case of the young man with cerebral palsy.

I hope our Enabling Masterplan will continue to build Singapore’s capabilities to identify and train PWDs in skill sets that amplify their abilities and self-confidence.

Third, engaging PWDs in tech-enabled work. As our nation moves towards a digital economy, technological advancements can work to the advantage of our PwDs. For example, Profileprint is a Singapore tech startup located in Enabling Village that uses AI to perform accurate food grading without the need to taste, see or touch it. Such job roles open employment opportunities for both PWDs and non-disabled.

I am encouraged to see that tech startups not designed as social enterprises, are choosing to leverage technology to engage PwDs in meaningful work. I hope that we will see more startups like Octopus8 and ProfilePrint who proactively consider PwDs as a viable part of their workforce. Meanwhile, as non-small and medium enterprises also digitise and upgrade their work processes, they could also proactively explore how more PwDs can be integrated into their workforce.

Fourth, incorporate inclusive management skills. Supervisors must also be trained to manage staff in a diverse workplace. If management is perceived as overly empathetic to PwDs or does not correct staff for poor performance, it negatively impacts workplace culture for both PwDs and non-disabled staff.

At the same time, it is vital that non-disabled staff are properly oriented to the value of inclusion and her application at work. Without proper onboarding of all staff, PwDs may still feel excluded or discriminated against.

Fifth, community outreach programmes. I shared at the recent COS that some of our PwDs do not participate in work because they may not be aware of or do not believe that there are jobs or workplaces that can accommodate their disability. SG-Enable and their partner NGOs have done a tremendous amount of work in engaging the disabled community.

Corporations with established inclusive workplace practices can also collaborate with schools and grassroots organisations; to run community outreach programmes to share how PwDs are engaged in their workplaces.

I hope that the lived examples of how PwDs are empowered to do meaningful work in their organisations can inspire PwDs and their families towards a greater hope and future.

Sixth, Government incentives to contract inclusive suppliers. I note with interest the multinational corporation (MNC) Lawrence Luan had worked with. There, he witnessed the real-world benefits of an inclusive workforce. This MNC also became increasingly open to hire PwDs because of a government tender won.

This tender had a clause that stipulated for a percentage of project staff to be from vulnerable groups, such as seniors or disabled. This caused his former firm to be more open to hire PwDs across business divisions. The good news is when the contract ended, all PwDs hired for the project continue to remain with the firm, and today seven years on, are still meaningfully employed.

Government project tenders can be a great lever to encourage suppliers to participate in Singapore’s inclusive workplace agenda. In addition to such “set-aside” clauses for tenders, our Government could consider a preferred purchase programme for suppliers with the Enabling Mark.

I have spoken extensively about what enterprises can do for our PwDs. Many of the adjustments shared can also be applied to support the caregivers of severely disabled PwDs.

I quote Baroness Minouche Shafik, Director of London School of Economics and Political Science, and former Deputy Managing Director of the IMF: “Harnessing everyone’s talents is not an issue of fairness; it is also good for the economy. A new social contract is not about higher taxes, more redistribution, and a bigger welfare state. It is about fundamentally reordering and equalizing how opportunity and security are distributed across society.”

We have an opportunity here in Singapore, to once again be at the forefront of what makes good sense economically and what is also good for our collective citizenry. There need not be a trade-off if we fundamentally structure intentionally the inclusion of PwDs and their caregivers into our workforce.

Mr Speaker, I close with this statement by our President: "Every Singaporean must have the opportunity to take on work they find fulfilling and meaningful, build on their talents, give of their best and be rewarded fairly for it." May this become the lived reality of our PwDs and their caregivers in the near future. [Applause.]