Take-up Rate by Malay/Muslims of Existing National Financial and Estate Planning Programmes

16 Dr Shahira Abdullah asked the Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (a) what is the current take-up rate by Malay/Muslims of the national financial and estate planning programmes available; (b) what are the current initiatives available to educate Malay/Muslims on permissible methods of investments and estate planning; and (c) what are the avenues for them to seek clarification or enquire about such financial or estate planning methods.

The Minister for Social and Family Development and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mr Speaker, MoneySENSE is our national financial education programme that seeks to raise Singaporeans' financial literacy. Under MoneySense, there are various initiatives, resources and tools to help Singaporeans make prudent decisions related to their savings, housing purchase, investments and retirement planning.

This is done in two ways. First, MoneySENSE's website and social media channels provide free bite-sized information, starter packs and financial tools on financial planning. Second, MoneySENSE offers free financial talks and workshops through the Institute for Financial Literacy (IFL). Since March this year, the IFL has been conducting periodic "Ask-Me-Anything" Facebook Live sessions, where individuals can ask trained finance professionals about topics such as estate planning and digital tools for financial planning.

In addition, MoneySENSE collaborates with various partners to reach out and provide financial education to Singaporeans at different stages of their lives. For example, MoneySENSE works with the Ministry of Social and Family Development to incorporate financial planning topics in the marriage preparation programmes. This includes Muslim couples attending the Cinta Abadi Marriage Preparation Programme, where they will learn how to plan ahead by making Central Provident Fund (CPF) nominations and the Lasting Power of Attorney.

Community initiatives supplement these national programmes to further strengthen support for the Malay/Muslim community, including newly wed couples and young families.

MENDAKI SENSE’s Program Bijak Belanja engages young and low-income families to empower them with financial management skills. The workshop is delivered in Malay and covers practical day-to-day management of family expenses. Topics such as home ownership, basic investment and management of inheritance are also covered in the programme. Over the last two and a half years, more than 600 participants have benefited from MENDAKI SENSE's Program Bijak Belanja.

As part of the M³ initiative, the Naib Kadi or solemnisers will provide marital guidance to newly wed couples through the Bersamamu programme, so that they have a good start and build a strong foundation to their marriage. Where required, the Naib Kadis will also refer couples to available community and national resources including financial support programmes.

Financial planning courses will also be offered to newly wed couples and young Muslim families under Temasek Foundation's programme called "Achieving Resilient and Inspiring Families" or Project ARIF. Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) is in discussion with MoneySENSE to incorporate financial planning components into this programme, which is expected to be implemented next year.

Religious guidance is also another way provided to the community on matters related to financial and estate planning tools. MUIS has conducted seminars and talks on managing inheritance and organised several Continuous Professional Education or CPE training programmes on “Wealth and Estate Planning” for our asatizah. A free guidebook on the Islamic Law of Inheritance or what we call Faraidh, covering the financial and estate planning tools that can be practised by Muslims within Singapore’s context, is also accessible online. The guidebook contains a helpful list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on managing inheritance.

In addition, MUIS has issued religious rulings or fatwas to guide the community in their estate planning and decision making.

For example, the Hibah Special Needs Trust Company (SNTC) Fatwa permits trusts to be made for disabled dependents to ensure their future well-being when there is no longer a surviving caregiver.

Another one, the Joint Tenancy Fatwa permits the surviving joint tenant to have full ownership of the property, without the need for a transfer of ownership and being subjected to distribution of inheritance according to Islamic law.

And third, the CPF Nomination fatwa recognises the permissibility of the CPF nomination instrument. Muslims can choose the CPF instrument or distribute their wealth according to faraidh, or exercise both options together.

In 2012, MUIS also set up the "Wakaf Ilmu", a voluntary charitable endowment for Muslims to come forward to do planned giving. The revenue generated through the investment of the Wakaf in capital-guaranteed instruments and properties is channelled towards supporting Islamic education in Singapore.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader for extending the time for Members to ask supplementary questions. My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. First and foremost, I thank the Minister for that very nuanced exposition of the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP). I think it has been the most nuanced reply that I have heard from a Government Minister on the EIP, considering on the one hand the realities of racial integration and other policies that can assist; and on the other, the fact that there are people who actually pay a price for the EIP.

I have three supplementary questions.

The first pertains to the request for waivers. This has been on the up, from 2017 to 2019. I understand the numbers were around 1,850 for the three years: 25% from the Malay community, 16% from the Chinese community and 59% from the Indian and other communities. The numbers actually cascade lower in the years before.

My question is: for the EIP limit for the Indian and other communities, which was at 59%, when the EIP limit overall was actually reviewed in 2010, the EIP limit for that category was 10% and 13% at the neighbourhood and block level, and that was increased to 12% and 15% respectively. My question is: in view of the large number of EIP appeals continuing to come from this community and a suggestion made in 2010 by the then-Minister for National Development that there would be a review around 2020, has this review been undertaken and what are the new EIP limits, if any?

The second question is a question for information. In 1989, when EIP was introduced, 28% of the neighbourhoods had already reached the established EIP guidelines on the start date of the EIP. Over the years, this has fallen but there is no real clarity about why this has fallen. I am specifically referring to the number of new neighbourhoods that have also come about. So, the percentage can be very difficult to understand. For example, in Kaki Bukit and Aljunied GRC, the neighbourhood level numbers for the Malay community are still, I believe, beyond the EIP limits. And there is nothing untoward about race relations in Kaki Bukit. And I think this will be replicated in other parts of Singapore.

So, to this end, is the Government prepared to share details on the breakdown by ethnic groups in all HDB neighbourhoods, both new and old, on an annual basis from 1989? If it is, then, we will file the question.

Finally, in response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) I filed in 2013, HDB shared that it had reviewed the EIP limits for rental flats; and administratively, it adds up to 10% for the block limits for HDB rental flats. Would HDB consider a similar approach for all flats and also exercise greater flexibility at the neighbourhood level as a means of loosening the EIP criteria as a compromise, or even remove precinct and block quotas in favour of a larger area of coverage?

This is in view of the rising number of EIP waiver requests over the last few years, Singapore's changing demographic profile and for policy equity considerations towards communities that are adversely affected by the EIP.

The Minister for National Development (Mr Desmond Lee): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his three questions.

First, on the number of appeals from households from Indian or other ethnic origins, whether the review is ongoing, it continues to be so. We look at the proportions of various ethnic groups over the years and we make adjustments, where necessary.

In 1989 versus 2020, the second question. Here is the data. In 1989, when we introduced the EIP, 28% of neighbourhoods had reached one or more EIP limits. So, 125 neighbourhoods then; 35 neighbourhoods reached one or more limits. In June this year, out of 173 neighbourhoods – because we have been building our towns and increasing the number of neighbourhoods – 14% have breached one or more ethnic limits. That is 24 neighbourhoods. In 1989, 35 neighbourhoods out of 125 and in June 2021, 24 out of 173.

So, more neighbourhoods as a whole in Singapore but the number of neighbourhoods hitting one or more EIP limits has come down, not just in proportionate terms but in absolute numbers.

That is perhaps a result of a range of factors: the EIP operating, including operating in new neighbourhoods that are launched over the years since. But also, a whole variety of factors: providing a whole range of flat types, providing for different budgets, programmes that promote a sense of belonging, programmes that help to integrate society together across races. So, a whole range of factors may have led to that.

As for rental flats, I recall reading in 2013, the Member asked, following a 2012 question he had asked to Minister Khaw Boon Wan, then Minister for National Development, and Minister Khaw said that for rental flats to accommodate the Malay households that are applying for rental housing, there would be an administrative 10-percentage point increment to accommodate.

Whether we will consider that across all housing types, as I said earlier, we are mindful of the intent of EIP as a bulwark against very strong socio-economic forces borne out of choices of individuals. The EIP, we need to adjust along the way in terms of looking at proportions, but it is a very important bulwark. And I hope the Member agrees with me.

Therefore, we look at individual cases in order to determine whether we should waive the limit as opposed to an inexorable increase in EIP limits for all races across the board, which for some cases would bring it close to 100% because for Chinese, the EIP limit is already 87%.

So, the question is how much more do you want to raise the cap? In doing so, even when we allow appeals on a case-by-case basis, we are already pushing at the boundaries of what the policy seeks to achieve.

Let me also take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the Opposition to give us a better understanding of the Workers' Party's (WP's) position on EIP. He has asked very useful questions. I looked at your manifestos and WP has said unequivocally from 2006 to last year, that WP wants the EIP to be abolished; and people should be able to stay wherever they want in our estates.

Let me quote page 28 of the 2020 manifesto, "the ethnic quotas governing citizens' home ownership of HDB flats should be abolished. This would address the disadvantage faced by ethnic minority HDB flat resellers. Abolishing the quota will not cause racial disharmony amongst Singaporeans. After more than 50 years of nation-building, our society has evolved and achieved multi-racial integration that has gone beyond the need for mandating proportionately mixed neighbourhoods. Singaporeans should therefore be given the freedom to choose where their homes will be without taking into account race."

It is the same in 2015. You did not cite the impact on minority resellers but you say that society has now attained a level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for EIP.

In 2011, that is the same position except that in addition to saying that in 2011, Singapore had reached a high level of multi-racial integration and therefore there is no longer a need for people to be mandated to live with each other across different ethnicities in our neighbourhoods, WP goes on to say that the ethnic quota system also contradicts the policy of encouraging young families to live closer to their parents and prevent young Malay and Indian families from buying homes close to their parents. I would dare say that also applies to Chinese families who are constrained by EIP even if they wish to live in the same block as their parents.

That is also the same in 2006.

Between 1989 and 2006, we have no record of any position that WP has taken since the EIP was launched.

I looked at speeches made by the hon Leader of the Opposition as well as the Chairman of WP and other Members. I just want to understand the rationale and, indeed, what the position is. Because in the House, there has been no clear and unequivocal position taken by WP that you want the EIP abolished because you object to it and that Singapore has reached such a high level of multi-racialism that it is no longer necessary.

We, of course, take a very different view to that. And the recent incidents over the years continue to remind us of the need to keep working at it and never rest on our laurels, that we can afford to take away mechanisms that are in place through the wisdom of the generations to keep our society where it is today.

So, I would like to seek some clarity. Firstly, given what I have said about the current EIP limits being strained in different locations and the experience in different cities and countries, not just in the past but in the present, what would be WP's position? Is it your position that there will not be racial concentrations if we abolish EIP? Or are you saying that we have reached a level of multi-racial integration so that it does not matter if we have entire blocks and neighbourhoods of predominantly one race; society will not change if we have ethnic concentrations?

What would your position be if you know that people go to the pre-schools, they go to the schools near their homes. And if we have neighbourhoods predominantly of one ethnic group, that will of course cascade into pre-schools, into our national school system. The services in the heartlands, the shops, the markets, the hawker centre food choices, they will adjust to reflect the proportions of the clientele in the neighbourhood.

How about local jobs? The availability of local jobs and the kinds of ethnic Singaporeans who fill those jobs?

If you are concerned about diversity in the workplace, in National Service, in national schools and even social mixing – I recall there was an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) discussion about different socio-economic classes and the concern about whether they mix – then, why not at home and in our neighbourhoods where we spend a vast amount of time?

I would like to seek the Member's clarification. It would help to advance our common understanding.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Yes, that is the Workers' Party (WP) position, as iterated by the Minister, in the manifesto. It really is undergirded by the frustration that we sense from ethnic minorities who cannot sell their flats.

The question is: is the EIP the only policy, among a whole gamut of policies, that the Government has to encourage racial integration, bearing in mind that it is a pre-emptive policy introduced in 1989? And we also have a hybrid system almost, in Singapore, where we do have places like Chinatown and Little India, where there are concentrations of a particular race but it does not disturb Singaporeans. It does not bother Singaporeans.

We may take a different philosophical approach as to what the end situation will be, but I cannot speculate on one or two episodes and say that because of that, we are descending in terms of our journey towards greater racial integration.

My own sense on the philosophy behind the HDB EIP policy as it stands today – almost one generation since its introduction – is that it needs to be revisited. It has to be revisited in the context and not limited to: number one, a larger national conversation on race relations in the context of today and tomorrow Singapore; and, separately, what it means to be Singaporean.

Number two, the effect of immigration into Singapore from the 1990s after the EIP was introduced, leading to a larger Singapore family living in HDB flats that include communities outside the traditional CMIO categorisation such as naturalised Singaporeans from Myanmar, the Philippines and non-Tamil ethnic Indians.

Number three, the more common experience of mixed marriages amongst Singaporeans and separately between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, and its impact on traditional racial categorisations.

Number four, as it is well known – this is really the heartbeat of why WP has taken the position it has since 2006. It was, I think, referred to as a "time bomb" by PAP even then – and that is the economic loss to minorities who have to lower the market price of their flats in the name of that policy. That is particularly painful because we hear that from many people who are in that position. I believe the Chairperson of WP in the opening of the Parliament for this session, referred to one individual who had to sell the flat at a loss of $100,000. That is shocking and that is really where we are coming from.

Number five and finally, a reassessment of Singapore's lived experiences which acknowledge policies and guidelines that have successfully encouraged racial integration such as national schools, anti-discrimination guidelines at the workplace, National Service, amongst others, and how these compare in today's time with the continued efficacy of the EIP as a policy tool of racial integration.

So, the position is this. The current policy as it stands has a larger impact on minorities, penalising them in the pocket when they have to sell their flat. By minorities, I mean not just racial minorities, but those who are affected by it, including Chinese, Malays, Indians. This may perversely interact with the stated objective of the policy of racial harmony, thereby breeding resentment amongst those who are affected by the policy.

For that reason, the EIP as it stands needs to be reviewed. We must always keep in focus the prospect of endeavouring towards a race-neutral society where race-based policies like the EIP are no longer needed. In its current form, as I suggested, the EIP quota should either be further loosened to ameliorate the prospects of further economic loss for sellers with HDB committed to buying back the affected flat at the valuation price, or a larger geographical area representing the anchor for the EIP rather than the precinct and block quotas.

And just before I conclude, my second supplementary question was not just a general question about the percentages at a broad level. It was about specific neighbourhoods across time. Would the MND be prepared to release that information?

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the very clear elucidation of the party's position that it objects to the EIP and would want it abolished. A couple of responses.

First, he says it is a pre-emptive policy in 1989. If you look back in history and over the last few weeks and months as we continue to review our policies and preparing for today's session has been a humbling experience in learning from the wisdom of the generations. It is not a pre-emptive policy in 1989. It was a policy that was put in place because of the lessons learnt from the 1960s, paid for with blood, sweat and tears. A real pain in families grieving for lost loved ones and a country newly formed wrecked by racial riots and disharmony, distrust. The efforts of HDB are not just to build homes for people who lived in slums and villages that flooded or were easily burned, but also ensuring that we learn those lessons, and in allocating new flats, make sure that in every block, there was a racial mix. Taking people from what were ethnic enclaves, which were a legacy of the Jackson Plan and persisted through villages and enclaves of different races, pulling them up and saying, "You move into these high-rise homes in the sky, but we will mix you. Learn to live with each other."

If you talk to the earlier generation, it was not easy. And I think today, there are still frictions along the way, but things have improved.

So, it is not a pre-emptive policy. It is not something that we decided to put in because we were looking at other countries. We paid for it with the blood of our brethren and sisters.

Second, the Member says that he or WP would like to abolish the EIP because of its disproportionate impact on minorities. As I said earlier, the EIP has its rough edges. By its very operation, it seeks to ensure that in every estate, from BTO all the way to resale flat, there is freedom to choose where you would like to live, subject to balloting or price. But when it hits certain limits, and when the function of individual choices results in blocks exceeding significantly the demographic proportion of each ethnic group, then we have to kick in this bulwark and say, "Well, we will have to cap it".

Of course, it causes pain to minorities but also Chinese as well. The proportion, of course, will be different because there are a lot more Chinese than there are the other ethnic minorities, and that is the reality of it.

For Build-To-Order (BTO) applications in certain popular locations, say Bishan, Ang Mo Kio, you do have cases of Chinese coming up to say, "Look, I have been balloted. I have been asked to select, but the next day I am told sorry, EIP limit hit, and then the minority takes over my place". There is also unhappiness. But we explain the rationale and seek their understanding, and by and large, all Singaporeans of all races have kept faith with the broader intent of this policy.

But I accept the Member's point and I accept the point that was made by many Members of this House, both present and past, and looking at very thoughtful questions in speeches by both PAP Members and Members from across the aisle over the years, concerned about the impact on their constituents of all races, including minorities.

And that is why we have been looking at it case-by-case, understanding the situation for each seller, looking at how long they have taken to market the flat, looking at the price if asked for, given the market conditions, and well, if today is EIP, tomorrow or next month, perhaps there might be a change of circumstances. Or after a few months, the EIP may adjust because people buy and sell and the EIP may no longer apply to your block. So, we look at it individually, bearing in mind that we have to be very judicious. Otherwise, the lessons that we have learned will all unravel.

The Member talked about the case that the Chairman of WP sought to help and the example was raised twice as an anecdotal, but real, example of a person who lost $100,000 through resale. I would like to clarify and we have checked all the cases that the learned Member had filed and without naming the individual family, it was not a case of them losing $100,000. Ms Sylvia Lim's appeal to us was that the resident told her that she got offers for her flat that appeared to be $100,000 less than what other people nearby were offered. That was anecdotal, it was said to her. I am not sure if the Member verified. We were not in a position to verify what the offers were for that flat.

But in that case, HDB assessed the case holistically and agreed in August 2019 to waive the EIP for a period of time to allow the family to sell. Waived off EIP, looking at the circumstances of the family. But the family decided not to take this offer up for other reasons and requested HDB to acquire the flat. So, that was what happened. I think better put these cases which are raised as anecdotal examples to rest.

Having said that, there is impact, no doubt. There is impact. And we address that through appeals, we look at these and scrutinise very carefully to help the affected seller. And as we said, we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges of EIP and ensure that a new generation of Singaporeans who have not lived through the tumultuous early days of Singapore history continue to support measures, may not be popular measures, but necessary bulwarks to ensure that our multi-racial character is in substance and not in form.

The Member, I am not sure whether he has addressed my question, but because of the impact on minorities, which we have said we address through appeals as well as through continuous smoothening of the rough edges, does he still take the position that we want to abolish the EIP for that reason? And if abolished, does WP believe that our estates will remain multicultural and representative? Or is it the case that you accept that given even current trends, there will be a lot of concentration, but that it is perfectly okay, there is no impact to our multi-racial character because we have multi-racialism in National Service, in our national schools and our workplaces?

I have also said earlier that there will be these knock-on effects, if whole estates become concentrated, to all these places, platforms and spaces that the Member talked about. From being common, they will be ethnic focused. Does he then say, we move the EIP away from housing and put ethnic quotas in schools, in workplaces, in pre-schools, in markets, in hawker centres, in neighbourhood shops? Or you think it is fine that the schools and pre-schools, they are all ethnically focused because its proximity and it is fine. We are sufficiently multicultural – a point you have made since 2006, that Singapore has reached such a high level of multiculturalism that we no longer need to concern ourselves with mixing people.

As for the last point about the data, we will look at what data we can provide, the granularity, it changes from month to month. But we will see what we can provide.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for National Development. I think the point really, again, is the philosophy that we want to aim towards, towards a race-neutral society and we continue working towards this assiduously and keeping in mind that you do not want the policy to become a barrier to that vision, to that journey to become a race-neutral society. That is why we took the position that we had.

I do not believe the Minister has suggested what sort of policy beyond the very helpful clarification of the anecdote, I think this is how Parliament should work: if an example is brought up, the Government clarifies. Beyond these cases where HDB looks at it on a case-by-case basis, we have a regime, the rental housing regime, where HDB is prepared to administratively lift block limits. So, it is not as if the Government, the arguments that were made by the Minister for National Development are cast in stone. There is flexibility beyond looking at individual cases and moving the boundaries.

So, the question I like to ask is for the review that was supposed to take place 10 years after 2010, according to Minister Mah Bow Tan. What sort of scheme changes have HDB discussed internally, beyond just looking at cases on a case-by-case basis?

If I have not answered any of the Minister's questions, please ask me again. I will be happy to answer them. Ours is a philosophical point. We take the position because we want to endeavour and move towards a race-neutral society.

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Leader of the Opposition. Those are details, important details but I think, fundamentally, it is important to understand, given the Government's position as articulated, that we continue to look at how we can smoothen the rough edges and given how over the last few years, we have started to see more appeals succeeding, do we recognise that that is on a case-by-case basis, providing a balm to a household but also not quite pushing the limits further. Does WP still want to abolish? And if it abolishes, the important questions about your belief about what society will be like, I think that is most fundamental. The other issues we can address, but we need to understand your position on multi-racialism.

Number two, the importance of these bulwarks to ensure multi-racialism. Number three, your position on Chinese, Malays, Indians, Others (CMIO). You have talked about a race-blind society, a race-neutral, race-blind multicultural society. But yet over the years, we have been tracking; WP has been filing lots and lots of questions specific to individual minorities or races. And in fact, I understand Member Mr Faisal Manap had asked a PQ before, asking for assurances that we will ensure that the ethnic mix in Singapore will remain and wants to keep a very close eye on ethnic issues.

The Second Minister for National Development (Ms Indranee Rajah): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to ask a clarification of the Leader of the Opposition because I was listening to his response.

I think he had started out by saying that the EIP should be revisited. Then, he said, reviewed. He then mentioned that in the manifesto, they took a philosophical position. But I am sorry because I still do not know what WP's position is.

So, could the Leader of the Opposition clarify? Is he saying today that the EIP should be abolished? Is the answer to that, yes or no? That is all I want to know. Or is he saying that it need not be abolished, we can just look to see how we improve it? That is all I wanted to understand.

Mr Pritam Singh: Well, it is a very nice way to close off our discussion on this topic. But I will be happy to clarify the doubts of the Leader of the House. The philosophical position remains, we aim as a society towards race neutrality. It does not matter what the colour of your skin is, we respect each other as Singaporeans, the Singapore family is going beyond CMIO categorisations and that is the target we need to keep in mind. That is where we want to endeavour towards.

The Government is the government of the day, it wants to retain the EIP for reasons which I would say are not totally illegitimate. I think it is important that I state that. But having said that, how do we move forward with the EIP as it is, knowing that there are minorities, knowing that there are minority communities, knowing that there are even majority, even the Chinese community, who are affected by it? Is there a better way forward?

I think that is our duty as an opposition also. Half the reason why I am asking for all that data on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis, over time – annually, not monthly – annually, is to try and see, for those neighbourhoods where EIP limits have been breached, what is unique about those neighbourhoods. Is it very different from any other neighbourhood in Singapore? How do we look into those details with more granularity? And I hope that clarifies the point by the Leader, but I do not think so.

Mr Speaker: Ms Indranee Rajah.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his erudite answer, which did not answer my question. So, I think we both agree. Both, indeed, the Workers' Party and we, agree we do want a race-neutral society. We want to raise a society where everybody can live happily together. It is a question of how do we get there. And one of the things that the People's Action Party Government has put in place is the EIP.

The Workers' Party, in its manifesto, has said, abolish it. Mr Pritam Singh comes to Parliament today and says revisit, review underlying philosophy and a few other things. I just want to know, today, is the Workers' Party saying we should remove the EIP? If you are saying that we should do that, say so. On the other hand, if you are saying, keep the EIP but let us improve it and ameliorate the impact on minorities, say so. Then, I think we know where we both stand and where we are in agreement.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: We still aim to remove it but, until we get there, we have to, as Minister said, even out the rough edges as much as possible and, at some point, I hope my generation, within our generation, we reach that place where we are race-neutral. It does not mean that sometimes things do not bubble over. But there are more important things that remind us that we are Singaporeans and we ought to look beyond our skin colour.

Mr Speaker: Mr Desmond Lee.

Mr Desmond Lee: I thank the Member for that very clear position. In 2006 and all the way till last year, the Workers' Party position was that we have already reached a level of multiculturalism and, therefore, unequivocally, called for since 2006, election after election, for the immediate abolition of EIP. But the Workers' Party's position today, in 2021, is that we still need the EIP, we work towards a race-blind society and we endeavour to reach there and, at some point, hopefully, we may not need EIP. So, that is a clear change in political position and I thank the Member for that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Darryl David.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question actually takes the focus away from the EIP. I would like to reference a point that was made by the Minister for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Minister Edwin Tong earlier. The Minister referenced the Character and Citizenship Education (CCE) programme that is being taught in the schools right now. I remember, not just from the Minister's point, but in the Committee of Supply earlier this year, there was due to be a review of the CCE. So, my supplementary question is actually for the Minister for Education.

In the review of the CCE, could the Minister share more details how we intend to incorporate the topics of multi-racialism and multiculturalism into the CCE syllabus and also how the syllabus will possibly be taught across the various platforms than we allow for a more vigorous, broader, intense debate?

My second question is, will the Ministry be looking into, say, for example, certain schools, where perhaps the student demographics are a little bit more homogeneous? I am not just talking about, say, SAP schools or madrasahs, but even certain schools which might be devoid of particular ethnicities for a variety of reasons. And will the Ministry then perhaps adjust or tweak the CCE to cater to teaching the topics of multiculturalism and multi-racialism in these schools?

The Second Minister for Education (Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for his question. The Ministry of Education (MOE) regularly reviews the CCE curriculum to ensure that our students are equipped with the necessary skills and keep up with the increasingly complex and dynamic environment. The last review, as the Member is aware, began in 2018. So, as part of the review, besides drawing from the research on Character and Citizenship Education (CCE), we interacted with experts and practitioners on current and emerging trends, engaged community partners and stakeholders, such as school leaders, educators and students across all levels. So, we continue to review CCE education, a very important part of our curriculum development for our students.

The new CCE 2021 curriculum builds on the foundation that have been laid by the previous CCE curriculum and further strengthens the focus on guiding students to build character, learn values, social and emotional competencies, and develop citizenship dispositions within and beyond the classrooms. This is done through engaging pedagogies that encourage students to voice out and explore the multiple perspectives, including the national perspective, and bearing in mind the common good. So, we are using different pedagogies and not just top-down, not just telling them what it is, to allow them to use experiential learning. There is also a difference between the formal curriculum and the informal curriculum. It is not just in the classrooms but also through exposures like co-curricular activities (CCAs) as well as uniformed group interactions.

So, even as the Member mentioned earlier, circumstances where there are students with different kinds of profiles, CCE is not just in the classrooms. It also takes place in experiences and platforms where students interact with one another. So, for example, in CCA, in national competitions, camps, leadership camps, students are exposed to other groups of students and they are able to interact with one another.

The CCE curriculum also takes the age-appropriate dimension. So, the Primary schools get a different level of content versus the secondary schools versus the junior colleges. We also ensure that we train our teachers and our new teachers to be ready and prepared to implement the new curriculum. The new teachers are provided with this programme called the "CCE in the Singapore context" and so they are trained to deliver the content. Even existing teachers are also given opportunities to look at different pedagogies because we know that students are exposed to different content on social media and they use some of these contents using new pedagogies to excite the students and, at the same time, acknowledge the importance of engaging in discourse of this nature.

Mr Speaker: Ms Nadia Samdin.

Ms Nadia Ahmad Samdin (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Speaker, and I thank the Minister of State Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim for his response to my PQ, Question No 15. I am really glad to see that there are increasing efforts to enhance coordination between agencies, as issues, such as the potential entrenchment of community within the rental flat paradigm, are complex and really will require a more nuanced and sustained approach, as well as adequate resources to see real outcomes over the longer term. So, I have three supplementary questions.

Firstly, are the other plans for the efforts under Project DIAN@M³ to be integrated with national efforts, such as ComLink, for example, and how would the duplication of these efforts be avoided? Second, given that home ownership is also closely related to other factors, such as employment and family structures, is there room for Project DIAN@M³ to be a sandbox for potential policy adjustments and what sort of community assets will be integrated, given that these involve multiple agencies? And finally, I am sure many of us will be interested in understanding what sort of outcomes the Government is hoping to see from this and also the timeline. So, could the Minister of State please share when will Project Dian@M³ be rolled out?

The Minister of State for National Development (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. I will take it as a whole and try to answer the questions. So, as I have shared earlier, for now, Project DIAN@M³ will focus on outreach to families staying in rental flats and build upon the partnerships which M³ has earlier on developed with Government agencies and Malay/Muslim organisations.

In essence, we will augment the efforts of the community partners and the agencies that we have built partnership with, so that Malay/Muslim families who live in rental flats are able to take part in programmes and also receive holistic support from the programmes that we have. These include counselling programmes under MENDAKI SENSE, Bersamamu and Project ARIF undertaken via the focus areas of M³ and with the support of the volunteers.

When we look at the integration of assets relating to Project DIAN@M³, we are looking at the institutions that we have as well as the people and the volunteers. I am happy to share that since M³ started, the number of volunteers that have come on board has also increased. For example, for M³@Towns, we have about 500 volunteers who have come on board and this is also something that we want to train them. In addition to that, we also have volunteers that come on board via other programmes, like programmes relating to how we support vulnerable individuals as well as families; as well as how we support mentoring among the youths where more than 1,000 volunteers have come on board for our youth mentoring programme. For efforts like Fitrah, we have about 460 volunteers as at June this year. Mayor Mohd Fahmi Aliman is also looking at how we can increase a lot more volunteers for efforts relating to upskilling of our people.

So, essentially, we are very happy that many more volunteers are coming on board. These are Malay/Muslims who have been very successful in their own life, in their fields and they are able to contribute back to the community. We will continue to work with them, together with all the other Malay/Muslim organisations and Project DIAN@M³ will integrate these community assets that we have to help families in rental flats holistically and inspire them to be homeowners. In doing so, we hope to also cultivate values, such as independence and resilience, in these families as they journey towards home ownership.

We will launch Project DIAN@M³ in the fourth quarter of this year, where we will start with three M³@Towns, namely Bedok, Geylang Serai and Jalan Besar. As we journey through this process, we hope that we will be able to strengthen families, provide opportunities for the Malay/Muslim families, especially those in rental flats, and, at the same time, give them and work with the Government agencies and our partners for them to move towards home ownership in the years to come.

Mr Speaker: Dr Shahira Abdullah.

Dr Shahira Abdullah (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question relates to financial planning and estate planning for Malay/Muslims. I would like to thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply just now. I just have a few supplementary questions on it. It is not uncommon for estates that go to intestacy to lead to familial disputes over the allocation of assets. Muslim estate planning, under the Faraidh laws, allows Muslims to plan for one-third of their assets. Yet, today, there are still many Muslims in Singapore who passed away intestate.

Will the Ministry consider compiling data on whether there is currently still a lack of clarity on the estate planning options available to Muslims in Singapore? And would the Ministry also consider programmes for older or more mature families, not just for newly wed couples or young couples, who may be less tech-savvy and not as easily accessible for institutions, such as mosques or MENDAKI to reach out to?

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. Indeed, the problem that I see, is not so much the lack of programmes. First, how do we get these programmes to the people who need them most. Sometimes, we have to be very creative, we have to find ways to make it attractive for them to come.

I will give one example. A group of lawyers under M³ (Lawyers at M³) came together and said they wanted to educate our community about the same issues that the Member has raised. I said, "Go ahead, tell me what you want to do." But they knew that if they just did it themselves, call it LPA, call it Faraidh, I do not think anyone would turn up. But what they did instead was, they brought in an ustaz, a religious teacher, they brought in a popular personality and an artiste. They put together a panel and said, "Come and talk to us". The programme attracted a full house; a total of about 600 people came. We had to keep putting in chairs because people were still coming in to see what this was about.

At the same time, these lawyers also agreed to stay back after the programme, in case there were still questions that need to be answered. The session went on quite light-heartedly. Although some of the questions raised were really heart-wrenching, they were addressed in a very proper and enlightening way. At the end of the session, because the lawyers agreed to stay back to hear other issues, there were long queues because people do have issues to clarify. We do really need to do more of such programmes. I think these programmes that I have talked about have been successful. We want to replicate it to as many towns as possible in M³. We call upon our successful lawyers who have done this or have done this successfully, to come forward again. After we lift the restrictions for gatherings that we cannot now have because of COVID-19, we can have more of this.

Mr Speaker: Ms Raeesah Khan.

Ms Raeesah Khan (Sengkang): Thank you, Speaker. I have two supplementary questions to the answer to my question.

Firstly, I would like to ask whether MOE will consider publishing report on complaints of discrimination on an annual basis, in the interest of accountability and raising awareness of MOE's efforts to curb discrimination. Secondly, given the wide age range of students across the different levels in our academic institutes and the confidence these students may have in providing feedback, is there a need for the Ministry to differentiate the procedures according to the different levels of these students?

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, to the first question of the Member's, whether we should be publishing the report annually, first, I want to say that the incidence of this nature in schools is very low and I do not see that there is a necessity to publicise the report every year. But we take every case that has been brought to the attention of the institutions very seriously, whether it is in the school or whether it is in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs).

Every report or every feedback given will be investigated thoroughly. As I mentioned in my earlier response, we will provide every opportunity for students to raise their concerns through various channels. Every institution and school will have its own mechanism to investigate and we will take action against those found guilty of the alleged offences.

The second question on whether programmes are differentiated, yes, I have mentioned earlier, in the schools, students can report to the leaders of the school, their teachers, any staff member that they are comfortable with. In the IHLs, including the Polytechnics and ITE, there are various channels that the students are able to access. More importantly, it is to ensure that they are able to provide the feedback in a safe environment and that they feel assured that their feedback will be taken in strict confidence. I want to assure again that any incidents of racism are not tolerated in any of the schools and any report that we receive will be thoroughly investigated.

Mr Speaker: Miss Cheng Li Hui.

Miss Cheng Li Hui (Tampines): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have two supplementary questions.

Given what we have seen, especially in recent weeks, do we need to substantially tighten our laws or even introduce new rules to deal with racial outbursts and discrimination?

Two, I hear the Minister's points on CCA and social mixing. During Committee of Supply 2021, I spoke on the need for more inter-school mixing through arts, culture and sports programmes. This is especially so for missionary, madrasahs and the culturally oriented schools. Does the Ministry plan to expand the current CCA or Youth Sports framework under SportSG and MOE?

The Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai): Mr Speaker, I will take the first of Miss Cheng's questions and Minister Maliki Osman will take the second.

Sir, when it comes to discrimination in certain specific settings, that will be studied and we can consider. As I have said in my speech earlier, where needed, action has been taken and I cited some examples. Most recently, of course, there was an occasion where action was taken on the basis of breach of public nuisance.

The Member will also know that we have the MRHA framework which I also alluded to. What is useful about this framework, of course, is that it provides the outer parameters, defines the framework. What is also useful about it is that Members may know that it has not been used, we have not had to invoke it. Which is sometimes the usefulness of having laws which define the parameters, especially when it comes to race and religious harmony, and issues surrounding community harmony.

Sir, this framework is useful, but I would stress, as I said in my earlier answer, that having constructive dialogue, having constant learning, exchanges and appreciation of sensitivities, having the daily lived and life experiences on integration, living side-by-side, in the manner which Minister Desmond outlined so articulately earlier, I think these are examples and these are real lived examples of how we would like to promote integration.

We also will occasionally come across differences; there will be flash points from time to time. The trick is to deal with this constructively, not try and stoke emotions in such already tensed situations, learn the differences. I cannot pretend that we will always get along but the key to it is to try and find common ground. And the way to find common ground is to try and assert less personal space, less of a "me-first" mentality. I think when we do that, we will find that there will be a lot more space where we can do these exchanges.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: Mr Speaker, can I just clarify with the Member, her question is whether we should extend MOE's CCA offerings to the madrasahs?

Miss Cheng Li Hui: Inter-school games and programmes.

Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman: As a context, Mr Speaker, I think the Member would also appreciate that the madrasahs are not part of the national MOE education system; they are a separate education system, they are treated as a private education institution. So, they are not bound by the inter-school framework. On whether we should encourage that or not, I think we have to study that very carefully.

But today, there are already opportunities for the madrasah students to interact with many of our national school students through various opportunities. For example, we have SAP schools like River Valley High working very closely with some of the madrasahs.

The most important thing is that we want to find common spaces for our students and our young people to interact in the light of our conversation today, to facilitate greater inter-ethnic understanding. Although they are in separate institutions, we should continue to find opportunities for them to interact, not just through inter-school games or inter-school CCAs but also other opportunities.

Community organisations also provide such opportunities. I remember when I was the Mayor of South East District, the Community Development Councils organise platforms like the Common Senses for Common Spaces, where students from different institutions come together to learn more about inter-religious understanding.

We can explore further opportunities for our young people to continue to interact regardless of where they are studying and, more importantly, to ensure that we try to expand the common spaces as much as possible.

Mr Speaker: I will take the last supplementary question. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition, the hon Mr Pritam Singh has mentioned CMIO quite a number of times in his speech. In the light of this, can I ask our MCCY Minister, Mr Edwin Tong, to share with us the relevance of CMIO today.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, Sir, WP has on several occasions questioned the continued relevance of having the CMIO classification, and has also called for it to be removed. Sir, but at the same time, at almost every Parliamentary Sitting, there are a many number of PQs which focus on individual specific races, looking at programmes, outcomes, assistance.

I just did a quick look; this last Sitting, we have seven or eight such PQs and they range from issues such as education, like Ms Raeesah Khan asked a question for tomorrow whether there are, and I quote, "any immediate and specific action plans to tackle the issue of low education levels of the Malay community". She has also asked another question for tomorrow where she has asked the Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs, "for each year from 2011 to 2020, how many Malays entered the local Universities and what is the percentage breakdown as compared to other races?"

Mr Faisal Manap has also asked the question, I think, in writing, asking the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of reports made by victims of sexual assault, asking for a breakdown by race. I think Mr Leon Perera, at an earlier Sitting, asked for MOH's Screen for Life programme to be broken down by ethnic lines. And I think Ms He Ting Ru asked the same question for the breakdown in relation to elections.

Sir, I am not citing these to suggest that these questions ought not be answered. On the contrary, I think these are very important questions and it is not wrong to do so, and we agree. The relevant Ministries will answer those questions fully.

The point though of citing these PQs is to say that, in reality, both sides of the House, and I think certainly on these examples, WP as well, realise that it is important to look at these outcomes by segments of society. And it is only if you have the CMIO classification and breakdown that you will be able to track performance of relative segments of society, to gauge the outcomes and to gauge for ourselves the efficacy and outcomes of these programmes that we have in place.

The relevant Ministries will give more full answer, I am sure, in due course. But if you take some of the points raised in these PQs, we are able to say that the percentage of Malay P1 cohort going onto post-Secondary education has doubled in the last 25 years. The number of Malay university graduates has doubled from 5.5% in 2010 to 10.8% in 2020. If we take the average Malay student, they were found in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in 2018 to have scored higher, above the OECD average. And Malay students also outperformed international students in this same PISA assessment on 21st century competencies.

This gives us, Mr Speaker, a good gauge of not just the relative performance of the segments in our society but also on the efficacy of our programmes and allows us to look at relative outcomes to assess where there might be gaps and to help in targeted, specialised, curated ways.

So, Sir, with reference to the point made by the Member Mr Sitoh, I think these are important classifications that feed into an important outcome in terms of the programmes that we make. And I would invite the Workers' Party to consider this position and perhaps to state whether or not they see the CMIO as a relevant consideration today. And I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that certainly from the nature, type and range of questions that they have asked in Parliament, I think that would appear to be so.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should thank Mr Sitoh for asking a question on our behalf.

I think we have to accept that we operate on terms dictated by the Government which wins the mandate at the elections, and that has been the PAP government. It has continued this CMIO model. I think where we are coming from is – and I believe the Government is on the same page in this regard – that we want to level everybody up so that no race feels that the government policy does not reach out to them in a way which brings us to that destination which the Workers' Party wants Singapore to reach, of a race-neutral society.

So, these questions inevitably will be asked but the point I want to share with Minister Edwin Tong is, to what end do we keep asking these questions? What is the end game? We want a situation where we can tell that government policy is improving outcomes, especially for communities which are not doing well. But let us be clear about where we want to go with this.

More than that, I think, immigration after 1990 has changed the complexion of Singapore society in that, are we just looking at CMIO now or is there something a little bit more complicated in Singapore that we need to look into?

The Minister did not address the PQs I have filed for tomorrow. They are Written PQs, they are on the basis of the census that has been released last month. In the census, if you look at Census 2010 for the Indian community, for example, it was broken down into the minority languages: Urdu, Gujarathi. More data on Indian community groups. But Census 2020 takes a much more narrow approach; some categories have fallen away. What are the reasons? I do not understand, hence, the PQ.

I do believe that there is a fundamental shift in Singapore society and it will be useful to know if the CMIO model needs to evolve.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Mr Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for making those points. Just to pick up on his last comment, to look at the outcomes and to see whether or not we can improve certain segments in society in Singapore and to look at whether the programmes help to uplift them, would he not accept that if you are looking at how to uplift certain segments by race, which we have done, then, would that not mean that the CMIO classification would not only be relevant, it would in fact be necessary to retain this distinction; at least for now, until we reach post-race-blind or race-neutral society?

Mr Pritam Singh: I think I can agree with the eventual outcome that even the Minister shares, which is to reach that race-neutral, race-blind end. To that extent, yes. I think you have to look at how the Government is performing on these indicators and eventually, with more Opposition Members in the House, looking at these numbers and figures, and asking more pointed questions and even putting up alternatives for debate and discussion, hopefully, we can reach that end state, which will be beneficial for all Singaporeans, not just this generation but those that come after us.

The Senior Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Speaker, Sir, I had not intended to speak or ask any questions on this very important subject, but I thought that since I have slightly more white hair than most people here who have been speaking, I thought I would share a perspective.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he thinks we should allow ethnic enclaves to form and just to see what happens, by abolishing the EIP today; and then, reach a situation where we were 50 years ago, 60 years ago, at the point of Independence; and then, try and correct it when all the problems arise?

Or whether we should take what he calls a pre-emptive but the measures that we are taking today, to avoid such a situation arising?

So, are we more likely to arrive at a situation where Singaporeans learn to live with each other on a daily basis by making sure that we live in an integrated way on a daily basis in our estates? Or are we more likely to do so if we allow Singaporeans to live in segregated estates?

And also, are we more likely to level everyone up if we are able to identify the issues that each of the communities in Singapore may face and therefore have more targeted programmes for them?

Or to ignore the differences? The Leader of the Opposition says we should be race-blind or race-neutral and just treat everybody as though they are exactly the same.

And then, are we likely to arrive at a good solution, where we reach this eventual outcome? Or are we less likely to do so?

And Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me, because he mentioned more Members of Opposition in the House would lead to better outcomes. I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with me that these are matters of great sensitivity and have to be handled with great sensitivity, rather than be exploited for political purposes?

Mr Pritam Singh: Mr Speaker, I will deal with the last comment first. Is the Senior Minister suggesting that the WP is using these episodes for political purposes? The answer, I think, should be obvious. The answer is no, we do not do that. I appreciate the accolade because I think it is appropriate.

In terms of the series of hypotheticals that the Senior Minister put out, I think moving from one extreme to another extreme is probably not the policy approach; hence, the earlier exchange we had about evolving the EIP to suit the needs of this current generation.

But I hope it does not undermine or take away the point that philosophically, where does the WP want Singapore to go? And I do not think the PAP is very far away from this – that we all are trying to move towards a race-neutral society. We may have different approaches of going at it. We, of course, have the harder job of trying to second guess what is reasonable in the way we move there, because we do not have the information and the broad sweep of facts that the Government has.

But I think, by and large, we accept that we have to move forward in a way where Singapore, as a country, as a society, is strengthened. That should make things clear.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Speaker, Sir, I think there is a lesson to be learnt here between philosophy and methods. The philosophy, we can agree on. We all want a multiracial Singapore. We want Singaporeans to live together in multi-racial communities, not in segregated communities. I think even the WP agrees on that; the Leader of the Opposition says so too.

But how do we get there? Those are methods. Methods can be adapted and changed. But we have the same philosophy that we want a multi-racial society Singapore, integrated housing, well-integrated communities and schools. We are more likely to get there with the HDB policies that we have today, with EIP, rather than what the WP is proposing. In fact, their manifesto says abolish it now; although the Leader of the Opposition seems to have shifted away from that because he realises that that is untenable.

Are we more likely to achieve an integrated Singapore by having integrated housing or to abolish the EIP as the WP would propose today and have segregated housing. And then, how do we learn how to live together again? That is the question I have, Sir.

I am glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we should all not exploit the issues of race and religion for political purposes. I applaud that.

4.11 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question Time. Ministerial Statement. Minister for Finance.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 22-33, 35-38, 40, 42, 47-48, 54-58, 60-64, 73-76, 78-96, 98-104, 106-111, 114-115 and 120 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. The remaining Questions have been postponed to a later Sitting of Parliament or withdrawn.]