Debate on President's Address

Noted. Would any of Mr Dennis Tan's colleagues like to respond? If not, let us proceed.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

Singapore’s journey in the last 60 years has been remarkable. At the time of our Independence, we were very much a developing country. In 1960, our GDP per capita was US$449. By 1990, at the time Mr Lee Kuan Yew handed over to Mr Goh Chok Tong, it had risen to US$11,862 per capita. If we look at the numbers, it is a remarkable growth. The multiple is more than 25 times. So, of course, the growth that that generation experienced would have been remarkable. By 2006, when Mr Goh Chok Tong handed over, GDP per capita had risen to US$33,769. This, again, by any standard, is a big number. But in proportion, it is three times the growth. This clearly put us very much amongst the First World nations. In 2019, when the last figures were available from the World Bank, the GDP stood at around US$65,233 – again, a very big number, a little under double from 2006.

Singapore has been criticised for focusing too much on GDP. But I think this is a luxury we have after we have achieved that growth, a luxury that has given us many opportunities.

For comparison, if we compare these figures to, say, the UK – which was also not a very successful country and was our former colonial masters – we actually see how remarkable this achievement is. In 1960, the UK’s GDP per capita was about US$1,398, about three times ours. In 1990, the same second timeframe, it was US$19,095, still more than 60% higher than ours – no longer triple but still significantly more. In 2006, its GDP was about US$44,600, again, higher than ours, but only about 25% higher. As of last year, the UK’s GDP per capita was $42,300, according to the World Bank figures, and this is actually slightly lower than it was in 2006, and, now, 30% below ours.

This is not meant to be a criticism of the UK but just to show how difficult it is to achieve growth once you have become a developed nation and the UK has been maintaining its GDP for the last 14 years but it has been difficult to achieve growth. So, if you compare that as the benchmark, I think the current term of government has done incredibly well. It has grown GDP from a high benchmark to an even higher benchmark. This is why, in many ways, we are in no-man's land. There is an old saying in Tamil which goes: “இக்கரைக்கு அக்கரை பச்சை”. In English, you will be familiar with this. It means, “The grass is greener on the other side”. So, for many of us, we may look at other developed countries and think we are inferior and then say, "Look, we have to replicate them".

But I think this sometimes understates how good things are over here. This is not to say we are perfect and this is not to say we cannot learn. We have to always learn, we always have to look outwards. But at the same time, we also cannot let go of things that have worked for us and which we have been doing right.

In this speech, I want to touch on three themes that I think are important for this. The first is openness; the second, equality; and the third is fairness.

The first topic I am touching on is openness. Openness has been one of the most important themes for Singapore's economy since its founding. When the British set up Singapore and planted their flag in Singapore about 200 years ago, the population was less than 1,000. But at that time, Raffles saw Singapore as a place where the region and perhaps even larger parts of the world could come to trade. As Singapore grew as a trading port, as part of a bigger global empire, more and more people moved here, including from the Malay peninsular, China and India, where many of our ancestors are from. So, it was, in fact, Singapore's openness from inception that brought many of us here.

At the time of Independence, Singapore had a choice. Many countries that won independence from colonial masters sometimes cut roots altogether. They said "We want nothing more to do with the rest of the world. We will do everything ourselves". Singapore did not. Singapore went a different way. We kept it open to the world. We did not burn bridges with our colonial masters. In fact, we maintained the relationship. The British continued to provide for our defence for some years after our Independence. We played a part in the Commonwealth, we joined international organisations. We brought new industries and new businesses here and this is what actually helped Singapore grow during the early years.

In the earlier speeches, Minister Ong Ye Kung talked about the financial sector – one area where many Singaporeans are feeling angst about foreigners taking their jobs. But he highlighted that this sector really started again as an entrepreneurial venture in a little over 50 years ago when Singapore decided to open up as a currency trading hub. This slowly evolved into having more and more high-quality jobs here and we now have a sector that employs 170,000 people, of which 70% are Singaporeans. Our senior management, I think, could do better but the numbers still stand at 44% Singaporean and these are jobs that would not have been here if we were not open.

Yesterday, in his speech, Prime Minister Lee talked about many sectors, including oil and gas and pharmaceuticals. Other sectors not mentioned include areas like manufacturing. But many of these areas grew on the back of our being open and allowing people to come in and build a base here. I am also heartened that, during this difficult time, Singapore remains open. I think the Prime Minister mentioned in his speech yesterday that EDB has a longer pipeline of projects this year than last year, including companies looking to develop treatments for COVID-19. This is good news for Singaporeans and jobs. But in order to benefit from this, we have to remain open.

The second theme though is equality. Equality is something that I think every society strives for. But equality has many different meanings. During the Cold War, there were two very different conceptions of equality. On the one hand, you can say the US perhaps epitomises it. It talked very heavily about equality of opportunity – whoever you are, wherever you are, you must have a chance to succeed. But equality of opportunity almost always creates inequality of outcomes. You cannot run away from that. If everyone is given the same chance, some people will do better than others; the outcomes will be different. Why do they do better? There can be many reasons. It can be hard work, it can be luck. Or it can also be privilege – you had a better starting position. But if you focus on giving everyone equal opportunities, your outcomes will not be equal.

The second side, you might say, is the ideal of communism – equality of outcome. So, the ideal world, in that conception, was that whatever you do, it did not matter. As long as you did your best, everyone will get the same outcome. But no society has been able to achieve that. Even in the more strongly socialist countries, outcomes were still different. It is just that those differences were less.

But one big problem with that conception of equality was that the human desire to do your best to achieve was significantly dampened. And George Orwell and many other commentators observed that the only way you could have complete equality of outcome is in a totalitarian state and that was undesirable because, ultimately, the state has to take control of everything, tell people what to do and everyone one outcome.

So, where we are after the Cold War is that everyone more or less said, okay, equality of opportunity is the way to go. But, of course, 20 years down, we realised that equality of opportunity also has problems. One of the biggest problems is the entrenchment of privilege. This is why I think governments still have a role to play to ensure that the playing field remains fair and that everyone will still have a chance to do well, even if we focus on equality of opportunity.

This actually brings me to my point on fairness, which is the third pillar in what I think is important.

Fairness is something which Singapore has worked very hard to achieve. One policy that I commend and which I think we should be very slow to release on is actually equality for the different races and religions. This is something that we enshrine in our Constitution and with express policies to promote. Some of these include racial quotas in HDB blocks as well as the GRC system that ensures minority representation in Parliament.

Earlier in the debate, Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned we should relook at these. I am happy. It is okay to relook at these policies. But I would firmly say that I think these policies are important.

Let me share a conversation I had with a politician from a European country. This was about six or seven years ago at a time when ISIS was brewing as a problem for the world. At that time, Singapore was also concerned about this. But my European counterpart was asking me, "How do you deal with this issue of returning fighters? You have a Muslim population that is about the same size as ours but you do not seem to have many people going to the Middle East to fight, whereas we have..." at that time, he said, "...more than a hundred people who were going and there is not much we could do about them because people are free to travel". At that time, he was actually asking us about our Internal Security Act and he thought that that was the main reason we did not have so many people going there to fight.

We had a very interesting conversation because I asked him a little bit more about the Middle East. He said that the Muslim community was about the same size in our two countries. So, I asked him, "You said many of them were going to fight. But how well integrated is your Muslim community with the rest?" He said, "They are not discriminated. They can do whatever they want. But they all like to live together." Then I also asked after that, "Do you have any of them in parliament?" and he mentioned "No, they are not in parliament. There is nothing stopping them. But, yes, they do not run, so they are not in parliament."

So, they have a very laissez faire approach to it. But the outcome of that laissez faire approach was that it looked like you had a community that was not well integrated, not well represented and, therefore, felt like an outsider, whereas one of the things about our community is that all the different communities are very well integrated. And, certainly, when it comes to radicalism and so on, usually, most of our leads come from the community itself, the rehabilitation takes place through the community and everyone sees themselves as part of the same project.

So, this is a very important part of equality and fairness. But this is not natural. This requires at least gentle legislation to put people together and then people can form bonds. So, yes, we can explore this, but it is something that we should be slow to let go.

But there are three things that I do think we can change and these are suggestions along the way. So, when I talk about fairness, what fairness really means is that wherever you are, you should have a fair shot. John Rawls, in his Theory of Justice, said that for any society, the ideal benchmark of fairness is you decide and structure the society without knowing where you will be, so that, wherever you are, you will feel this is a fair society. That is a very useful test. I think, in Singapore, it should be wherever you are, rich, poor, minority, of whatever ethnic group, you should feel you have a fair shot at life.

There are three areas we could look at to improve. One area is pre-schools. I had mentioned very early on, even before I became a father, that I actually thought it was important to socialise pre-school course as well. In our early years of Independence, the Pioneer Generation realised that education was an important leveller. So, Primary education was made free and compulsory. Everyone had to go in for Primary school. This helped one generation. At that time, in Primary school, that was where you learn to read and write. But now, what has happened is that more and more people are starting out at pre-school. And pre-school is not compulsory. It has been made significantly more affordable but it is still more expensive than Primary school. It is not effectively free. And those who can afford it or are deemed to be able to afford it, will have to pay.

The result of this is that pre-school enrolment, while getting better, is still not universal. Standards are variable and parents sometimes have a perception that some pre-schools are significantly better than others and, therefore, there are different starting points.

I acknowledge that the socialising of pre-school to try and make it equally accessible, free and, potentially, even compulsory, will be significantly more than Primary school. So, this is a big prize to get the item and this is something that we should focus on if the Budget allows it. These are things we can do, now that we are a richer country. But, again, it has to be balanced against other priorities. So, this is the pre-school level, the very early starting point.

The second area where we could put a bit more focus on is, once you move to the Secondary level, people diverge between vocational paths and more academic paths. I agree with the focus of the Ministry that different pathways to success should be there and all pathways should lead to success.

But one area where there is significant discrepancy is the salaries that come out from the vocational path and the academic path. Germany is a country in Europe which has the fewest number of graduates per capita but it also has one of the highest GDP per capita. That is because vocational jobs in Germany pay very well. So, I think it is important for us to look into why there is discrepancy between vocational pay as compared to the pay of graduates. This is not something that is natural. If a skilled vocational person is able to add value, they should be able to command a higher salary than graduates.

In most developed countries, vocational pay is higher. The implication for this, of course, is that when you pay for service, you have to pay more as well. But I think if you are talking about progressing fairly, this will be one area that probably requires more careful study.

The third area is what I would call, a workplace discrimination. And here we have had very longstanding debates taking place about whether or not Singaporeans are being discriminated in their workplace. And I think MOM has a very clever lever at the moment. The current lever is that if an employer is deemed to be discriminating against Singaporeans, their access to foreign labour is cut or reduced.

This, of course, is perfectly logical; it is a very effective tool. But the group of people who are left dissatisfied with this process are the people who feel they are victims of the discrimination, because they themselves have no recourse. MOM may take action against the company, if it deems the company is not acting fairly, but the individual who feels he may have lost his job does not feel vindicated. It is here that I think there isroom for legislation on workplace discrimination.

I would also add that workplace discrimination legislation has had a mixed history in different countries. In some places because of anti-discrimination legislation, people actually get more afraid to hire from that discriminated community. Any anti-discrimination legislation has to be careful, but I think if the focus of discrimination is on Singaporeans and foreigners, I think it will be a line that we will be able to maintain.

What this basically means is that, on the one hand, MOM as the regulator will manage the access to work passes, rights to employ more foreigners and so on, if they are deemed not to be fair to Singaporeans; but at the same time, if legislation is there to give the individual aggrieved recourse, I think that would also make Singaporeans feel they have had a fairer hearing. They will know that my specific case was considered, my grievance was considered, and yes, there was an outcome. I think this is an important process that will add to the feeling of fairness.

Mr Speaker, as a country, we have come a very long way and the three principles that have been important for this are openness, equality and fairness. I have laid out three suggestions that I think would help in the fairness aspect which is ultimately important for us to get support for the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many of us are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is often depicted as a triangle. At the base of this triangle are physiological needs. The need for safety is at the next level. Together, these two lowest levels make up what we call basic needs. The next level is relationship and intimacy needs which we derive a lot from interaction with friends and family. This is then followed by esteem needs which we derive often from our work and education. This is a psychological need. At the apex of this triangle, is our self-actualisation need – that feeling of achieving our potential through accomplishing something creative or extraordinary.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is not really just a tool to explain our needs, but really to explain what motivates us. Sir, culture and sports often straddle the two highest levels of needs: esteem and self-actualisation.

As the world is battered by the COVID-19 pandemic, one may be tempted to say we should put culture and sports on the backburner and we focus all our energies on our lower level needs, such as physical safety, economic survival and so on. I think many of us have also realised that our relationships with family and friends are very precious during these last few months, especially during the circuit breaker period. Indeed, many of us are more attuned to our basic and psychological needs than ever before and realise that in the hustle and bustle of the pre-COVID world, we may have taken them somewhat for granted.

But I would like to say that even when the future looks bleak and the world looks more dangerous than ever, we should not neglect higher needs for self-actualisation and esteem. Jobs do not just put food on the table, jobs also give us esteem and a chance to self-actualise. That is why it is so important to keep people engaged through work. That is why there is a saying in occupational medicine – the most dangerous employment is unemployment.

But, Sir, beyond jobs and the economy, which are of paramount importance now, there are also other areas that deserve our attention and resources. It is part of our nation-building process that goes on every day, with or without COVID-19. One may even argue, nation-building is more urgent and important when the nation is faced with great adversity. But these nation-building areas must also include our culture and our sports.

Sir, I am reminded of this when I watched a local documentary movie, "The Songs We Sang", 我们唱着的歌, recently on Netflix. I had watched this movie made by local director Ms Eva Tang when it was first screened more than five years ago in our cinemas and I watched it again when it was made available on Netflix.

It chronicles the birth and development of a Singapore genre of Mandarin music called Xinyao that began in the late 1970s and flourished in the 1980s. It was written and performed by Chinese educated students of a transitional generation that faced many difficult challenges. I belong to that generation, although I am not Chinese-educated and I cannot write music or sing. I went to Hwa Chong Junior College between 1980 and 1981 when the Xinyao movement was just starting and gushing with creative energy. In 1981, when Liang Wern Fook, the now famous singer-songwriter and also Xinyao pioneer, was elected President of the Students' Council in Hwa Chong, Xinyao gained even greater prominence.

Sir, these Chinese educated students were taught in Chinese up to Secondary school before they went to junior college where they were uniformly instructed in English together with the English-educated students. Subjects such as math, physics and geography, which they had learnt in Chinese previously, had to be relearnt in English. On top of that, news of the merger of University of Singapore and Nanyang University to form National University of Singapore in 1980 was already circulating strongly in the Junior College community then.

To these Chinese-educated schoolmates in our midst, it was a further blow to some of them as it meant there was effectively no more place for them to pursue their dreams of a Chinese-stream university education. It was also widely reported in the mass media that good job opportunities were far and few between for Chinese-educated students. It was truly a sink or swim, do or die for them in the English-stream Junior Colleges.

Many of them did not despair, but some did. I could see it in their eyes then. Many of them were active in Chinese literary clubs and Xinyao groups that blossomed in many Junior Colleges, even as they struggled on a daily basis in a titanic struggle to master English and wondered what an English-based economy had in store for them. They seemed to feel like strangers in their own land, somewhat marginalised and dislocated even. I felt sorry for them.

As these youths took refuge in their music and writings, many good things happened. Great songs were written, and thousands of students and young adults derived great pride and joy from this uniquely Singapore genre of Chinese music. These Xinyao artistes later mentored younger singers and musicians such as JJ Lin, Kit Chan and Stephanie Sun. Famous Xinyao songs now etched into the consciousness of the Chinese-speaking community include "Voices from the Heart", 小人物的心声, which has been staged in two National Day Parades, and "The Small Stream that Flows Forever", 细水长流, which our Prime Minister sang in the 2014 National Day Rally.

The energy, optimism and purity of spirit of the Xinyao movement and its student performers is exactly what we need now. This is derived from cultural activities such as music and literature. The Xinyao music gave these young people strength to face another day and helped them to forget, for a while, the harsh realities that buffeted them daily. The relationships and camaraderie that were forged during those times by not just the performers but by all who listened to Xinyao in the early 1980s, also undoubtedly helped many Chinese-educated persons to weather the existential questions that they came face to face with.

Sir, I would now like to move on to sports. Sports is like culture in many ways. There is more to sports than just getting fit and deriving the physical health benefits from sports. Sports add to the collective and national consciousness of a country. It can even heal scars and unite a country. The South Africa rugby team helped Nelson Mandela to unite South Africa during the 1995 Rugby World Cup. South Africa was a country that was just emerging from apartheid then. This story was made into the movie "Invictus" in 2009. Invictus means "unconquered" in Latin which sort of sums up the spirit that is needed in adversity and crises. "Invictus" was a poem written by 18th century poet, William Ernest Henley, that Nelson Mandela often recited to inspire himself while he was imprisoned on Robben Island for 18 years.

I gave these two examples of Xinyao and The 1995 South African World Cup Rugby team because they embody the very elements that our society in which MCCY focuses on – the youth, culture and sports.

More than ever now, we need to believe in ourselves. To paraphrase the last two lines of the poem, "Invictus" –

"We are the masters of our fate,

We are the captains of our soul."

Mr Speaker, I will end by saying that it is very tempting to relegate culture and sports to insignificance in times of a public health and economic crisis. But that would clearly be wrong, it would be a mistake. It is time now to invest more, even double down, and harness the good and positive energy that our youth, as well as our cultural and sporting activities can provide – to help us nurture a stronger national identity, forge an unconquerable soul and be a source of hope and unity for Singaporeans even as our nation charts a new course in a COVID-stricken world and prepares itself for a post-COVID-19 one. Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

2.15 pm

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Through my admittedly brief time interacting with Sengkang residents, an underlying theme that unites them is the aspirations they have for Singapore in the 21st Century. Therefore, I wish to speak today about compassionate policy-making.

What is compassionate policy-making? The word "compassion" refers to a sympathetic concern for others by linking compassion to policy. I am suggesting that the design of our national policies need to be more cognisant of how these policies play out – not just on the aggregate but also how they impact different groups, especially those at the margins of society.

Students of policy learn very early on that the policy-making process comprises two key pillars. The first – efficiency – describes how well policy deploys the resources available at our disposal. The second – equity – speaks to the sense of fairness inherent in resulting policy. Ultimately, policy entails a trade-off between the two.

Traditionally, our policy-makers have prided themselves on being stewards of rational, efficient policy-making. Accordingly, Singaporeans have been called to acquiesce to policies of tough love, sacrificing individual justice on the altar of national progress. To be clear, this has worked well for us over three generations and has brought us from Third World to First.

And so, we as a nation have shied away from the sort of policies that will lend support to certain segments of society if it also meant that we had to compromise our deeply rooted sense of personal responsibility for the economic and social circumstances that we happen to find ourselves in.

This, indeed, has been the cornerstone of our national belief in meritocracy and self-sufficiency. But the truth is, reality is often far more complex than we are willing to allow or admit. Workers do not simply collapse into a state of dependency when offered supportive handouts by Government because most people find a sense of purpose and meaning in work, even when they draw humble salaries.

Children born into poor, broken families leave school early, not merely because they are lazy or lack talent but because when they fall behind, they lack resources to help them catch up and some may be discouraged and question their own abilities. People fall into debt, not just because they have irredeemable penchant to gamble their lives away but because those little bets they place offer them the best hope for escaping what they perceive to be dreary, hopeless situations.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we stop rewarding hard work or success or that we squander the fruits of past generations by irresponsible expenditures to prop up undeserving individuals and families in the name of progressive policy. What I am suggesting, Mr Speaker, is that the sort of decisions we make as a society and as a country should no longer privilege efficiency at the sheer expense of equity. Because we are no longer a Third World nation, we cannot continue to operate as if we are blind to the consequences that tough nose policies carry for our people.

This is especially so at the time when we need to help everyone pull in the same direction for our collective future.

In her speech Mdm President spoke about the importance of building a fair and just society, about sharing the benefits of progress with all citizens. The hard truth is though, in as much as we have, indeed, progressed over the past few decades, the gains from this progress have not been equally shared across society.

While we have slowly chipped away at extreme inequality that characterise earnings just prior to the global crisis of 2007, the distribution of our national income, even after accounting for taxes and transfers, remains embarrassing when compared to our high-income peers. The number of poor in our midst informally defined because we have steadfastly refused to define an official poverty line. It is flattered by our very conservative definition of basic needs, and even so it is estimated at as much as as a quarter of the population.

It is, therefore, undeniable that our existing approach to policy-making can benefit from a greater injection of compassion and thoughtfulness. Yet the fear that many policy-makers often hold when they talk about policy reform is that we must not break the system that has worked so well for us. Sure, we recognise a need for change, but let us do it slowly in careful steps.

So, the policies we pursue turn out to be tentative, incremental, "kiasu".

The problem with this approach, Mr Speaker, is that such marginal changes do little to right the boat. As a nation, we have, fortunately, yet to experience the sort of populist pressures for change that have plagued so many other developed nations.

But the people are losing patience. I speak with residents, many who are modest and unassuming who, nevertheless, feel crushed by the dual weight of high costs and low wages, with seemingly little compassion for their plight.

Remarkably, our policy balance has now become so skewed that we could potentially garner significant gains in terms of improving equity and by extension national welfare, with minimal losses in terms of foregone efficiency. All we need is the courage of our convictions. We have a form of Minimum Wage policy via the Progressive Wage Model. Yet until, recently, we had deemed it unwise to make it universal and still dress the policy with so many additional conditions that the incentives for upskilling turn into loopholes the employers use to retain workers on the lowest rung of wages.

We warn against unaffordable costs and lost jobs despite evidence that the majority of Singaporeans would be willing to pay more for essential services and that the employment impact of a Minimum Wage is likely to be very limited.

We propose a form of negative income tax via Workfare, but the nature of Earned Income Tax Credit programmes such as this, is that it compels work. This is wonderful if your view of human nature is that people would otherwise while away their time but unconscionable when it requires our elderly to continue working into their sunset years, or if we wish to provide genuine support for single working mothers.

We talk about the importance of improving the quality of life after retirement, yet we remain overwhelmingly rigid and insist on ensuring the future adequacy of their CPF savings, even when they face extenuating financial circumstances that are causing severe distress today. We excessively constrain the usage of MediSave, leaving seniors with chronic conditions, the tab of paying for their expenses that exceed the annual withdrawal caps.

We remain stubbornly afraid of policies that involve redistribution even when our workers secure some of the lowest share of income in the developed world. We often default to the mindset that equates redistribution with sloth while glossing over the enormous challenge of making a living while being pinched from below by low-cost foreign workers and out-competed from above by high skilled foreign talent. This leaves are blue-collar workers feeling left behind and our PMETs increasingly insecure.

What we need are more policies like ComCare and the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme, both of which have made substantive steps towards bolstering our sense of opportunity and care for others in our society. These policies, and others like these, demonstrate that we are in fact capable of injecting compassion into our policy choices. My contention then is that we are certainly able to do more, much more.

Mr Speaker, may I humbly suggest that the root of these challenges is insufficient compassion in our policy-making process.

So, what again is "compassionate policy-making"? When we pursue policy-making under the umbrella of compassion, we seek to relieve the suffering of others, which is the key component of the definition of compassion. When we prioritise compasssion, we become more willing to err on the side of equity, perhaps at some expense to efficiency. This means a willingness to accept the it may be better to allow for a policy where one or two out of every hundred individuals may end up exploiting or abusing the policy, but at the same time that others clearly benefit from being supported by the expanded social safety net.

But compassionate policy can also be robust policy. Engineers keenly understand that when design becomes too complicated, too involved, too tailored to extract every last ounce of efficiency, it can also be fragile, embedding multiple points of failure. Robust policy is better suited to deal with the sort of high uncertainty post pandemic environment that we find ourselves in. Moreover, when policy is gamed into no longer yielding first-best outcomes, the second best policy is often drastically different in form from the original.

Some may argue that as we face down the worst crisis of our generation, the time is not right for us to pursue such "soft" policies. What we need is a tough nosed policies that require all of us to make sacrifices for the greater good. I would argue to the contrary. When we call on Singaporeans to make such sacrifices – and I believe we are more than willing to come together to do so – we also need to reassure Singaporeans that the fruits of such sacrifice will not only accrue to certain winners after the storm has passed. Not only that, I also believe that improving the social protections we offer to people can be an important path to blunting the sorts of populist, nationalist pressure that has reared its head in so many countries.

I do not believe that Singaporeans are inherently anti-foreigner. After all, we are a nation of immigrants and we have been an open trading society for centuries of our history. But what has inspired recent resistance to foreigners is concern about unmitigated population expansion, a sense that they are not getting a fair shake, of feeling discriminated in their own country. It is a sense that the Government does not appear to have their backs and that their foothold on prosperity is so precarious that once they fall, there is no way back.

Of course, the best time for enacting policies that imply some degree of redistribution and introduction of frictions to unfettered market forces is not when we are in the throes of an unprecedented crisis. But I also believe we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time – although the latter is admittedly difficult in Singapore.

Let us commit to the principles of compassionate policy-making now and set out plans in the moment. When the crisis has blown over, we will be prepared to implement the policies we commit to today. Besides, policies that emphasise compassion also matter in the immediate term even as we confront the worst economic crisis of our generation. Singaporeans are faced not only with the need to tighten their belts to weather the storm, they are also confronted with the uncomfortable conundrum of facing this unprecedented event without the reassurance of tried and tested social safety nets that are rather commonplace in other advanced economies.

It is imperative, therefore, the our focus is on protecting workers though not necessarily jobs; opportunities and not only businesses; ideas and not ideologies. When we do so, we are exercising the sort of compassionate policy-making that is necessary to help tide us over this crisis and to emerge stronger.

So, what is compassionate policy-making? Compassion is what translates empathy into action. Compassionate policy-making then requires a keen understanding of the plight of others and a recognition that our policies have deep implications for the lived reality of ordinary Singaporeans.

It is understanding that when we fail to adequately allocate schooling spots to nearby schools, we compel hard-working parents to endure additional costs to raising the family – like the Goh family who shared with me about how all their lives, they have always coloured within the lines, live their lives as good citizens and never asked for what they feel is beyond reasonable expectations. Yet they have been informed that their elder daughter is unable to enrol in any Primary school in their neighbourhood and they are now forced to add additional travel to their already taxing daily schedules.

It is understanding that when we insist on the fulfilment of standard feasibility studies before deciding on improvement projects, we impose additional burdens on our elderly – like the case of Mr Tan who has asked for years to no avail that the overhead bridge beside his block install an elevator. Yet, the overwhelmingly young demographic of his neighbourhood means that the two senior blocks have effectively been neglected, resulting in their continued difficulties whenever these elderly residents wish to take a bus.

Ultimately, we should temper majority interest with a concern for the minority as well.

It is understanding that when we asked students to study hard and do well, we have also led them to expect that there are opportunities available for them after they have fulfilled their end of the bargain. So, when we have graduates like Danny or JK, who are unable to secure a decent job after graduation because they feel that they are being displaced by globalisation or foreign talent, we should not be surprised when they become disillusioned and angry. When their educational training has repeatedly assessed them on what to think instead of teaching them how to think. We should be unsurprised, when they feel betrayed by the system that they feel has not adequately prepared them for the jobs of the 21st century.

It is understanding that when foreign workers under our charge gets sick, we owe a moral responsibility to take care of them and nurse them back to health as we have correctly chosen to do. But it is also recognising that the conditions in which they have been enduring are inappropriate for a First World country such as ours. It is about acknowledging that our economic model, which continues to rely on low-wage foreign workers such as these, is a clear blind spot that can stand for more scrutiny.

Let me close with a reiteration of actionable policies that I have suggested in this speech. We can introduce an official poverty line closely linked to ComCare. We can implement a simple across-the-board Minimum Wage, and we can introduce more flexibility to our access to our CPF monies. We can expand coverage of KiFAS. And there are many more and we hope to raise these in this House in the months ahead.

Almost eight centuries ago the Sufi poet and scholar, Jalal ad-Din Rumi, wrote of such empathy in his poem "A Great Wagon". Rumi implored for us to go out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing: where there is a field, I will meet you there.

Politics is the art of compromise. It is inherent on us in this House to find a better balance to the policies we pursue for the future of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, I believe that we can become a better and richer society and country not just in material wealth, but in intellectual, societal and spiritual wealth. We can do so by embracing more compassion in our policy-making. And with that, I support the Motion of Thanks. [Applause.]

Minister of State Gan Siow Huang.

Senior Minister of State Zaqy Mohamad.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a clarification to Member Jamus Lim's point about Minimum Wage.

There is a fundamental difference between what the Government has said so far about the Progressive Wage Model or PWM versus the Minimum Wage. This is not a new concept which was thought of just after the General Election.

If you were to talk members of the NTUC, for example, they have talked about the PWM since 2012, and there is in fact a key difference between PWM and Minimum Wage, in that it is differentiated across sectors. These are pains in which the union, the Government and the employers come to a position on, in what is bearable for every sector. So, there is differentiation by sector. And the fact that there is a ladder also tells us that there is recognition that we want to bring workers to different productive levels too, to make sure that workers continue to upgrade and get paid better.

We have seen the impact of the PWM. In the last five years, our low-wage workers have seen wages rise by 30% in real terms. Minister Josephine Teo mentioned that in her speech.

The expansion of PWM is not something new that we just talked about. In this House, in March this year, as part of the Budget, and I too announced that we are looking at expanding PWM. The reason why we have taken a bit of time – and you have seen how PWM has been implemented over the past few years, including the most recent round announced for the lift and escalator sector – is that we have to come to positions that are bearable; that it is not just a blunt tool, a straight line across all sectors, to the point that you will find employment being difficult for some.

Take hawker assistants, for example. Some stalls are family-owned; so some assistants are members of the family helping each other and so, the family businesses are what you have to think about. So, there are different considerations and things that we have to work out across sectors.

But it is not a new position. It is something that we have been working on since 2012 till now. In fact, even before that, the unions have really raised this. It is just that we have implemented them in stages. It is something that we have already announced that we will expand, once times are better.

The second point that the Member raised is that we have to talk about compassion. I think it is easy to talk about compassion when it is just mere talk. If you have got to put money on the table, you have also to consider, as a Government, where that money comes from; and how you manage the Budget, whether you have to raise GST.

I think where the PAP Government has made a difference is that we put the money where our mouth is. If you talk about compassion, we have just put up four Budgets in the space of three months. What does that mean? A hundred billion dollars!

I think many Singaporeans have also felt the impact of the Care and Support Package. The Job Support Scheme, I think, is one of the best forms of unemployment insurance to some extent, where you can see many jobs being saved during this period.

So, to some extent there is a lot of compassion. But I think you have to realise that this is also a whole system put in place.

The last part where the Member talked about 25% of our population are in the low wage group. Can the Member let us know what is his benchmark or basis for saying so? What is the definition of living wage or Minimum Wage that Workers’ Party subscribes to? Let us know what that number is. I would like to ask for clarification from the Member on what that number would be.

As to the part about not recognising what the Government has done, if you are to look at the low-wage workers of today, beyond just wages, how we have helped both the industries as well as the consumers – the people out there – if you discount the fact that the Workfare comes to play where the Government puts in revenues to transfer back to workers of low wages. This translates into up to 30% of extra income for them, so that we – the society – bear the burden, transferring back taxes. You do not push this onto the consumers so that you also manage the level of inflation.

Over time, you have seen wages go up through PWM. We hope as we expand it, we will get more workers on board. What is also important is that you do not just work on the minimum. As you can see for the different sectors, the security sector earns more than the cleaning. So, why work on one level when we can work at different levels, making it relevant to the productivity and the levels of wages that each sector can afford. So, why just keep to a minimum?

And last but not least, if you look at the proof of the pudding. Among our low-wage workers, the bottom 20% of all our workers, about 70% of them own their own homes today. The transfers that the Government gives go beyond just wages, but they encompass the whole system where I think a large part of our low-wage workers are given that shelter, that stability for their children to be able to grow up in stable homes, given the opportunities to rise. And many of us came from those kinds of families too.

To be able to give good shelter, good education systems. All these come to play in how this Government has been compassionate in its policies. Yes, we can do more. I thank the Member for giving us suggestions. And I hope that with our further debates in this House, there is more that can be done.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Vikram Nair.

Ms Tin Pei Ling.

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Mr Speaker, a point of order, please?

Yes, Dr Janil.

Mr Speaker, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim was asked a question. While I appreciate his erudition in economics – and I am learning quite a lot from him – he has not answered Ms Tin's question.

If I may clarify, which question did I not answer?

Okay, thank you. Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As an accountant, I am rather perturbed by something Assoc Prof Jamus Lim said just now. If I heard you correctly, you said that given low interest rate, it is now time to re-mortgage your properties.

As an accountant with over three decades of experience, I can tell you that is how people start getting into trouble. I hope you are not teaching that in your classes. But to my knowledge, Singapore is one of the very few countries in the world, maybe the only one that has not got to borrow in such pandemic times. Having a balance sheet is good, having savings is not a sin, having savings like the way we have it, is very good. So, may you clarify on what you have just said? I hope I heard you wrongly.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Sir, if I may say, that is living in a stage of euphoria. You are always assuming that tomorrow will be better than today. I do not want to go into an argument about economics here. You said because of the low interest rate, I mortgage and then I reinvest to get a better return. You are assuming there is a better return which may never come.

Mr Leon Perera. Yes, Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

I do not think that was the point that was made. Mr Leon Perera.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. I would like to seek some clarifications from Minister of State Zaqy, Minister of State Gan and Mr Vikram Nair about what they have said.

So, I will start with Minister of State Zaqy. I would like to put it to the hon Minister of State that based on Parliamentary Questions that we have asked in the last term, if you take a wage level of say $1,300 per month, the number of people who are earning below that wage right now is approximately 100,000. It could be a bit more, it could be a bit less, but that is my inference from answers to Parliamentary Questions that we got earlier.

Let us assume that it is 100,000 earning less than $1,300 per month. In response to a separate Parliamentary Question that we asked – what is the average household expenditure on basic needs – we asked this of the Government, I believe, in 2019 and the answer came back – $1,300 per month. When a similar question was asked by my colleague Mr Gerald Giam, the answer was $1,250 per month. If I recall correctly, that was a number of years back. So, $1,300 per month is the average household expenditure on basic needs. That excludes transport.

There is no equivalence between the two. Of course, there could be dual-income, triple-income households. But for those earning $1,300 per month, I assume that not everyone will be covered by the Progressive Wage Model. I think that is a reasonable and fair assumption.

The Minister of State and others have said that the Progressive Wage Models can be rolled out to more sectors but my question to Minister of State Zaqy would really be – what would you say to individuals earning less than $1,300 per month who are supporting a household which is below the average household expenditure on basic needs that the Government itself has specified. Does the Minister of State believe that there is no room for policy improvement for this group? Should this group wait until the Progressive Wage Model comes to them? How long will that take? How many years will that take? Is there no room for improvement and what would the Minister of State say to those individuals? That is my first point of clarification.

My second point of clarification is to Minister of State Gan. I would like to invite the Minister of State to agree with, and I think Assoc Prof Jamus Lim did make some of these points earlier that there is a considerable body of academic research that suggests that if a Minimum Wage is set at a level that is not too high – and there are various definitions that had been postulated by academics, I know there is a figure of 40% of the median and so on – if the Minimum Wage is not set too high, will have a minimal or negligible impact on jobs. There is actually quite considerable academic evidence for this proposition. And I would like to ask the Minister of State Gan would she consider that actually the danger to jobs is not setting a Minimum Wage, but setting a Minimum Wage too high, which is definitely not what we are advocating.

My third clarification is to Mr Vikram Nair who asked whether there is another country that has a Minimum Wage and has a lower unemployment than we have in Singapore. I would like to ask Mr Nair would he acknowledge that other countries who have higher unemployment than Singapore, it may not be causally because they have a Minimum Wage; and if we have low unemployment than those countries, it may not causally be that it is because we do not have a Minimum Wage?

Senior Minister Tharman.

May I?

Assoc Prof Jamus Lim.

Let us move on. Minister of State Tan Kiat How.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Many Members in this House have spoken about the importance of seizing opportunities in the digital age and the tremendous positive benefits that it brings.

Even as we ride the wave of digital revolution, we need to bear in mind that technology is a double-edged sword. There can also be significant negative consequences.

I will speak today on how we can minimise the downside while we seek and strive to maximise the upside – how we can safely navigate cyberspace when there is danger lurking at every corner; how we can come together to build a safer, kinder, more caring online community for all.

Let me first share a few stories. Names have been changed to protect their identity.

Mdm Tan, who is in her 70s, recounted to a Digital Ambassador in my constituency that she had received a seemingly legitimate SMS asking for her bank details urgently, threatening to freeze her bank account otherwise. Fearful of the consequences, she hurriedly replied. Just like that, she was scammed of more than $10,000, a substantial part of her life savings.

Seniors are not the only victims. Fifteen-year old Joyce had what she thought was an innocent online friendship with a supposedly 18-year-old boy. This turned into one of manipulation, where he threatened to harm himself unless Joyce fulfilled his requests – even for nude photos. Though the relationship has since ended, the episode left her struggling to trust the people around her.

Mr Speaker, the impact on the physical, mental and financial well-being of victims and their loved ones are real and lasting.

Mr Ong, another East Coast resident, shared with me a harrowing experience. Inappropriate photos of his daughter were downloaded from her phone without her consent and circulated online. Though police reports were made, the social media platform was slow to respond, and the photos stayed online. His daughter was traumatised and even contemplated suicide. The family felt extremely helpless, not knowing what to do and who to turn to.

These stories are not isolated cases. A 2018 survey commissioned by Mediacorp’s Talking Point showed that three out of four youths between the ages of 13 and 19 have been bullied online. Very few told their parents. Based on a study by Microsoft in 2019, two in three Singapore youths between the ages of 13 and 17 have encountered at least one form of online risk, including exposure to unwanted sexual content. Online scams doubled in the first half of 2020, compared to the same period last year. There were almost 8,000 scams, with a staggering $103 million cheated. Seniors are vulnerable, with those aged 55 and above, making up of almost half of all victims of inheritance scams and tech support scams in this same period.

This is not unique to Singapore. Countries around the world are also grappling with these challenges.

New Zealand criminalised serious instances of online bullying, and harassment and appointed an organisation "NetSafe" to act as the first port of call to investigate and resolve complaints on online harm. For example, NetSafe liaises with website hosts and Internet service providers to take down harmful content through persuasion and mediation.

Australia set up an Office of the eSafety Commissioner, a dedicated agency that was empowered to investigate and take action against perpetrators, by issuing warnings, requesting websites to remove harmful material, or seeking a civil penalty order in Court.

In South Korea, the government itself operates a "Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Centre". This one-stop centre provides counselling services, liaises with websites to delete harmful content and refers victims to pro-bono legal services. Importantly, victims and their loved ones know they are not alone in their darkest hour of need.

Each society has an obligation to protect its citizens. We too have a duty to keep Singaporeans safe from online harm.

Singaporeans are proud that we have one of the safest streets in the world. We let our children and loved ones walk freely around the neighbourhood and we trust they have pleasant interactions. Likewise, we must also strive to build a safe and kind online space – one marked with care and respect, where everyone including our children and our seniors can interact freely without constantly looking over their shoulders, looking for perpetrators and predators.

A few days ago in this House, Mdm Rahayu spoke passionately about building a kind and compassionate society, both offline and online. This is a worhthy goal. We must act now and decisively, and not wait till it is too late.

We are building on a good foundation. Our content classification regime protects our young from harmful or unsuitable materials, while ensuring the rest of us access the whole wide range of content. The recently formed Inter-Ministry Committee on Scams coordinates efforts across the Government to tackle scams. The Protection from Harassment Act or POHA was enhanced in 2019 to allow authorities to better respond to emerging online trends, such as by criminalising the act of doxxing.

We also educate Singaporeans on online harms. MOE’s Cyber Wellness education teaches students to recognise risks in the digital space, identify negative influences and navigate online spaces safely. The National Crime Prevention Council raises awareness on online scams through a WhatsApp broadcast channel and they run an anti-scam helpline.

Yet despite these efforts, we are often only playing catch up. Four reasons.

First, cyberspace evolves rapidly. A few days ago, Ms Tin Pei Ling spoke about the immense popularity of the TikTok video sharing platform. Each emergent platform – be it Instagram or TikTok – brings with it new challenges. This requires us to be nimble and adaptable.

Legislation and Government efforts by themselves are insufficient. Multiple stakeholders need to be involved and each given a stake in this effort. The Government can set out the broad approach to regulations, code of practices and norms, but we need ground-up initiatives to experiment with various approaches to meet the needs of our citizens. If they are successful, we can scale up these initiatives.

With these considerations in mind, let me propose three steps how we can achieve this – how we can Step Forward, Step Up and Step In.

First on Stepping Forward. The Government plays a critical role in this multi-stakeholder approach. It sets the tone and brings the right parties together.

Today, no single agency bears the responsibility of preventing and mitigating online harm. Correspondingly, different Government agencies grasp different aspects of the issue: MOE for cyberwellness education in schools; MCI for digital literacy for seniors and media literacy for young adults; MSF for counselling and support for victims through voluntary welfare organisations; and MCCY for youth mental well-being.

Consequently, we do not fully understand the shape of the elephant, much less tame the beast. This approach must change, so that we can adapt to the growing complexity of the problem.

We need a Government agency to step forward, take charge and develop a citizen-centric perspective on this issue. Like its overseas counterparts, this agency should champion and coordinate the Government’s effort in this area and take the lead in assembling a multi-stakeholder response.

This agency should work with a panel of experts so that we can think about this matter holistically, ensure that we keep abreast of global developments, and stay on top of this issue.

Mental health professionals and academics can help us make sense of the social and psychological dynamics of the online space. Community partners can help us understand the impact on vulnerable groups, and the support they need. Educators and pedagogy experts can study and share best practices on how schools can facilitate learning on these topics. Industry representatives can advocate for the role of the private sector in working with us to build a safer and kinder online space.

This panel can be empowered to make recommendations on how to prevent these harms and provide timely help to the victims. This could include proposals to strengthen current legislative and enforcement levers, or even establish new ones.

But the Government’s role is only one part of the solution, which brings me to my next point. We need every stakeholder group to step up and take action.

To the private sector, my appeal to you is “Starting safe is half the battle won”. It is in your firm's interest to do so – a safe customer is a loyal customer and I will touch on two aspects of how corporates can contribute.

First, companies that deliver digital services should be more thoughtful in the design of their products.  They should adopt the concept of “Safety by Design” and embed safety features from the outset as part of the design process. Today, cars and consumer appliances need to meet safety standards before they are allowed into the market. Similarly, we should consider ways on how we can give users a sense of assurance in the online space. There are some early efforts and areas we can further explore in Singapore. For example, banks exploring monitoring elderly customers’ accounts to spot irregular transactions so that they can be alerted in time. Seniors may be also given the option to disallow cross-border remittances made through their e-banking service.

Caller ID can be a first line of defence for many seniors to spot scam calls. For instance, the plus sign is now prefixed to all incoming international calls, to combat spoof calls from overseas. This is a good step and more can be done. Perhaps telcos can consider maintaining a common database of blacklisted numbers and block incoming calls from these numbers, and also consider making many of these functions easily accessible for all seniors. In fact just this morning, there was a Forum Letter on this very issue in The Straits Times.

E-commerce platforms can also better safeguard its customers by implementing measures such as an escrow account to reduce e-commerce scams.

Keeping customers safe online should not be an afterthought or treated as the customer help desk’s problem. Management needs to take ownership and I commend many responsible companies that are adopting such a mindset. I encourage many more to do so too. It is the right thing to do and it makes business sense.

Second, social media platforms can step up to detect and resolve online harm issues early, as well as raise awareness on these issues. Nip the issue early in the bud, before irreparable harm is done.

Platforms such as Instagram and Twitter have existing functions for reporting content, comments, or accounts. They can work with the appointed Government agency on how we can better use these tools to combat cyber bullying and cyber grooming.

Facebook has also piloted programmes with TOUCH Cyber Wellness in schools, to equip seniors to use technology safely, or conduct workshops with school counsellors on how to talk about cyber bullying in the classroom.

Singapore has a stellar reputation for trust globally. It is a win-win outcome for us and the social media platforms if they can do more in Singapore and set the benchmark for the rest of the world.

To parents, my appeal to all of us – since I was recently promoted to that stature – would be, “Staying safe online starts at home.” This was the advice that a group of Secondary school girls that initiated "Project Bluetic"’ shared with me. The team started off with a simple objective to raise awareness amongst their peers and encourage them to "bluetick" uncomfortable online messages – "bluetick", which is to read the message, get the "bluetick", ignore these messages and report the user.

However, they soon realised that the key group that needed education were the parents. One parent signed up for the cyber grooming workshop, thinking it was online courses on how to improve the kid's appearance!

The girls shared with me how important it was for parents to provide a safe space at home, where children can seek advice or help without fear of being judged.

So, to all parents, I humbly call upon all of us to step up to better understand the dangers of online harm and to create such an environment where we and our children can speak freely, heart-to-heart.

I spoke about how the Government can step forward and how key stakeholder groups can step up. Finally, we need everyone to step in and be part of a national movement to build a safer and kinder online community. We must foster a culture of inclusiveness where we make technology accessible. We must foster a culture of kindness where we respect each other like we do in real life and a culture of safety so that our seniors and children can learn and enjoy the Internet without fear.

The Singapore Kindness Movement started in 1997, building on the National Courtesy Campaign. Many of us, even young kids I spoke to, fondly recall the iconic "Singa the Lion", the face of this campaign since 1982.

Perhaps, it is timely for us to have a new national movement under SG Together for the online space. A new movement to rally passionate individuals and groups, and channel their energy and enthusiasm into taking action that would make a difference for society.

A good example is “Flag, You’re It!”, an initiative by a group of NTU students to campaign against cyber grooming. The campaign encourages youths to flag out uncomfortable or predatory online conversations and to have candid conversations on such experiences with their loved ones. They ran a powerful, immersive exhibition at the National Library called “45 minutes in the PreyGround”, P-R-E-Y, PreyGound, where visitors were led to step into the shoes of victims to understand their experiences of being preyed upon online.

I went through exhibition. It was enlightening and very moving. And I reconnected with them recently. Because of COVID, they have focused their advocacy effort on Instagram, sharing stories of victims and bite-sized infographics and videos. They have reached nearly 40,000 individuals online. They even came up with a card game to encourage conversations amongst friends!

The Government can support this national movement by convening platforms to bring together such like-minded parties and amplify these ground-up efforts through funding and mentoring support.

Another insight the NTU team shared with me was the importance of peer support, friends looking out for one another. Each of us can step in and be part of this movement. We can spread awareness, offer a listening ear to our friends or direct those in need to avenues for help and support.

We can also learn how to speak about such issues in a supportive way – to push back against stigmatising such issues and provide a safe space for victims to come forward. Ultimately, kindness starts with each one of us. Put ourselves in someone else’s shoes, think before we click. Mr Speaker, Sir, before I concluded, please allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Technologies have brought a lot of convenience to the lives of Singaporeans, but we must also be wary of the dangers that comes with technologies.

Cyber bullying, cyber grooming and online fraud can cause long-term damage to the physical, mental and financial health of the victims and their families.

We must take immediate actions to create a safe and kind cyber space for all, especially the young and the elderly.

First, we need a government agency to coordinate and bring together the various government policies and efforts.

The agency can appoint a panel that comprises professionals and for the panel to study the issue in a holistic manner and make relevant recommendations to the government.

Second, we need the full support of different stakeholders groups in society. For example, tech companies and social media companies can study how to provide safer online services and products, and work with the government to promote cyber security awareness. Parents, on the other hand, can pick up relevant knowledge and provide a safe space at home, so that children can seek advice and help when they need it.

Finally, we must mobilise the entire nation to create a safe and kind cyberspace.

We can each do our part too, for example, helping to promote cyber security awareness, lending a listening ear to friends when they are troubled, providing them with guidance, or encouraging them to turn to existing channels for help.

Technology is a double-edged sword. We cannot shy away from the internet just because there are risks. Instead, we should learn how to make good and full use of it while protecting ourselves. Everyone needs to take responsibility to protect ourselves in cybersecurity.

(In English): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mdm President spoke about the need to build a fair and just society. As our world becomes increasingly digitalised, we must also pay special attention to how the most vulnerable amongst us not just access, but also navigate the digital space.

My wife and I just had our baby. Isaac will be turning a month old this weekend. He and other children of his generation will grow up in a very different world from all of us, where they will spend a large part of their lives in cyberspace. It is the duty of our generation to do all that we can to make sure that our children and seniors can grow up and grow old in a safe and caring online community, where there is no digital divide, where our people have the confidence and skills to ride the digital wave; where just as they are at ease moving around in the physical neighbourhood, they can have the same peace of mind navigating the digital space.

We need to act boldly and decisively now before it is too late. So, let us all step forward, step up and step in to be part of this national movement. [Applause.]

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, it is my honour to address this House in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President, which she delivered at the Opening of the Fourteenth Parliament.

The President mentioned in her speech that we are starting a new term of Government under the shadow of COVID-19. Indeed, COVID-19 has created unprecedented challenges to the lives and livelihoods of the people around the world and Singapore is, unfortunately, not spared from this global crisis. As pointed out by Mdm President, we are facing our worst recession since Independence and we have already seen Singapore's GDP shrink by 13.2% year on year in the second quarter, with total employment seeing the largest quarterly decline on record at 131,500 workers.

Yet, despite the devastating headline economic statistics, I have no doubt in my mind that Singapore will weather the COVID-19 crisis and our economy will continue to grow again. But the bigger question to me is: what does it mean for us to emerge stronger as a nation and how do we define our success?

It is unfortunate that it takes a crisis, such as COVID-19, to expose some of the weakness of our economic structures and our lack of social protection for the vulnerable. To the lucky few amongst us, COVID-19 is just a passing storm or the proverbial rainy day where we can rely on our past savings to tide us through.

But to the less privileged Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet on a daily basis, COVID-19 is a tsunami which threatens not just their livelihoods, but possibly even their lives.

Today, Singapore is already one of the wealthiest countries in the world as measured by GDP per capita. Yet, we are also often perceived to be an unequal society where the benefits of growth may perhaps not be evenly distributed and with inequality threatening to weaken our social fabric. It is perhaps time for us to have a rethink of what we value as a society and who have we left behind in our pursuit of headline economic growth.

I call on the Government to evaluate its success not just based on a set of economic terms, but to take a more holistic, multi-dimensional approach in measuring the progress of our nation. We should base our policy decision-making on not just maximising financial value, but on maximising the overall well-being of all Singaporeans, particularly the most vulnerable amongst us.

To this end, I note that New Zealand embarked on its first well-being budget in 2019, recognising that economic growth, while important, does not guarantee improvements in living standards. Bhutan, too, has a Gross National Happiness Index which captures multiple indicators across nine domains. While these may not be directly replicable in the context of Singapore, it is imperative for us to start assessing how each and every Singaporean is doing, and how best to address the unmet needs of our people in a sustainable and equitable manner.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 has been a catastrophic crisis and we must not let the lessons from this go to waste. On that note, I would like to highlight four areas for reform to build a stronger and more resilient Singapore society, post the current pandemic in this crisis.

The first area of reform is in relation to workers' protection. COVID-19 has, undoubtedly, been an unprecedented healthcare crisis, leading to a simultaneous demand and supply economic destruction.

Yet, with the shortening of business cycles and hastening of technological disruption, the threat of widespread job losses and rapid job irrelevance is only going to rise in future. Direct assistance to companies, such as the Jobs Support Scheme, could arguably provide indirect support to employment. But as we have seen in the second quarter employment change numbers, subsidies to companies and moral suasion cannot prevent job losses. The ratio of job vacancies to unemployed persons reached a historical low of .71 as at March 2020 and with the demand outlook remaining poor and arguably the worst of retrenchments and unemployment perhaps still ahead of us.

Many more workers will be without a job despite their best intentions to be employed. Rather than providing blanket wage subsidies across companies, it is perhaps the workers themselves that are most in need of direct support and financial buffers in the event of unemployment.

The Singapore Government has taken pride in creating a pro-business environment through its economic and manpower policies. It is now time, in my view, however, to strengthen our employment laws to better support and protect workers and raise the standard of work for all.

The Global Financial Crisis in 2008/2009 saw the introduction of Kurzarbeit in Germany, a short time work programme that has been a key feature of the German safety net since, which was a useful template for many countries to model on. Building a more resilient workforce in society starts with strengthening our social safety nets for workers, and we now have an opportunity to do just that without necessarily impairing the incentive to work hard.

The second area of reform is in relation to housing. In its Addendum to the President's Address, the Minister for National Development wrote about taking care of Singaporeans' housing needs, such as ensuring that public housing remains affordable, especially for young families, while enhancing schemes to help our seniors tap on their flats' value to supplement their retirement adequacy.

However, it is precisely our flats' value that is in question where the HDB resale market has been affected by concerns over lease decay in the past few years. This has serious implications for the retirement adequacy of Singaporeans, as much of Singaporeans' assets are being tied to their primary residence, which is their HDB flat.

The Government has said earlier in 2019 that it will consider all alternative suggestions and ways to manage the expiring leases of HDB flats and we cannot continue to ignore the elephant in the room. And this is an issue which I believe should rank high on our national agenda. Ultimately, more than 80% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats, with the overwhelming majority relying on their CPF Ordinary Account balances to finance their flats.

With many Singaporeans entering their golden years, the knowledge of their HDB flats steadily losing value as they approach the tail-end of their leases can become a significant source of mental stress and insecurity.

The third area of reform is in relation to support for families. Our houses may be built from bricks and mortar, but the family is the basic building block of society. Singapore's Total Fertility Rate stands at a record low of 1.14 in 2019 and many couples could potentially be further delaying their marriage and parenthood plans amidst the economic uncertainties today. I believe that sustainable growth is not only defined by fiscal sustainability, but by the future sustainability of our people, our human resource.

We need to recognise that family-friendly policies boost rather than reduce productivity and reject the notion that dedicating time for our care-giving responsibilities hurts the employment prospects of workers. The silver lining to the circuit breaker period was that it institutionalised flexible working arrangements and showed us that economic competitiveness need not come at the expense of our families.

On a personal level, I started working from home even before Phase 1 of the circuit breaker measures and, as a father to a newborn baby, I am thankful to have witnessed his various development milestones over the past year and to partake in the joys of parenthood while continuing to stay productive at work.

I recognise that MOM will support employers to offer flexible work arrangements and work-life harmony initiatives. Yet, there is so much more that we can do. We need to give employees the legislative right to flexible work arrangements rather than non-legally binding advisories. We need the Government to lead by example and demonstrate to companies what progressive HR policies look like. More importantly, we need to devote greater resources to families to support their parenthood aspirations.

Mr Speaker, we cannot expect incremental efforts to result in extraordinary results. We need to take bold and decisive steps and provide greater financial and non-financial support to Singaporean families, recognising that the stresses on families and our low fertility rate, if not urgently addressed today, would have significant long-term socio-economic cost to Singapore.

The last area of reform is on the use of reserves. I agree with the Government's fiscal prudence and policy that our expenditures cannot and should not be more than our revenues for long-term sustainability.

However, national policy proposals that tap on the reserves must be seen in the context of Singaporeans' growing needs across healthcare, ageing and retirement adequacy. As such, there needs to be thorough evaluation of alternative sources of revenue that remain untapped.

Currently, some Government revenues, including land sales, are excluded from the official Budget. However, capital receipts, such as land sales, represent strong recurring cash revenues that are actually received by the Government, particularly with land being sold on a leasehold basis.

As such, one of the ways that the revenue shortfall could potentially be met is by tapping no more than a fifth of the approximately $15 billion per year in land sales that the Government typically collects.

The other area that could potentially be looked at as an alternative source of revenue is to increase the Net Investment Returns Contribution by up to 10%. While we would need to safeguard our reserves for potential contingencies, let us also acknowledge that increasing the percentage of returns generated will only vary the pace of reserve growth, but will not cause the reserves to fall.

Arguably, deploying our reserves into more productive uses by investing them into our people, our human capital, could generate far superior returns in the long run and boost the future sustainability of our nation. Mr Speaker, let me now say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Singapore is an affluent country, ranked at number eight in the world in terms of per capita GDP. However, we are often described as an unequal society with a widening income gap, weakening social cohesion slowly.

Perhaps it is time for us to rethink what we should value as a society, and whether we have overlooked certain groups in the society while chasing economic growth.

I urge the Government not to continue to measure the success of governance solely based on economic data, but to adopt a more holistic approach and measure the progress of the country in various ways. Policies should not be formulated purely on the economic level, but to give priority to the welfare of all Singaporeans and pay attention to the disadvantaged groups in society.

Mr Speaker, COVID-19 is a crisis, but it also presents an opportunity for change. Today, I would like to raise four areas for improvement so that we can build a stronger and more resilient society after the pandemic.

First, we must better protect our workers.

Global demand is softening, many companies have no choice but to retrench staff, and many Singaporeans have to face unemployment. For businesses, the Jobs Support Scheme, which has been extended repeatedly, may help them survive, and companies do not need to apply. But even if the unemployed can apply for other one-off assistance schemes, some will still be rejected after going through cumbersome application processes.

Instead of continuing to subsidise companies, what local workers need more is direct subsidies and assistance to help them mitigate the impact of unemployment and economic recession. Many older Singaporeans, no matter how hard they work, do not have enough protection if they fall ill or are retrenched. Direct subsidies and assistance are the most needed help for Singaporeans.

The Singapore Government has always been proud of the pro-business environment created through economic and manpower policies, but I feel that it is time for us to strengthen our employment laws to better protect workers' interests and take this opportunity to carry out sustained and structural reforms to ensure that our workers enjoy better financial security.

The second area that needs to be reformed is our housing policy.

Minister for National Development has mentioned the need to take care of the housing needs of Singaporeans, such as ensuring affordability of HDB flats, allowing young families to own homes earlier, and strengthening schemes to help the elderly use the value of HDB flats to supplement their retirement needs.

However, the problem lies in the value of our HDB flats. Leases that are about to expire has affected the resale price of HDB flats in recent years. For many Singaporeans, their main asset is their HDB flat, and they have spent most of their life savings on it. However, if Singaporeans, upon entering their golden years, see resale prices declining gradually as the lease of their flat coming to an end, they would feel mentally stressed and lose the sense of security, because the HDB flat can no longer ensure that they have sufficient retirement funds.

The third area is support for the family.

The family is the bedrock of our society. We must realise that pro-family policies will not reduce productivity but raise it instead. It is also incorrect to think that employees spending time and taking care of their children and elderly at home will affect their career prospects.

We need to take bold and decisive measures to provide more financial and non-monetary assistance to Singaporean families, because if we don’t address early the daily pressure faced by families and the issue of low birth rate, they could have a long-term socio-economic impact on Singapore.

Finally, I would like to talk about how to treat our reserves.

I agree that it is important for the Government to manage its finances prudently, to balance revenue and expenditure to achieve long-term sustainability. However, considering that rising healthcare and cost of living have led to inadequate retirement funds, should we not assess our untapped sources of income in a more holistic manner? For example, every year, we make an average of $15 billion from land sales, but these revenues are not included in the Government's budget.

I must stress that what the Workers' Party is proposing is not raiding our reserves, but to slow the reserves' growth rate. What we are doing is not to cut this tree of reserves, but to allow Singaporeans to take shelter from the forest as represented by the reserves as they are under the scorching sun.

(In English): Mr Speaker, to conclude, COVID-19 will not be the only challenge for Singaporeans. There will be many more foreseeable white swan events and unpredictable black swan events which we may not be fully prepared for. To build a more resilient society, we need to foster a culture of open-mindedness where dissenting views are not only accepted but actually encouraged and where bold, innovative ideas are championed instead of being squashed.

I believe that change has to come from the top and it starts from the context of the Parliament and the Government of the day. To this end, I am comforted by the President's assurance that the Government will be open to constructive criticism and rational debate, and to new ways of doing things.

As a first-time Member of Parliament, I am honoured and privileged to be a Member of this House, and I believe voters have put their faith in us because of their greater desire for diversity in Parliament, more robust Parliamentary debates and a bigger say in Government decision-making so as to achieve the best outcomes for all Singaporeans.

We must continue to be the voice for our constituents. But beyond mere words and statements of intent, it is our actions that define us. I sincerely hope that the Government will have the courage and political will to translate the breadth and depth of ideas that Members bring to this House into concrete policies to take Singapore forward.

A united Singapore Together is not one that speaks with one voice. A united Singapore is one with a diversity of voices sharing our common belief for a better future and working together as one. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I join the other hon Members of this House in adding to the chorus of support for the Motion of Thanks.

In her address, Mdm President highlighted that we are facing a sea of change in an uncertain and complex world. Globally, fault lines are growing more pronounced across class, political, racial and inter-generational divides. We are seeing new waves of protectionism taking root in a world more connected than ever before. How do these fault lines form? It starts within us and the biases in our mind, whether we admit them or not, and grows in the unwillingness to have conversations to understand the perspectives of people we are unfamiliar with or with whom we may disagree. The end result? Echo chambers where entrenched views take root and we end up in shouting matches on opposite ends of divisive issues.

Mr Speaker, one of the core tenets of Singapore's success lies in our ability to live harmoniously with each other in spite of our differences. We got here by emphasising tolerance and mutual respect, and while mutual respect will always be relevant, we must navigate the uncomfortable but necessary shift from mere tolerance, past acceptance, to active understanding of different views. This requires us to lean into conversations on issues that may be uncomfortable.

But I submit that if we do not lead the way in navigating these conversations, we leave the space wide open for others to fill in ways that may be incendiary or out of context for our Singapore.

While hope for a better future is a shared aspiration across generations, the common lived experience of a Singaporean life has changed dramatically over the years. During my house visits in Cheng San-Seletar, some senior residents shared their fond memories of rubber plantations and farms in Ang Mo Kio. The world we live in today is one where these residents and people like my grandmother hardly recognise. My grandmother was given away as a child and tried to find her way back home after the war. It was a time when girls did not go to school and sometimes were considered less worthy. Her experiences shaped her own perceptions, beliefs and hopes for her children. Only a few decades have passed and now Singapore is a place where girls go to university, participate in the workforce and run for political candidacy.

The stark differences in lived experiences have not spared the baby boomers, Generations X, Y, Z and Alpha from inevitable clashes. It is natural for members of each generation to feel that their experience holds the most weight, to reject opinions that do not gel with their worldviews. And it is convenient to turn to labels, which make it easier to dismiss perspectives. While these inclinations are understandable, they are unacceptable in a society which appreciates the wisdom and guidance of its elders but also trusts its youth to lead it forward into the future.

"OK Boomer" and "strawberry generation" narratives are examples of reductionist caricatures. They obfuscate the path to finding common ground by pitting old versus young. This can cause tensions in the workplace as the average office environment now houses three to four generations under one roof. Generation Z comes in as interns, millennials move up in their careers to take on supervisory roles, Generation X become top executives and seniors retire later. We may even feel this in our own homes as grandparents and grandchildren disagree on political and cultural norms.

If we truly want to harness the potential of our youth and tap on the experiences of our seniors, then we must not be dismissive of their thoughts, dreams and fears.

While social media has amplified the space for individuals to have a voice, ironically, it can also make people more afraid to speak up for fear of being judged or flamed. In a world where tweets and memes dominate, we must also take the time to really listen and consider the details. The space that our middle ground occupies, carefully built up over the years, should be enlarged, not shrunken.

Social media also accentuates the polarisation of perspectives on a global level, which very quickly trickles down to the local. We are not only exposed to shifts in global economic headwinds, now we are also exposed to shifts in social and cultural headwinds, which we must learn to navigate with equal competence.

Mr Speaker, one thing I know to be certain about who we are as a people is our ability to punch above our weight. As much as we are pragmatic, we are a nation built on the backs of dreamers with the gumption to tackle the challenges of their time. We have seen this through the efforts of the Merdeka and Pioneer Generations. Driven by the promise of a stake in Singapore's progress, they pursued the betterment of our society relentlessly. The unlikely reality of Singapore building a bustling metropolis in place of what could have been an abandoned port city post war rife with ideological, economic and social strife came to past, and with that, came the promise of a stake in a young nation's progress fulfilled with citizens through education, home equity and wage growth. This greased the wheels of social mobility.

Fifty-five years later, we are in a different time faced with different challenges in a world battled by COVID-19. While there are immediate challenges to tackle, it is also important to keep an eye on the longer term. After the dust settles, what does that citizen's stake in Singapore's progress look like for future generations? What will be the engine of social mobility for our sandwiched class? In times of hardship such as this, we need to sow seeds of hope for when the rain passes and a strong vision for the future.

In the region and globally, we see socio-economic shifts gassed by systemic inequality. Across the world, my generation worries about rising home prices, stagnating wages and an increasingly competitive job market that could mean that we will not see the same rate of upward mobility as that of generations before.

Here in Singapore, we would be in a much worse position if the Government had not invested heavily in trying to protect Singaporeans by motivating companies through stimulus levers to raise wages progressively, upscale workers and keep the Singaporean core employed. One group that has been deeply impacted are mid-career professionals. These are individuals with several years of working experience and are on track to becoming specialists in their domains. They are often at the age where they have children to raise and parents to look after. Many of my residents fall within this category.

The Government recently introduced the SGUnited Mid-Career Pathways programme. The programme aims to provide 14,500 opportunities for mid-career jobseekers to gain meaningful industry-relevant experience. Those part of the full-time training programme will receive a monthly allowance.

While training allowances are much appreciated, the reality is that these individuals and their families will feel the drop in income. A number of mid-career professionals already find themselves part of the sandwiched class squeeze and at times, the opportunity cost of upgrading their skills in pursuit of a potential future feels far too great. Our workers will need to adopt a longer term earning outlook but this does means that perhaps on the social side, we may need to relook what assistance schemes look like, who qualifies for them, and if there can be interim targeted support so that families can thrive and not just survive.

In her address, Mdm President also spoke about the need to evolve our model of meritocracy. This resonates deeply with me. There are many schemes to support students and families from disadvantaged backgrounds. At the same time, work on the ground reveals that there are people who fall through the cracks and we must deal with these gaps with empathy. Where individuals miss the qualifying criteria by a whisker, where circumstances require our youth to take on part-time paid jobs instead of a coveted, unpaid internship, or where women drop drop out of the workforce to fulfill care-giving roles at home as hired help is beyond their means.

While it may not be possible to completely eradicate inequality in the world, it is entirely within our responsibility to ensure that Singaporeans from all walks of life are not priced out of opportunities and are able to seize them in a timely way.

I would like to share one story of a youth who comes from a difficult background. At 20, she did not fall automatically within the age criteria to receive certain transfers or benefit from schemes that residents 21 and above qualified for. Her parents were divorced, did not have regular employment and could not support her. She met a young man of the same age, had a baby, got married and got pregnant the second time. Despite moving in with his family in their rental flat, the youth and her baby effectively lived as a separate family unit while the husband served National Service.

She shared with me her hopes of finding a job but worried there would be no care-giver for her children as her husband's vocation did not allow him to return home in the evenings and that the flat's monthly rental fees would be adjusted upwards when she became a new income earner in the house. The rental flat fees could increase by up to eight times, depending on the increase in household income.

Could we consider a fixed rental fee for a longer period of time to allow such households to build up their savings for rainier days and future dreams?

In my time on the panel of advisers to the Youth Courts, I have also encountered youth who reside in homes under the Children and Young Persons Act. While family is a building block of society, as spoken about by my colleague Mr Zhulkarnain earlier and the hon Member Louis Chua, sadly, there are some youth who, upon reaching the age of 19, are no longer able to stay in these homes but also do not have families to reintegrate with.

The sudden shift to independent living without a routine while having to find work to pay for accommodation can be overwhelming and these youth, sometimes, are not able to reach their to reach their full potential.

Having served in the youth space for many years, I have seen the shifts and in fact compassion, exercised by policy-makers. There is no doubt in my mind that our youth are deserving and that the Government recognises this and has heavily invested in building up our youth. I hope that we continue to do so and reach even more youth segments. Mr Speaker, a few words in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am concerned about the COVID-19 crisis occupying the minds of our community. I am however confident that this crisis is only temporary and we can overcome it. This is because, in these trying times, the Malay community has shown solidarity to help one another in order to move forward together:

I have seen the spirit of mutual cooperation and collaboration between M3 and Malay/ Muslim organizations under the SG Teguh Bersatu initiative.

I am also touched to see many seniors such as retired teachers as well as qualified business leaders coming forward to help the community.

I am also glad to see youths taking the time to embark on initiatives and serve the community.

When I look at our community, I am filled with admiration because our Malay community is a resilient one. We appreciate the guidance from the older generation and have faith in our youths to progress towards a brighter future.

I am also aware that the government has drawn up various programmes to help needy families. In the Ministry of Social and Family Development’s addendum, Minister Masagos Zulkifli outlined the government’s focus on improving social assistance so that families who need it can receive services that are more comprehensive and coordinated. I welcome this effort as it enhances the government’s reach to connect residents to the last-mile service delivery. I acknowledge that assistance given in a timely manner can change one’s life.

(In English): In closing, we must build bridges of understanding to deal with the shifts in the global World Order and the needs of different generations. I am confident in who we are as a people and our Singaporean values that put us in good stead during these unprecedented times.

As Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat said in the earlier part of the debate: adapt to change but stay true to our values. The world will change with or without us, and our Little Red Dot’s best shot at driving is to change as we stay united together. We are a young country and I believe our best days are ahead of us. Mr Speaker, I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion.

Much has been said about how the COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted our lives and forced massive changes to the way we work, live and play. It is no exaggeration to say that this is indeed a crisis to test our generation. But it is also not without some silver linings. Let me highlight three.

First, people are looking out for one another. We can take pride and draw strength from this. Many Singaporeans have gone out of their way to help others – giving out free masks to strangers, delivering groceries to those in quarantine, hawkers cooking for the hungry, customers rallying support for hawkers on social media. These are just a few examples of the great many heart-warming acts we see all around us.

Second, our businesses and workforce are seizing opportunities and trying new things in response to the crisis. Traditional businesses have innovated and accelerated their adoption of tech solutions. Our wet market stallholders are hawking their fresh produce over livestream on Facebook. Many Members may also recognise getai veteran, Wang Lei, who has sold seafood, durians and even cars online. In his words, he turned the crisis into a business opportunity, or in Chinese, 把危机转成商机.

Third, the enforced time-out has allowed nature and the environment to recover. The air is cleaner and humanity’s carbon footprint has shrunk with the reduction of transportation and industrial activities. At the peak of the lockdowns around the world in early April, global daily carbon emissions were slashed by 17%, dropping to levels last observed in 2006. It was my nine-year-old daughter who has noticed there are more butterflies and wildflowers in our estate during our evening walks.

These silver linings give us confidence that we shall prevail. And we will continue to grow stronger as a nation.

Mdm President has said that domestically, Singapore is at an inflection point of our history. This is indeed the time to chart the future we want for Singapore and Singaporeans. And our youth will be key in shaping our collective future, for they are the leaders not only of tomorrow, but also of today. Our youths, with their ideals and ideas, can play a critical role in building the kind of society we would like to have and to see in Singapore.

What would such a society be like? First, I would like to see a society of opportunities for all. Second, I would like us to build a liveable and sustainable environment. And third, I hope Singapore will be a society built on trust.

First, on a society of opportunities. The economic impact of COVID-19 has not been borne evenly. Lower income households are hit much harder. We have a family in Punggol in which both parents lost their jobs and finding new ones was not easy partly because they were past offenders. They got by with ComCare and COVID Support grants. But what weighs most heavily on them is their worry about the future of their four children who are all in school. There are families out there who need help. And I am most concerned about young children and the opportunities they may lose, if nothing is done.

While there are various Government schemes to support individuals and families along their life journeys, there is an important role for the community and individuals to reach out to fellow Singaporeans, like what we have done during this pandemic.

Two years ago, I worked with some colleagues in the public service to initiate a social programme where volunteers befriend children from the rental blocks at Casa Clementi and give tuition to them after school. Twenty-four-year-old grassroots leader, Hameed, played an active role in setting up and sustaining the centre, together with youth volunteers from NUS and ACS Independent, and even MINDEF and SAF regulars.

Besides tutoring, Hameed and his team organised activities and holiday programmes for them, such as coding classes, football sessions, and trips to the Zoo and the Wild Wild Wet. During the circuit breaker, they delivered special care packs to each of the children’s homes on top of the regular Zoom sessions, just to remind them that they were not alone. It was heartening to see the students improve in their learning attitudes and in their results. Two of them even received the Edusave Bursary Award recently.

I asked Hameed recently what kept him going. His answer was simple – seeing the excitement in the children when they turn up, watching them develop and grow, and simply wanting to make a difference in the community he lives in. I am sure we have many Hameeds in every community to bring all Singaporeans on board the moving escalator, to give each generation a better future. I urge Members of this House, many of whom have spoken passionately about this topic, to rally our community to step up and do something for our children who may not have a good start, to ensure they receive a good education. Together, let us ensure that there will always be social mobility in our society and that this remains deeply anchored in our value system.

Second, I hope that we can build and nurture a liveable and sustainable environment for all Singaporeans. Climate change will remain an existential threat for many, many generations to come and we must never stop pushing for sustainability as a key consideration in all our decisions.

Sustainability is about meeting the needs of the current generation, without compromising that of the future generations. This has become more pressing than ever with the gathering pace of climate change and its impacts. As a low-lying island with limited natural resources, Singapore is especially vulnerable to rising sea-levels and disruptions in global supply chains of critical resources like food and water. So, it augurs well for the future of our common home that sustainability is a high priority for many of our youth, as studies commissioned by the National Youth Council have shown. Many of them are also stepping forward to make their voices and their actions count, and some are working together to make a bigger impact with their efforts on sustainability.

In Pasir Ris, we have residents who are keen to turn seaweed and mussels into bioplastics and then into alternative fuel. We have youth who want to champion rooftop farming, clean up beaches and estates, promote car-lite by improving cycling path networks and so on. There is no lack of ideas and energy from all our residents. We now have a Pasir Ris Sustainability Action Group with over 20 volunteers and growing, from both young and old.

I am excited now to be in MSE, which has committed to plans for a green recovery from COVID-19, one that supports a transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient future. MSE will galvanise sustainability efforts across the Government, promote green growth, ensure resource resilience and pursue circular economy. We will create new jobs in the green sector and develop a pipeline of talent to support sustainability in Singapore.

But sustainability requires a whole-of-nation effort. Besides working with businesses and other partners, we must actively engage and create opportunities for youth to play a bigger role in co-creating and co-delivering solutions. We must take our youth’s efforts seriously because they are not an interest group – they are taking ownership to lead in fighting climate change, to make Singapore a more liveable and sustainable city. I will certainly do my best to support their efforts.

Finally, and most importantly, I hope that we can build a society based on trust. This is more relevant and important now than ever.

How does a society built on trust look like? I believe that such a society is characterised by a sense of togetherness where individuals and groups are willing to sacrifice their own interests for the larger good of the society. A good example in our history is our Land Acquisition Act of 1967. As a young growing nation, our kampungs and squatter huts had to make way for high-rise HDB buildings and industrial development. Our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations understood that, and they reluctantly moved from places they were familiar with to the HDB flats. There was trust that this was indeed necessary for the greater good of our nation. Today, our world class housing bears great testament to what we can achieve when there is trust between the Government and the people. As our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said, “Our greatest asset was the trust and confidence of the people.”

COVID-19 has shown this trust still exists today. We saw this when workers accepted wage cuts so that more of their co-workers could remain employed, and when we all responded and stayed home to break the infection cycle and preserve our healthcare system for those who needed them most. I hope that we can continue to build and nurture this trust.

The question remains: how do we build this trust between the Government and people, and amongst people? We often hear the phrase that trust has to be earned. Over my career in the Army and public service, I found that this adage, while may be true, may be counter-productive sometimes because until someone earns it, we hold back trust to protect ourselves, build policies on the premise that a small minority may abuse the trust, and sometimes we micro-manage down to the dot.

Instead, I believe when we are in a position of leadership, trust has to be given. I learnt this as a young father. When my firstborn was in Primary school, I was called up by the school for an incident that he was involved in. Without even verifying with him, I chided him in the car on the way home for getting himself into trouble. He remained quiet for some time and then turned to me and asked, "Dad, why don’t you trust me when I said I didn’t do it?" Like all fathers, I wanted to earn his trust. That day, I learned that I have to give him my trust first.

I hope we can build a culture of openness and trust and continue one in which the Government listens, consults and engages regularly with citizens. This may mean being more transparent about our considerations and trade-offs when developing policies. For instance, since the start of COVID-19, our Prime Minister and the Ministers have been sharing very openly and regularly with Singaporeans about the pandemic, trusting us to rally together to do the right thing.

Beyond sharing information, our policies also need to reflect trust in our people in their delivery. In some areas, the Government can trust citizen groups to lead and execute policies and projects. One initiative that comes to mind is the youth-led Somerset Belt Masterplan, which is a product of the ideas and aspirations of over 40,000 youths on what they wish to see in Somerset and how they can achieve that. It is a good example of how innovative concepts and plans can develop when we give autonomy and trust to our youth who can take ownership of the projects they feel strongly for.

On the other hand, an engaged citizenry must be prepared to listen and understand the various perspectives, considerations and trade-offs. We must create a discourse that is based on data, science and facts, not one based on rhetoric and ideology. I hope to be part of this constructive engagement process.

Trust is, ultimately, a two-way street. It is only when we give trust, that we gain trust and achieve great things together.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. I urge all of us Singaporeans to come together to build a society with opportunities for all, that is liveable and sustainable, and founded on mutual trust. Let us learn to listen well to one another, and communicate with more empathy. Consulting my two boys on the use of social media so that I can relate to the younger generation, I learnt that if I want them to understand me, I need to first connect with them in their channels, sometimes using their language. I hope to see better engagement, especially with our youths. Together, let us build on the solid foundation that the Pioneer and Merdeka Generations developed for us, and create a society that we will be proud to pass on to the generations to come. With all Singaporeans on board, we will surely get there and grow stronger in the process. Mr Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Speaker, I would like to share the lyrics of a xinyao song; the title is "Singapore Pie". Do not worry, I am not going to sing it, I am just going to read out the lyrics: "Dad said I was born in the 60s. I was only one-year-old when Singapore was born. Back then, nobody believed in the Singapore brand and there were people migrating overseas. Gradually, we went into the 70s, the chimneys in Jurong were rather grand-looking. Then, we entered the 80s. MRT made this legend spread faster. Friends said that the more I live, the more I was as real as Singapore. In a blink of an eye, we are in the 90s and now it is people from other places migrating here. Who do not love the Singapore brand?"

Due to the time constraint, I shall not recite the whole song. If interested, you can go online and listen to it. The reason why I mention this song today is because it tells the Singapore success story. In the early days of nation-building, nobody believed that Singapore would succeed. Some people even migrated overseas. With collaborative efforts from the people and the Government, our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations have made Singapore into a prosperous and orderly country. Those who have migrated also started to return. This is Singapore's success.

The last two lines of the lyrics are: "We will write our own stories. The future will depend on the next generations.” What kind of Singapore are we and our next generations going to build? We must all ask ourselves, do we want a Singapore of mutual trust or suspicion? Do we want a Singapore that people blame each other or help each other to find solutions? Do we want a Singapore where people keep asking "what can I get" or "what can I do"?

Mr Speaker, I only want to say that one day when I am old, I want to leave my children a Singapore that they can be proud of. Thank you.

Mr Alex Yam.

Mr Speaker, Sir, needless to say, we are facing a crisis of a generation. Across the world, there is economic chaos, business foreclosures, job instability – perhaps more painful and poisonous than just economic disruption – and a healthcare crisis, its divisions, strife and an "Us versus Them" dialogue.

In Singapore, we have been lucky so far. We have our reserves, we have strong Government, we have a united people, and we have avoided most of the communal upheavals that others have experienced so far. Yet, we cannot and must not assume that the worst is over. The cases of COVID-19 infections may be coming down, may be stabilising, but the economic storm is still yet to hit us fully. And with that, our societal fabric will be strained, perhaps fray, and may well start to tear as well. That we have come through a General Election where passions have been aroused is perhaps a symptom of the times.

Today, more than ever, we need to re-emphasise the importance of coming together, a message that perhaps is both important and well encapsulated in Total Defence. Even if the enemy that we are facing today is unseen, even perhaps unknown, we can see clearly where our military and civil defence have been important. At this point, it is perhaps apt to recognise the work of our SAF, the SCDF, our healthcare workers and many frontliners, who have been serving with great passion, dedication and also compassion during these difficult times.

But just as the Prime Minister said in February 2020, the real test of this pandemic is our social cohesion and psychological resilience. In economic defence, the challenges we have met them so far with our various COVID Budgets. Our MTI colleagues have been on the front lines as well, perhaps less unseen than the rest, to ensure that we have sufficient and constant access to food, supplies, resources. They have ensured that our stockpiles are replenished, our sources are diversified and local production increased; all this despite global disruptions in supply chains.

Our reserves, which has been spoken so much of during the course of this debate, are also an important weapon and armament in our fight against COVID-19 and its effects. They have staved off the enemies of joblessness and economic stagnation. But we, the people of Singapore, must also do our level best.

COVID-19 has accelerated many trends in our economy – driving automation, reconstruction of value chains, e-commerce, logistics, all sectors that are now growing because they are new norms in our COVID-19 world. This is perhaps the best impetus for us to change. And as a people, we must not fear adaptation to explore new areas of growth, to re-skill and upskill. For us, for our families, for our nation, we must remain fearless, relevant, not only to ourselves but also to the world. This is not the time to hide away, or to say that if only we could just turn back the clock, because we cannot. But there are bright moments and there is a lot of motivation as well.

Just recently, the five CDCs held our SkillsFuture Festival, the first fully online festival, and we had very encouraging participation. Over the course of the week, we had over 7,000 people taking part in various courses. We had almost over 20,000 people taking part in our online interactions as well. And many, in their feedback, have said that they have learnt something new and they have enjoyed that process. Some have also shared that they had fears initially, but have found that once they take the plunge, it became so much easier. Changes, therefore, are necessary. But, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that change will bring with it some discomfort. It heightens differences as well. Our social defence is, therefore, also at stake.

COVID-19, as we have seen in the rest of the world, has exacerbated inequalities, built up tensions in communities. We see this in various forms, for example, as we work from home and also in home-based learning during our circuit breaker. It is not unapparent that most of us who can work from home, perhaps, can claim to be better off. It is those who cannot, who are on the ground, who have to be physically present, that are feeling the true brunt of this crisis.

Home-based learning also shows up the differences in access to technology. Different family situations give rise to starkly different learning outcomes during the circuit breaker. In as much as we try to provide more equal access, yet, different circumstances still lead to different learning outcomes.

All this comes back perhaps to a word that we use very often in our discourse – meritocracy. Meritocracy underpins so much of our social structures in Singapore and we can justifiably be proud of how we provide equal opportunities for everyone in Singapore. Yet, today, equal opportunities, perhaps, is insufficient. It is also about ensuring that we have equitable outcomes, not equal outcomes, not as what Dodo in Alice in Wonderland says at the end of the caucus race, "Everyone wins and therefore everybody deserves a prize".

We must have equitable outcomes because, if we do not, then it is even worse than not having meritocracy. For this, we must engender change in our attitudes across Singapore in all sectors – at home, at work, in our economy. We need to rethink our values, redefine success, refocus our beliefs, interests, causes, passions. This is the only way we can stop perpetuating the sense of inferiority or feeling of being unrewarded despite trying our best, amongst different groups in our society. We should, therefore, revalue vocational and technical skills as much as academic dexterity, shift out perception of value based on work or academic performance alone.

In many other societies, being a plumber, being an electrician, is a valued skill set. Can we revived that in Singapore? That way, we can ensure that our social fabric is strengthened, not because we are one giant piece of cloth but like a warm comforting blanket comprised of different multiple equally important layers, so that we can all play our role equally in society.

The Members before me have spoken very passionately also about the digital sphere. Digital defence is important to us as well. Amidst the crisis that we are experiencing with COVID, it is also a primary concern because good communications is key in preventing the spread of this disease and reducing its impact. But we must have factual communication. We see this impact of negative communication overseas. People who decry the use of masks, expounding conspiracy theories figures, fake cures, false advisories, even scams, during this period of time. It is therefore, no better time than now to improve digital inclusion and media literacy, especially amongst our elders those who are most vulnerable during this period of time.

All this depends also on the most fundamental pillar of Total Defence and that is our psychological defence. Our psychological resilience and our sense of security is important. Again, it is now more than ever that we are in this together. But we see various examples, many of us in our constituency, we hear more and more comments like these, "My neighbour, formally Malaysian" or "you know, that chap who came from India". This idea of you being more Singaporean if you are homegrown or older or spent more years versus those who are newer who have spent less. But, all of us make an equal contribution to our society because we are all Singaporeans here, regardless of how long we have been Singaporeans.

As disputes arise, we must strengthen our identity of Singaporean. Again, regardless of how long you have been here, you must be proud, to belong to Singapore. All of us here are proud to be Singaporeans, but some of us were not born in Singapore. Yet, we serve fellow Singaporeans in this House. Many out there in society are doing the same thing as well. And they too, are valuable Singaporeans, they too, are our brothers and sisters.

Mr Speaker, let me end off with a short story. A group of pigeons, led by their mother, was searching for food. Driven by hunger, they came across a pile of rice. As they started eating, a little sparrow came by. The sparrow asked one of the brothers, "Could I share in your meal?" The brother said, "No, we found it first." Yet, the mother pigeon said, "There is more than enough, let us share." And so, she welcomed the little sparrow.

As they ate and were filled, they were preparing to fly away when suddenly a huge net came across them. The pigeons panicked, they flew off in different directions But, as they struggled in different directions the more tangled they got. In a distance, they saw the farmer coming at them with a club. It was the little sparrow who suddenly said, "Stay calm. Let all of us take one part of this net and fly in unison. And they did. As they did so, they managed to lift the net and the farmer could only look on as the net flew higher and higher way.

But, they were still trapped in that net. And so the little sparrow also said, "I know of a friend, he is a little mouse who lives across the hill. I brought him food once during the winter. He might be able to help us". So, they flew across the hill and met the little mouse. The little mouse said, "I can get you out of this quandry," as he bit through the net and freed them one by one.

Mr Speaker, it does not matter whether we are a large bird or small sparrow. We are all looking to survive. And where we have more of, we can share. But, we should also not belittle those that are smaller than us, or less skilled than us, or appear to be weaker than us. Because they too, have a role to play in our society and in our country. Perhaps it is them who have the street-smart, who can tell us when we are in trouble, how to get out of there mine.

At the same time, there might be others who are very different from us, but in our time of need, can chew us out of that net. So for all of us in Singapore, this crisis is an opportunity for us to re-emphasise what it means to be Singaporean, why we should be proud of who we are. I think, in the course of these few months, we have shown the capacity to be proud of who we are, Singaporeans and to be proud of Singapore. Thank you very much. I support the Motion. [Applause.]

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.37 pm until 5.00 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.00 pm.

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