Debate on President's Address

Minister of State Alvin Tan.

Mr Alvin Tan, you need to wrap up.

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

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

You do not have much time left.

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

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

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

Mr Murali Pillai.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms He Ting Ru.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Hazel Poa.

Miss Cheryl Chan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Louis Ng.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir, I have two suggestions to make.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Carrie Tan.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.14 pm until 3.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]