Debated in Parliament on 2 Sep 2020.
Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. This year, we opened Parliament sooner than we usually do after a General Election, because we have urgent business dealing with COVID-19 and the economy.
COVID-19 has caused a massive upheaval in our lives. After eight gruelling months, we have stabilised our situation. But it has taken a tremendous effort to get here. From the very beginning when COVID-19 hit us, our overriding consideration was to protect the lives of Singaporeans. Many countries talked about flattening the curve, the infection curve, of letting the disease burn through the population until herd immunity developed. But that would have meant many Singaporeans getting ill and perhaps thousands dying, especially the old and vulnerable.
We were determined, right from the very beginning, not to go down that route. We did our utmost to contain the outbreak and keep Singaporeans safe. This meant mobilising all our national resources.
We built up contact tracing and testing capabilities so that once we detected a new case or cluster, we could immediately isolate them and their close contacts, before they could infect others.
Today, we can do about 20,000 laboratory tests a day and with pooled testing, that means we are able to test several times that number of persons.
We expanded our healthcare system significantly. We more than doubled our our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) capacity, in case we were swamped with gravely ill COVID-19 cases, like what happened in Wuhan, Milan or New York. We set up temporary community care and isolation facilities at the Singapore Expo, Changi Exhibition Centre, PSA Tanjong Pagar Terminal, old schools and SAF camps, where we could accommodate and treat patients with mild symptoms. In total, we created more beds than all our acute hospitals put together – all within a few weeks.
To handle the migrant worker dormitories, where we had most of our COVID-19 cases, we mobilised the SAF and the Home Team. They did a magnificent job in the most testing circumstances – ensuring the well-being of some 300,000 migrant workers, taking care of their health and welfare and keeping them, as well as our general population, safe.
Implementing the circuit breaker in April was a very big move. We knew that it would cause extensive social and economic disruption, and demand major sacrifices from Singaporeans. But we decided, Cabinet decided, we had to go ahead, to slow down the infection rate and get things firmly under control and buy us time. Fortunately, we timed the circuit breaker right and luckily, it worked.
Each of these operations was huge, and all of them had to be done in parallel. Thanks to the heroic efforts of many unsung heroes, working quietly behind the scenes, we have got here today.
Judging by the health outcomes, we have done well, so far. Our fatality rate and absolute numbers are one of the lowest in the world. New infections in our community are down to just a handful a day. Fewer than 100 patients remain in hospital. This has given us the confidence to re-open our economy and society – gradually and carefully.
Of course, our COVID-19 response was not without shortcomings. COVID-19 has severely tested every government in the world. No country has been perfect in its pandemic response. Some have done better than the rest, like South Korea and New Zealand. But even for them, the fight continues, with new cases surfacing as they open up again.
With hindsight, we would certainly have done some things differently. For example, I wish we had known earlier that people with COVID-19 were infectious even when they were asymptomatic, did not show any symptoms. Then, when we brought Singaporeans back home from all over the world in March, we would have quarantined all of them earlier, instead of only those returning from certain countries, so that the virus did not spread to their family members, or their colleagues and friends. And we would have tested all of them before releasing them from quarantine, whether or not they showed any symptoms, instead of assuming that no symptoms meant no infection.
We would also have recommended that everyone to wear face masks sooner than we did. But at the time, we took the best available scientific advice. Once the World Health Organization (WHO) recognised that asymptomatic transmission was a major problem, we changed our policy and distributed face masks to everyone.
We would also have acted more aggressively and sooner on the migrant worker dormitories. We knew that communal living in the dorms posed an infection risk. Communal living in any form poses risks – onboard ships, in army camps, in student hostels and nursing homes. We stepped up precautions. For a time, these seemed adequate. But then, bigger clusters broke out in the dorms, which threatened to overwhelm us.
All this is wisdom after the fact. We must learn from these errors and do better the next time.
But in the fog of war, it is not possible always to make the perfect decisions. Yet, we have to decide and move. We cannot afford to wait. The key is to watch things closely, learn from experience and adapt our responses promptly as new information emerges and as the situation changes.
Because of the scale and complexity of our operations, there have inevitably been some rough edges. For example, now that we have cleared the dorms, we are helping the migrant workers resume work, especially in the construction industry. But this has to be done safely because the risk of cases re-emerging is still there. And it is a complicated exercise.
I know we have made things more difficult and burdensome for employers, especially the contractors and sub-contractors. They have found it frustrating to deal with all the new rules, approvals and inspections, even as they try to get their businesses up and running again. But I hope they understand that we are doing our best to smooth things out for them and doing all this in order to keep our people safe. It is better that we make these measures work and get businesses to operate safely, than to suffer a new outbreak and have to shut down again.
Overall, we have been able to deal with COVID-19 only because the Public Service, the political leadership, our businesses and the Singapore public have worked closely together, each doing their part and more.
In the Public Service, the officials, Ministries and agencies have worked tirelessly, building new capabilities on the fly and stepping up to do things way beyond their normal scale or scope. Without a high quality, dedicated and adaptable Public Service, we could not have carried out all these major operations.
The political leadership has also played a role to define the priorities, to make the major decisions, to direct the civil servants implementing the decisions, win public support for these measures and take responsibility for them, for example, whether to impose a circuit breaker, what activities to restrict, which businesses to keep open, whether to close schools or reopen them.
We explained these decisions to the public at frequent press conferences, video addresses and in Parliament, so that Singaporeans understood what we were trying to do and what each of us individually had to do. These are the responsibilities of the Ministers and ultimately of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Without political leadership, the Public Service alone could not have done their job.
Businesses came forward, also, to do sterling National Service. They put their people to work furiously on solutions, often going well beyond their business mission. They set up mask production lines, constructed Community Care Facilities, built up testing capacity, scoured the world for test equipment, test kits and reagents, and designed booths to swab patients safely and much more. Their contributions were a vital complement to what the Government agencies were doing.
Our COVID-19 response also depended critically on Singaporeans working together and giving the Government their trust and support. They understood the need for tough and painful measures and complied with them. Many Singaporeans' lives have been severely affected, but they have borne the difficulties calmly and stoically. They had confidence that the Government would see them through the crisis and beyond. Many volunteered to take part in the COVID-19 operations, sometimes on the frontline, and also in the community efforts to help others through these tough times.
I am very grateful for their cooperation and support. Their support will remain crucial as we continue the fight to keep Singaporeans safe.
The situation is currently stable, but we must not let our guard down. A recent The Straits Times survey showed that almost half of the respondents were weary of the safety measures. The irony is that the more successful we are in keeping cases low, the more people wonder whether all these painful measures are necessary.
I recently received an email from a university student. His socialising had been disrupted. He complained that our reaction to COVID-19 was “one of the greatest overreactions to a public health issue”. As proof, he pointed out that our hospital systems were far from overwhelmed. He said that, instead, we should let young Singaporeans “do us the service of achieving herd immunity”.
You only have to look at the situation in other cities that have let this happen to imagine how this could have turned out for us. The COVID-19 virus remains as infectious and potent as it was before. This has not changed. What has changed is that we have taken measures and we have built up our capabilities to contain it. If we relax these measures now because the numbers have come down, we will have a resurgence. Just look at Europe and many other places in the world.
COVID-19 will not be our last public health crisis. SARS was 17 years ago, in 2003. After SARS, we knew that, sooner or later, another novel pathogen would appear and pose a threat to humanity. We had H1N1, which was highly infectious but, fortunately, it turned out to be relatively mild. Then there has been Ebola, but we escaped it because it was confined mainly in some African countries.
Next, there was the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) but, fortunately, that is not so transmissible and we have been lucky not to have had any cases here, although the Koreans had. They had an outbreak, they learned painful lessons from it and the lessons served them well when COVID-19 came.
Scientists talk about Disease X being overdue – a new disease, unknown, that is highly infectious, deadly and mutates easily. So, when COVID-19 appeared, people asked whether this was Disease X. COVID-19 has been a disaster for the world, but it is not Disease X. It is, by far, not the worst new disease that can befall mankind.
But it is only a matter of time before Disease X happens. So, we had better learn from COVID-19 on how to deal with a pandemic and be as ready as we can when a worse one befalls us. We should build up our resilience, instincts and preparations, so that when Disease X comes one day, we will be prepared.
Even as we manage the immediate situation, we must look forward and prepare for life after COVID-19. As the President said in her speech, we are headed into a very different world. What must we rethink and reinvent, so that Singapore can continue to be successful in this brave new world?
Members have touched on several topics already in this debate, including social safety nets and foreign worker policies. In times of economic uncertainty, it is natural for people to be anxious about these two issues. So, let me give Members my perspective and explain to Singaporeans what we intend to do in these areas. Then, I will talk about the future of politics in Singapore, which underpins how we will manage and respond to all these different issues.
Let me start with social safety nets.
Social safety nets are there to protect the vulnerable in our society and ensure that everyone has full access to opportunities to improve our lives. They also give people the confidence and assurance that if some bad luck trips them up in life, society will be there to break their fall and help them pick themselves up again.
In our early decades of nationhood, we did not need extensive social safety nets. We had high GDP and income growth. Jobs were aplenty for a young population. The economy was buoyant and unemployment after the first few years was very low. If you lost your job, a new one was just around the corner. In fact, sometimes, people were happy to be retrenched because you collected your retrenchment benefits and then you went into a new job straightaway; get paid twice.
So, we invested heavily in our social infrastructure – universal education, basic healthcare and public housing. This improved everyone’s standard of living and allowed all to benefit from the country’s progress. More importantly, it levelled everyone up, giving them the means to improve their lives through their own efforts.
Now, we have moved into a different phase of development. Our economy is maturing and incomes are growing less rapidly. There is a higher premium on specialised skills and education. As a result, when someone loses his job, especially as a mature worker, it is harder for them to move to another job, especially across different sectors.
Therefore, in the last 15 years or so, we shifted our approach and progressively strengthened our social safety nets. We introduced many schemes in these last 15 years – ComCare in 2005, Workfare in 2007 and Silver Support in 2016. These schemes, and many others, are targeted at the lower-income and those who have fallen on hard times. They supplement their wages and CPF contributions, so that the recipients gain both current income and also retirement security.
As we expanded our social programmes, we have also extended the coverage of other schemes and subsidies beyond the lower income, to include middle-income households, too, for example, with preschool subsidies, and bursaries for universities and other post-secondary institutions, which almost all our students now attend. We also gave special support to our Pioneer and Merdeka Generations to help them see through their retirement years. Altogether, we now spend three times as much on social programmes every year as we did 15 years ago.
These are all peacetime measures. But when COVID-19 hit us, they could not be enough. So, we implemented multiple emergency measures for COVID-19 – the Jobs Support Scheme (JSS), Self-employed Income Relief Scheme (SIRS), COVID-19 Support Grant and now, the Jobs Growth Initiative.
We had to draw on our past Reserves to fund them. These are emergency measures; they are crucial for now. But they cannot continue indefinitely. We have to start thinking about what comes after them and about the level of social support we will return to after COVID-19 is over.
In the "new normal", we fully expect more economic uncertainty and turbulence. And the longer-term trends of an ageing population and rising healthcare costs remain unchanged. So, we will certainly need to strengthen social support for our people, during and after their working lives.
How will we do this? Several ideas have been raised, including in this House, on this debate. The Government is not ideologically opposed to any proposed solution. Our approach has always been pragmatic and empirical; make the best use of our resources to meet the needs of different groups in our society, in a targeted manner. Because if we help everyone equally, then we are not giving more help to those who need it most.
Take, for example, older workers. Older workers are valuable and experienced. Having been in the workforce for longer, they tend to draw higher salaries than younger workers, but their skills may be less current. If they lose their jobs, they find it harder to find another similar job, particularly at the same pay, so they are at greater risk of long-term unemployment.
Solutions, like unemployment insurance, can offer older workers transient relief, at best. But retraining and upskilling older workers will enable employers to continue finding value in them and to be less likely to make them redundant. And if the older worker does get retrenched, with these skills, he or she can find a new job more readily.
This is a structural solution that helps older workers get their careers back on track and feel that he is making a worthwhile contribution. The best unemployment insurance is, in fact, the assurance of another job.
Another group is the low-wage workers. They are the most vulnerable ones in our workforce. They worry about the day-to-day and how to make ends meet. They often feel stuck in their jobs while others around them seem to be doing better. We need to support them to improve their lives, so that they can catch up and narrow the gap with the rest of society. The Workfare Income Supplement has made a material difference to them, and we have been enhancing the Workfare scheme every now and again. In this downturn, we made a special payment under the Workfare scheme because we want to help those who are most in need and we do not want to put the burden on employers. The Government takes it on. The Progressive Wage Model has also helped them and we will extend the Progressive Wage Model, as you have heard from Minister Josephine Teo yesterday, to more sectors over time.
The Government’s efforts, supported by unions and employers, have worked. Older workers are staying in the workforce longer and, over the last five years, real wages of our bottom quintile have consistently grown faster than median wages and that clearly shows that our approaches are working.
But we know greater challenges lie ahead. We need to do more, and we are ready to do more. The question is: what more will we need to do and what is the best way to do it? We should take some time to assess the landscape after COVID-19 to see how things unfold and what specific problems develop. We must keep an open mind as we build and improve on the systems we have and consider solutions that can work in our context.
It is not just floating ideas like minimum wage or unemployment insurance, but assessing their impact carefully. Who wins and who loses within the workforce? How will our SMEs or the public be affected? We must identify pragmatic solutions which will make a real and sustainable difference and give people justified assurance that, when they need help, they will get the help that is relevant to them. And it must not create new problems in the process, for example, by eroding our spirit of self-reliance.
One permanent imperative as we think about new schemes is to keep our programmes fiscally sustainable. As a matter of principle, our social safety nets should be paid for out of current revenues. We should not draw down on what we have inherited, nor should we mortgage the future of our children.
When our founding generation were building up our Reserves, they never asked themselves whether they had too much savings. We were in our early days of nationhood. Things were so uncertain, and no one knew what the next day would bring. Compared to today, incomes then were low. But it was never a question of how much Reserves would be enough. The question was whether we could steadily squirrel away a bit more in our Reserves, year after year, decade after decade, as protection for a rainy day.
After several generations of frugal prudence, we have built up significant Reserves. And because we have taken such an approach consistently, decade after decade, in this enormous monster storm, we have been able to draw on past Reserves and fund our essential Budget packages and help people on a very big scale.
The opposition says, "Show me how much we have in the reserves before I decide whether I support your Budget and tax plans. Let us have a look at the money". Basically, they are asking, "I have something in the bank already. How much of that can I touch?"
This was not the attitude of our forefathers, the founders who were building for the future, but the attitude of inheritors who think they have come into a fortune and want to consume the fruits of their predecessors' labours. And this is fundamentally the wrong approach.
How much Reserves are enough or too much? There can be no good answer to this question. The future is unknowable. We have no way to tell what may hit us from out of the blue.
Just look at the last nine months. In January, before COVID-19, MOF was preparing Budget 2020, and we were quite confident. We thought we could meet our current commitments and put aside funds for the long term to offset the Goods and Services Tax (GST) increase and fund climate change defences and many other things and still expect to have something left over at the end of that term of Government to add to our past Reserves. But just a few months after that, we are down more than $70 billion. We have had to draw heavily on past Reserves to fund four, five Budget packages and explain to the President why this has been necessary.
Therefore, we should not think of ourselves as inheritors spending what we have been lucky enough to be endowed with. Rather, we should take the attitude of founders, even though we may be the third, fourth or fifth generation in reality, but we should think of ourselves as founders for the future generations. Whatever Reserves we have, big or small, let us not think of touching them in normal times. They are our rainy-day fund, our 棺材本. In Chinese, it sounds better because it is a coffin fund.
Every year, we live within our means and whenever we are able to, we add a bit more to the rainy-day fund, to make ourselves a bit more secure for when it really pours. And that is the way to build Singapore for the long term and secure the future for our children and grandchildren.
A second area that we will review is our foreign worker and work pass policies. Minister Josephine Teo spoke about these yesterday, but I want to give my take on this too.
This is not a new issue. But in an economic downturn, this issue becomes sharper. It is the case not just in Singapore. All around the world, anti-foreigner sentiment is on the rise because people are feeling worried and insecure about their futures.
Many Singaporeans are feeling anxious and pressured about their jobs. Their sense that foreigners are competing with them for jobs is palpable. Some feel unfairly treated when they see foreigners replacing them or taking up good jobs ahead of them. These feelings are completely understandable.
Singapore is a small country. Our population is small. It is not growing very fast. Soon, it is going to level off. To grow our economy, we have no choice but to top up with foreign workers and work pass holders. And yet, we cannot throw open our doors, just throw open our doors, nor have we done so.
We only have three and a half million Singaporean Citizens and half a million Permanent Residents. In Southeast Asia, there are 650 million people. In Asia, China and India alone add up to nearly three thousand million people. All can potentially come in, many would love to come. Without tight controls, we would be overwhelmed.
And that is why we have our foreign worker policies. They help us control the inflow and ultimately, ensure that the foreign workers who do come in add to the workforce in Singapore, rather than substitute for them and benefit Singaporeans rather than hurting them.
How we control the flow depends on the type of foreign worker. At the lower levels, we have got work permits and we use a mix of levies and quotas – we call them dependency ratios – to directly control their price and quantity. It is a rough and ready approach, but it helps us deal with the large numbers and limit them effectively.
In the middle levels, we have the S Pass. It is not just a matter of numbers, but we also want to look at the quality because the S Pass are competing with people who are graduating from our polytechnics, diploma holders and slightly above that, and we want to make sure that there is a balance. So, the S Pass still has levies and quotas, but we also impose other requirements on minimum salary and qualifications.
Then for the upper levels, the professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs), we have the Employment Pass (EP). Here, the key issue is about controlling the quality and making sure the people we bring in are those who are able to contribute to Singapore. So, we have been using salary benchmarks as a proxy, along with other qualifying criteria.
While the perception of foreign competition is sharper during this downturn, actually, both the EP and S Pass holders have been coming down since COVID-19 this year. But we still have to make adjustments to our work pass schemes because there is now more slack in the job market but also because, over time, the education levels, capabilities and incomes of our local workforce have gone up.
More Singaporeans are now ready and available to take up PMET jobs. And, in fact, more have done so. The proportion of PMETs in the workforce has grown steadily from 40% 20 years ago, to close to 60% now, today. And the purpose of the EP scheme is to top up at the higher end of these PMET jobs. Therefore, we need to tighten the EP qualifying criteria. And that is why, at the lower levels of the EP holders, the proportion of Singaporeans is higher and at the higher levels, the proportion of Singaporeans is slightly lower because we are deliberately bringing in EP holders who are at the higher level and can contribute to us. It makes sense.
But we need to tighten the EP qualifying criteria, and this is what we have been doing. We raised the EP entry floor from $3,600 to $3,900 in May this year. And MOM just announced last week a further tightening to $4,500, with a higher floor of $5,000 for the financial services sector. We are raising the S Pass salary floor too. We have to pay attention to market conditions and adjust at the right pace, but this is the correct long-term direction.
But I know Singaporeans are not just concerned with the macro overall numbers but also, at the micro individual level, they are also concerned about fair treatment, that Singaporeans are being considered fairly for jobs, promotions or when it comes time for retrenchments.
There is no comfort in knowing that the total numbers are not too many, if personally, we feel that we have been discriminated against at the workplace, or that the EP holder working beside us somehow has an inside track because of old school ties or some other personal connections.
And that is why we have the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices (TAFEP) where Singaporeans who feel unfairly treated can seek redress. We also have the Fair Consideration Framework, which we are tightening further as you have heard. And we are working with unions to make sure any retrenchments are done fairly, and no company is retrenching a Singaporean only to fill the same post with a foreigner, without very good justification.
The Government takes this issue of fairness very seriously. In evaluating EP and S Pass applications, we take into account whether the employer has kept up support of local PMETs in their employment and has been responsive to Government efforts to help them recruit and train more Singaporean PMETs or conversely, whether the employer has discriminated against qualified Singaporeans. This has always been the Government policy, but we particularly want to emphasise these considerations now, in these uncertain times, to remind all employers to play their part in building up their Singaporean workforce – the Singaporean Core.
One specific red flag is when we see a company that has an over-concentration of a single foreign nationality in its ranks, especially when compared to other companies in the same sector. This concentration, if it is unchecked, can cause social resentment and workplace problems. It makes it harder for the company to blend into and be accepted by our multiracial society. They stick out; it is a lump unable to be digested or integrated. It suggests that the company has not really taken root in Singapore. It can cause problems within the company too, because employees of other nationalities – Singaporeans or others – may find it harder to fit in, take pride in their work, and see a future for themselves in the firm.
Therefore, when that happens, we ask the firm to please relook at their hiring practices. Most companies are responsive, and work with us in good faith. In fact, many global companies understand that a diverse workforce is to their advantage and have explicit HR policies for this.
The issue of concentration can be easily played up and we know that there are some people who are stirring this up. For example, a Facebook page posted a wefie of DBS CEO Piyush Gupta with a room full of Indian employees last September. It was captioned "Eyesight test: Find a Singaporean or Chinese in this DBS photo". The picture resurfaced recently and went viral, which just shows that during tough times, this subject is more neuralgic. Last September was a different world. Many people took offence, and got worked up and berated DBS, flamed them. But it was fake news.
Why? That picture was taken in India, where DBS had opened a new office, not in Singapore. The person who put up the post surely knew this, yet he irresponsibly misused the wefie to insinuate that DBS in Singapore was not being fair to Singaporeans. And the damage was done.
The Government will always be on the side of Singaporeans. What is the point of creating jobs for foreigners if it does not benefit Singaporeans? Why would we want to do that? Ultimately, our aim is to grow the economy, create good jobs for Singaporeans and raise our standards of living. Foreign workers and work pass holders help us to achieve this. By being open to talent from all over the world, we create more opportunities for ourselves.
Singapore has succeeded by being an international hub, tapping talents worldwide and serving a global market. So, even as we adjust our work pass policies, we must be careful not to give the wrong impression that we are now closing up and no longer welcoming foreigners. Such a reputation would do us great harm and we have to watch this because we are being watched. The Financial Times had an article just a couple of days ago to say Singapore, the mood is changing, we are turning inwards. There had been articles in the South China Morning Post a few months. There are articles circulating on the Internet. The grapevine buzzes and we have to do the right thing for ourselves, but we must also avoid sending the wrong signals to others.
It may surprise you, but even in this depressed economic climate, where some companies are consolidating and laying off workers, many investment projects want to come to Singapore. In fact, this year, the Economic Development Board’s (EDB) pipeline is higher than their pipeline was last year. And there is a reason for this.
All over Asia and in the world, societies are under stress and politics is in flux. In places where investors already have regional headquarters and projects, they are rethinking the merits of their locations and looking for alternatives. Because the situation changes. You set up your headquarters there. There is some political shift. You look at the sky. It does not look the same as before. You will start thinking, "Where can I go?"
Investors starting new projects are also anxiously scanning the globe, searching for the right place where they can safely make a commitment now. Companies are seeking a safe harbour, where the politics is stable, there is rule of law, the people are hardworking and united, and where the country will come through the pandemic safely and have a bright future.
We take no joy in the troubles in the world, but it is a fact that in a troubled world, Singapore is one of the few trusted countries that stands out. And we must guard that reputation zealously. Indeed, EDB and the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) tell me that many companies have expressed interest in coming to Singapore.
Some projects you would have heard about. For example, Hyundai Motor has just announced plans to set up a major facility here to undertake research and development (R&D) and develop future mobility technologies. But there are others yet that have not been announced or are still under wraps, are being discussed and are hopefully on the way. I cannot tell you these confidential discussions, but I can give you a small peek.
For example, a pharmaceutical company is planning to build a facility in Singapore to manufacture vaccines. Another company specialising in pandemic risk insurance wants to set up shop here. These are opportunities which are directly coming out of the crisis. We want vaccine plants here so that we can get access to vaccines when they are available. We want to build up our financial sector and pandemic risk insurance is now something on peoples' minds, and they are looking for a safe place where they can put their insurance company. And Singapore is in the running. Do we want to turn them away?
There are other companies which are coming to Singapore or looking seriously at coming to Singapore. Several Fortune 500 firms are considering moving their regional headquarters here because of political uncertainties elsewhere. Major financial institutions want to grow their operations in Singapore too, and these include IT and operations; backroom operations. And we look at them, they are good projects. We will study them. We are conscious that IT is one of the areas where we worry about an over-concentration of foreign work pass holders. But when you get a good project like this, an IT centre for a major foreign bank, a major global bank wanting to come to Singapore, and therefore going to recruit a proportion of Singaporean IT professionals and other management staff, should we say no?
They see good prospects in Singapore. They see us as a stable base to work from. We want to talk to them to see how they can fit in here in Singapore to create good jobs for Singaporeans.
But for them to come here, they must feel welcomed and be allowed to bring in the talent that they need. Because we do not have the full complement of specialist engineers and other expertise for all these types of work yet. And also, regional and global headquarters, by design, need to draw talent from around the world and to be run by international teams. That is the nature of a regional and global headquarters. The companies which have headquarters run by all one nationality – the Japanese used to be like that – they did not thrive. The American companies which had headquarters with people from all continents, they did well and they could adapt. They had the feel of different markets and they could fit into different cultures. And if we want good companies to come to Singapore, we must be prepared to have them come and to bring to Singapore that constellation of talent, to be able to operate out of Singapore and manage activities and locations all over the world.
They will employ Singaporeans too, but they cannot be staffed by Singaporeans alone. Once these companies establish themselves here, more Singaporeans will be able to take advantage of the opportunities they create, pick up the skills and knowledge and rise up the ranks. This is how we have always done it.
For example, pharmaceutical companies began to invest in Singapore 20 to 30 years ago. They started by building manufacturing plants. Later on, as these facilities grew, some of the pharma companies set up regional headquarters and research labs, like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK's site director is Lim Hock Heng, a Singaporean. He joined GSK in 1992, nearly 30 years ago, as a production engineer, picked up skills and knowledge from his foreign colleagues and rose up the ranks. Today, Hock Heng runs most of the Singapore sites, which manufacture key GSK products for the whole world. In other words, it is a drug which belongs to GSK and Singapore is the one place in the world they are making it and exporting it around the globe.
Another example is from the financial services. In the late-1980s, Singapore was recovering from a major recession and trying hard to grow our financial centre. Several global banks came to Singapore, including Citibank. They had no shortage of staff to choose from, with tens of thousands of employees globally. But they hired Singaporeans, including Susan Kwek, who had a polytechnic diploma in Computer Science. They saw her potential, groomed her, rotated her through several operations and technology roles, here and in the region. And, today, Susan oversees operations and technology for Citibank in Hong Kong.
There are many more Singaporeans in senior positions in semi-conductors, oil and gas, and IT. If we had not welcomed these companies in the past and encouraged them to bring in global talent, Hock Heng, Susan and others would have been deprived of these opportunities. Would we have been better off?
But it is not just global companies that need foreign manpower. Local companies also need global talent to grow and develop. Our SMEs need skills, knowledge and expertise that they may not have in Singapore, for example, to develop an external wing and to move up the value chain. And, by doing so, they too, create good new jobs for Singaporeans, besides promoting entrepreneurship and making it easier and more attractive to start companies in Singapore.
So, the economic benefits of our foreign worker policies are very clear. But there is a more fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves, and that is, what sort of society, what sort of people do we want to be?
We have always been a people open to the world, welcoming others who can add value to our society and bringing the best out of us. This is our history and our ethos, from our beginnings as an open port and an immigrant nation. The Bicentennial last year reminded us of that. This generosity of spirit gives our society and economy, vitality and resilience. It has made Singapore the exceptional, cosmopolitan city that we are today, plugged into the global economy and making a living by making ourselves valuable to the world.
We may be under stress now, but we cannot afford to turn inwards. We will adjust our policies to safeguard Singaporean jobs but let us show confidence that Singaporeans can hold our own in the world.
Social safety nets and foreign worker policies are just two of the many difficult issues that we will have to deal with, as our society matures. We will study them carefully and, of course, debate them thoroughly, including here in Parliament.
The Government will lead this conversation with Singaporeans, build a political consensus around the right solutions and move us forward. Whether we succeed depends on how well our politics work. Singapore has achieved a high degree of political consensus on many of our social, political and economic issues. This is one major reason for our rapid progress and one major benefit of the People’s Action Party's (PAP) dominant position.
But our society is not static. Each new generation of Singaporeans is more educated, more connected to the world and surer of themselves. Their attitudes and aspirations change too. They desire more diversity, alternative voices and checks and balances. This trend is not new. The desire has always been there, but it is growing.
In the last General Election, many people voted for the Opposition, while fully expecting that the PAP would remain in power as the Government. In fact, the Workers' Party (WP) campaigned on this platform, if I am not mistaken, seeking to form a strong Opposition, but explicitly not seeking to form the next government.
Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean told me that on the second last day of the General Election campaign, a middle-aged lady came up to him, a little agitated. She asked him, "Mr Teo, is it true? My friends tell me it is okay to vote for the Opposition. Because the Government will still be in charge. All the programmes the Government has promised, they will deliver – MRT, upgrading, new facilities, polyclinic. So, do not worry – all the things will still get done and that PAP will work even harder for you. You get everything they promised, and two persons working for you instead of one." She was very perturbed and asked him, "Mr Teo, is that true?" Her question really was, "How can this be true?" It troubled her profoundly that she did not know how to rebut the argument, yet, in her heart of hearts, she knew instinctively that something was very wrong.
The PAP will respond to these social and political trends, as we have always done. We have not stayed on top all these years by being static, but by adapting to our evolving society and changing needs. We have been assiduous in our leadership renewal. Each new generation of PAP leaders has developed their own leadership styles and their own policy priorities. They have created their own bonds with their generation of Singaporeans, to be in sync with their mood, to win their trust and support, and develop new ideas that resonate with them.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his founding generation of leaders governed Singapore in a direct, no-nonsense way. It was necessary and appropriate at that time, and Singaporeans then strongly supported Mr Lee, although today's Singaporeans would probably consider the style hard and uncompromising. You read the old speeches, the directness and the force of the language, it makes you sit back and say, "Could we say that today in a different way?" The truths are the same. The presentation has to change with the zeitgeist.
Mr Goh Chok Tong and his team had a different touch. His approach was about bringing people together and building a societal consensus on the next lap of Singapore's growth. It was a contrast to Mr Lee's approach, but it was appropriate for his generation of Singaporeans and Mr Goh made it work.
My team and I are not like Mr Lee, neither are we like Emeritus Senior Minister Goh’s teams. We found our own ways to engage with this generation of Singaporeans. We have gone through many ups and downs together over these last 16 years and adapted and changed policies to meet the new needs of the population. And, by now, I think Singaporeans all know what I am like and how I work. They have always given me strong support and together, we have taken Singapore another step forward.
My successors will have to do things in their own different ways too, establish their own standing and build their own bonds with the next generation. The 4G leaders have been doing this for some time. They are conducting the SG Together conversations now. They want to accommodate this growing desire of Singaporeans not only to be heard but to be involved.
In Parliament, with a stronger Opposition presence, I expect the tone of the debate to shift. PAP Ministers and MPs will have to raise their game, be prepared for sharper questioning and defend the Government’s policies and decisions while speaking up for their constituents. They also must be prepared for more substantive debates and engagement with the Opposition. I hope the Opposition will also step up, go beyond asking questions and criticising the Government’s proposals, which is part of their responsibility, to go on to put up serious proposals and ideas of their own to be examined and debated and, if found meritorious, adopted, to show that they are willing and able to play their part as a loyal Opposition.
For our part, the Government will take an open and constructive approach. And let me explain what I mean by this bland term "open and constructive approach".
On the specific details of policies, we can be quite relaxed about it. We will be open-minded, and we will listen to the different voices. We can try different schemes and solutions. We will take in all constructive views and perspectives. But we, of course, have to make sure that the discussions are supported by facts and logic, and informed by our context and experience.
But if it is a major issue which concerns the fundamental interests of the country, the Government cannot wait passively for a consensus to form. We will still have a full discussion, in fact, probably an even fuller discussion. But at the end of the discussion, if there are still different views, the Government will have to make the decision it judges best and take responsibility for it.
Having been elected to govern, we must govern. It is the Government’s duty to make such decisions and to be accountable to the people for them. So, discussion is fine, but discussion must lead to action and, finally, if it is an important issue and we are not yet entirely at one, the Government has to decide, we shall go. And in the end, we put it to the voters. The voters have to decide; do they support this, or do they want something different? That is on issues.
But politics is not only about issues but also about power. And if the issue is not policies and priorities but a challenge to the Government’s fitness to govern, then the Government will have to stand up and defend itself vigorously. It must put down the challenge and prove that it deserves to be the Government. Because, otherwise, it must step aside and let another team take over.
This is how the political system is supposed to work. We have a Westminster style of democracy, modelled on the British and adapted as we have gone along with it. It is adversarial by design.
In Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition sits on the opposite front bench, directly opposite the Prime Minister. That is why Mr Pritam Singh is there, sitting opposite me. He is not there as a supportive cheerleader, helping the Government to perform better. He is there to challenge the incumbent Prime Minister and the Government, to point out their faults, to highlight where the Government has fallen short and to keep chipping away at the Government’s and the Prime Minister’s credibility. And so, at the next General Election, or sooner if the opportunity arises, the Opposition can knock the Government out of power and take its place.
I am saying this not as a criticism of any political party in Singapore or anybody in Singapore, but I am saying this as how the system is designed to work.
In the British House of Commons, you have seen Jeremy Corbyn as the Leader of the Opposition taking on David Cameron and later, Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Question Time. He was not very successful at this, which is why he is no longer there. Now, the new Labour Party leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is doing his best to show up Boris Johnson and to make his own name in the process.
In the Australian Parliament, Question Time for Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his predecessors happens every day when Parliament is sitting and often lasts for more than one hour. Every encounter is a gladiatorial contest. Lots of drama and theatre and prepared soundbites. The wittier and more contemptuous, the better.
The British or Australian Prime Minister has to stand his ground, defend his government’s policies and maintain psychological dominance to show that he deserves to be the Prime Minister. If not, members of parliament on both sides will sense it and so will the public, and this will influence election outcomes as well as leadership contests in their parties.
In today’s Singapore, the tone of our Parliamentary debate is less combative than in Westminster or Canberra or, indeed, than how the Singapore Legislative Assembly was in the early 1960s, when the Barisan Sosialis was a formidable presence on the Opposition benches. Our political traditions have developed differently since then. Speeches in the Chamber are more substantive, with less verbal fireworks. The Opposition is generally more restrained in its style of questioning. Sometimes, their questions sound like questions which could have been asked by PAP backbenchers. And, no doubt, it helps that they know if they take a more strident tone, Ministers are on top of their briefs and will be more than capable of taking them on. But that does not stop them from trying their hand and their luck from time to time, and Mr Low Thia Khiang was particularly skilled at this.
I listened carefully to Mr Pritam Singh on Monday, describing how he intends to perform the role of Leader of the Opposition. I applaud his tone and his approach. The Government benches will do our part to work with him to keep Parliament a constructive forum for debate.
I believe that it is good to have an adequate number of Opposition MPs in Parliament. It keeps the Government on its toes. It shows the public that the Government has nothing to hide and will answer all questions, however awkward. And that is why we increased the minimum number of elected Opposition MPs in Parliament to 12 and why in this Parliament we have two Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) from the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) to top up the 10 from the WP.
But that does not mean that the more Opposition MPs and the more fiery the debate in Parliament is, the better. Or that the tone of our political debate cannot change for the worse. The adversarial dynamic that is inherent in the Parliamentary system can go wrong. We all hope that diversity will make a hundred flowers bloom. But how do we prevent diversity from producing polarisation? How do we make sure disagreement does not result in paralysis?
It has happened in so many other countries. Politics permeates every issue. Every subject becomes partisan. Even public health issues, whether to wear a mask or not, becomes a partisan issue. If you wear a mask, you are a Democrat; if you do not wear a mask, you are a Republican. This is my side and that is yours. There is no middle ground, only sides to take. There are no truths or facts, only different versions of reality — facts and equal standing, alternative facts! Politics becomes toxic and bitter. The country is divided and goes into a downward spiral. If this happens to Singapore, we will not just cease being an exceptional nation. It will be the end of us. We must not go down this path.
At the most fundamental level, to make our politics work, both the Government and Opposition must share an overriding objective – to work for Singapore and not just for our party or our supporters. Our debate must be based on principles and facts and guided by shared ideals and goals. MPs must speak up for what they sincerely believe in. You are elected not just to repeat what you have heard others say, but to think on behalf of others and to make arguments which make sense, which will benefit the interest of the people you are representing and of the voters who elected you. But to think for yourself and not just to be a mouthpiece.
We must be in politics in order to protect Singapore’s security, grow our economy and secure our future. If we do that, then there is a basis for us to manage the inherent tensions in our system and for politics to work out productively.
Ultimately, what sort of politics Singapore has depends on Singaporeans themselves. Because they have a vital responsibility to engage in the public discourse, to send the right signals at the ballot box and to reward political parties that do the right thing and deliver for the people. The standards they demand of political leaders, PAP and Opposition, will influence the quality of the political leadership and the level of discussion and debate in Parliament. They will determine whether our politics enable us to thrive and prosper, or divide and destroy us.
Speaking for the PAP, we have a special responsibility to make our system work and provide the leadership that Singapore needs and deserves. It is a responsibility that the PAP carries, but no other political party in Singapore shares, to make our system work. And let me explain why.
The PAP is inextricably linked with Singapore’s founding, its history and development. We built this place together with Singaporeans. It was Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP who pledged that Singapore shall forever be a multiracial nation on Separation Day itself and made good on that pledge. It was Dr Goh Keng Swee and the PAP who decided on National Service and built up the SAF into the respected force that it is today. It was Mr S Rajaratnam and the PAP who penned the National Pledge and strived to live by it every day for the last 55 years, and counting. These are among the reasons why the PAP has won every election since Independence. Singaporeans have trusted us, and we have never let them down.
Last week, Ms Sylvia Lim posted a beautiful picture on her Instagram of herself with Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Png Eng Huat and a few others. They were dining al fresco after the Opening of Parliament at what looked like a rooftop bar near City Hall. It was a vivid picture. Behind them, you could see the National Gallery, Raffles Place and part of the new downtown in Marina South, brightly lit and spectacular. In the caption, Ms Lim wrote: “What a skyline”. I thought to myself, "She has paid an enormous tribute to the PAP Government and to the people of Singapore"; my predecessors as well as my colleagues in the current Government and generations of Singaporeans who worked with the PAP Government to make this happen. I do not think she intended it and, therefore, I appreciated it all the more. Together, we did make this happen!
How politics and Government work in Singapore is quite unique. We have put enormous emphasis on the quality of government – the public service as well as the political leadership. We have gone to great lengths to recruit the best people we can find to enter politics, join the Government and serve Singapore.
This quality of government, coupled with the trust and support of Singaporeans, enables us to deal with problems rationally, comprehensively and effectively.
Jean-Claude Juncker, who was Prime Minister of Luxembourg and, more recently, the President of the European Commission, said this about European politics and politicians: "We all know what to do; we just do not know how to get re-elected after we have done it."
But in Singapore, the PAP Government has been able to do the right thing for Singaporeans – sometimes difficult and hard things – and still get re-elected. Sometimes, we have paid the price in the vote, but overall, we have continued to win elections.
And therefore, the Government has been able to think long term, well beyond the next General Election. We have no incentive to kick the can down the road because down the road, we will very likely meet the can ourselves again. Therefore, we make plans over 50 to 60 years, or in the case of climate change, 100 years. As a result, the country progresses, Singapore benefits, and the PAP continues to win elections, so far.
It is a virtuous, self-reinforcing cycle. This model has worked well for Singapore. Once broken, it will be very difficult to put back together again.
Several years ago, I made a trip to a former Communist country in Europe, quite a big one. A distinguished business group hosted me to dinner, serious-minded people interested in Singapore and some of them knowledgeable about Singapore. They asked me how the Singapore Government operates, and how we have made Singapore succeed. I gave them my usual answers – our strong anti-corruption stance, our long-term planning and our unremitting efforts to promote social inclusion. My hosts looked at each other in amazement. They shook their heads. They chattered away in Russian. [Laughter.] Several countries speak Russian! They were familiar with how the politics in their own country worked. To them, what I described was completely unimaginable. Surely, it cannot happen in this real world!
But it happens here in Singapore, and every one of us thinks that it is just normal. But even in Singapore, it is not normal at all. It is the result of sound politics, hard work and the will to put together, pull together and make Singapore a success.
It is path dependent. We have come this way; we have kept it like this. It is like being in the Garden of Eden – things are going right, they stay right; you leave the Garden of Eden, you cannot go back.
Can it continue to work like this? With more diversity and contestation, can we keep our focus on the long term and plan and build ahead for Singapore? How long can Singaporeans vote for the Opposition in some constituencies, in the expectation that somehow, somewhere else, their fellow Singaporeans will ensure that the PAP is returned to power?
Can we continue to get good people into politics to maintain the quality of our Ministers and MPs, and make things happen for Singapore, if more and more citizens prefer the PAP to form the Government and yet vote for another party’s candidates to be their MPs for diversity, for checks and balance?
At what point does a vote for a strong Opposition become a vote for a different government? Is it really true that one day if there is a change of government, a new party can run Singapore equally well because we have such a good Public Service, as Mr Pritam Singh suggested on Monday? It is just like saying, if you have a New York Philharmonic orchestra, anybody can be the conductor.
These questions have no easy answers.
In the nature of politics and of human societies, things can and do go wrong. Each successive generation of Singaporeans has to keep on doing its best to keep the system working right. The PAP feels acutely its special responsibility to keep on doing its best for Singapore and to keep Singapore working in this unique way. That is our sacred mission.
We will do our utmost to persuade good men and women to enter politics, to take over the torch and lead the next generation forward. We will fight hard to win the hearts and minds of Singaporeans and win every vote and show Singaporeans that the PAP continues to deserve their support and trust.
Of course, there is no guarantee that even under a PAP Government, Singapore will forever be successful. The world is not quite the same as it used to be. Our streets and our skies are quieter.
I received a foreign visitor recently. She said she felt sad when she came through Changi Airport. It used to be bustling, crowded and full of life. Now, it is deathly silent.
When Changi Airport first opened in 1981, it was a coming-out party for Singaporeans of that generation. We were so proud of it. When someone was flying out, the whole extended family would come to Changi Airport to see him or her off and, at the same time, take pictures with the trishaw display and the water features. I remember it fondly; I suppose it dates me. It was a dream come true.
Over the years, we expanded Terminal 1, and built Terminal 2 and Terminal 3, and now Terminal 4. We built Changi up into the best airport and home to the best airline in the world. Then, we conceived and built Jewel. When Jewel opened, Singaporeans took immense pride in it. I showed it off in my National Day Rally last year to demonstrate what we are capable of and explain why Singaporeans can look forward to limitless possibilities for our nation.
But Jewel too went dark during the circuit breaker. Forty years of building up our airport and airline, COVID-19 came and all of that suddenly came to a halt. So, what now?
We have survived many life-and-death crises before. Singapore was born from crisis. We did not know whether we could survive after the Separation and the British withdrew East of Suez. We rode through major economic storms like the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Crisis, not knowing if we would sink or swim. But each time, we did survive and actually came back stronger. Each time, the dire circumstances became the occasion and the platform for ambition and daring. And each time, we transcended ourselves and built again.
We should fight COVID-19 with hope in our hearts because there is a silver lining. This searing experience will help a whole new generation of Singaporeans appreciate and treasure what we have and what makes us an exceptional nation. We are here by dint of will and imagination. In defiance of all the odds and of all those who said we would not make it, we did.
As in all the previous crises, COVID-19 will be the occasion for us to do better, emerge stronger and become more united. Do not doubt. Do not fear. Jewel will shine again. Changi will thrive again. Singapore Airlines will be a great way to fly once more. [Applause.]
Our economy will prosper anew. Our children and our grandchildren will continue marching forward to build a fairer, ever more just and equal society. [Applause.]
Mr Pritam Singh.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for the address. Thank you.
I have a few clarifications and I will start with the first one – the framing of suggestions that the Opposition puts forward about the use of the Reserves. And I think it is important.
When we talk about the Reserves, we are not talking about raiding them. It is about slowing the growth slope of the Reserves. So, the principal is not touched. And there is nothing unusual about this because the PAP does it too. How so? In 2015, this House, including the Members of the Workers’ Party (WP), we agreed to include Temasek in the Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) formula. Does that not reduce the growth of the Reserves? It does.
So, the argument cannot be that when the Opposition tries to put that proposal forward, somehow, we are engaging in some sort of chicanery to steal what previous generations have toiled and perspired over to bring us here.
When we look at alternatives, what are we looking at? Healthcare, ageing. For the same Singaporeans who worked hard, toiled hard, and are now in their retirement years who have some difficulties, questions of intergenerational equity come up. And that is the context through which some of these proposals are put forward.
We have asked for numbers. I believe in the last term, Deputy Prime Minister Heng said no, this is a secret weapon; you do not reveal these numbers. But this House, this platform, provides us the opportunity to do so, if not in session, in Committee. And yes, there is Parliamentary privilege, but I am prepared to give up my Parliamentary privilege if I divulge those numbers. Then, I will have to be taken to task under the Official Secrets Act.
So, why are we doing this? We are doing it precisely because we are looking for alternatives to better consider the welfare of Singaporeans.
The Prime Minister spoke about the social media post of Piyush Gupta and, obviously, it was posted with completely mala fide intentions. But similarly, when an issue is not framed accurately and the Opposition is made to look like charlatans, surely, we have to stand up and say, no, that is not the agenda. So, I hope that clarification is helpful when we talk about Reserves and why those numbers matter to us.
The second clarification deals with the anecdote the Prime Minister shared about a lady who spoke to Senior Minister Teo and that choice, that difficult choice, she had to make about, "There will enough people voting for the PAP, they will be the Government. But there are also people who are saying two-for-one". This is an old issue. It has come up before in previous elections.
And there is another side of the coin – that is one perspective. There are conversations that Opposition MPs hear: "Mr Singh, why is it that when new citizens go to the Community Clubs, the elected MP is not there? Is the elected MP, who is an Opposition candidate, not part of this larger political firmament? Is that not unfair?"
And there are other questions too and these have come up as well. More recently, I put up a post about restarting the Meet-the-People sessions and a pro-establishment Facebook page goes on and says, "Hey, look at them, trying to engender sympathy from the public by doing MPS at the void deck".
And, of course, people come up to me when I go on the ground and walk the markets. They say, "Mr Singh, is it true? Actually, the Government says you can build your own offices." I said, "That is true". The position changed in 2011. The position prior to 1991, HDB built offices for everybody, every MP, including Opposition MPs. And then, they stopped in 1991. Why did they stop? Because the argument was there was a competing need for void deck space. Even though in the later Parliamentary sessions, that number is only 1%, I understand, that was dedicated for that purpose. And then, in 2011, the position changed.
And so we have to deal with some of this reality as well. Poor understanding, call it what you want of the situation; people feeling that there is something inherently unfair and so, when they say, "I want the PAP in the Government, but I also want an Opposition," they are giving voice to the situation many Singaporeans actually feel, which is, "We want that an Opposition in this House! There must be an Opposition in this House!"
So, my duty and the duty of my colleagues is to be responsible about our role. It is not easy. We come under pressure to from our own supporters too. But as the Prime Minister rightly said, I think we owe our loyalty to something larger. And we will do our best by Singaporeans, and if we are not good enough, we deserve to be voted out. And that is how the system should work.
The Prime Minister referred to a point I made about the political system and whether it would still run and so forth. Well, these are not just my thoughts. I refer the Prime Minister to the unofficial biography of the PAP which was published by The Straits Times Press, if I remember correctly. In it, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, our first Prime Minister himself, says this and I quote, "At the end of the day, if you are running the system properly, you must have a distinction between what is the party, what is the Government, so, if you are voted out of office, the machinery is there for the next party to take over. So, although we do not have much of an Opposition, we keep the system going, so that at any time the party is out, the Government, the Parliament, the Civil Service will be there. The Police, the Armed Forces will carry it through. It is not going to collapse".
Mr Speaker, Sir, when my colleagues and I joined the Opposition cause, we did not have heady dreams of becoming Government. It is certainly not me. Why did I do this? I believe in an Opposition in a Parliamentary democracy. It is not going to happen with people just hoping someone else does it. Somebody has to plant his flag in the sand and say, "I am going to do it". And then, it is the duty of myself and my party colleagues, to make sure that the people who are onboard do their very best.
This is my commitment to Singaporeans, and this is my commitment to the Prime Minister as well. Thank you. [Applause.]
I thank the Leader of the Opposition. On Reserves, I am not arguing on the technicalities of percentages, drawdowns, NIRC and so on. I am going on a basic principle. That our mindset should be: what is a rainy-day fund, what is my daily expenses, and I meet my needs.
We do draw from the rainy day fund a certain stream of income to spend. We thought this over carefully and we debated this in the House. We agreed upon a rule which we felt was a fair distribution between the present and the future generations – which is that, of the expected earnings, half will be taken to be spent, half will go back and be reinvested and will be for the future. We made that decision knowing that there would be ups and downs, knowing that one day, we would be short of money, knowing that we should stick to this for quite a long time and not revisit this as soon as we need money.
Mr Singh says we are not talking about bringing the Reserves down. But, as you know in financial investments, there is no certainty about Reserves going up. It can come down for any number of reasons. We may have to draw on them, like we did this year. It can come down because the markets can come down and bring the value of our investments down, despite our best management of GIC or Temasek, as it has happened from time to time. And there is a balance of risks, which we have to accept. And then, there is a fundamental mindset. What are you depending on for the future? What is for now? And I suggest that our mindset should be that what I have planned for the future, I think of as only touching them in extremist.
On Monday, when Mr Singh spoke about trade-offs and difficulties, he said, yes, he knows that there is more spending which is necessary, there are old folks, there will be trade-offs and we can raise income taxes. He did not say GST. But he is prepared to raise income taxes. Well, these are political judgements which you have to make. But finally, you have to be able to spend what you are able to earn.
I suggest that our fundamental mindset should be that we pay our way forward. And we do not depend on another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves, another little bit from the Reserves; each time, I am not really compromising a principle. I am just getting a little bit more pregnant.
I suggest that is not the way we should think as a generation. We should be thinking for the future for the next generation, and I am, as their founder, I want to help to provide for them. That is a mindset which has brought us here and that is a mindset which will serve our children and grandchildren well.
On Senior Minister Teo's anecdote and Mr Pritam Singh's arguments, his arguments do not respond to the anecdote. Because the basic point is this: whatever happens, there will be Opposition MPs elected to this House. It is assured by our Constitution. It has worked out and the Opposition has been making use of this system. The WP in the last election had NCMPs, the PSP in this term has NCMPs. There will be Opposition in this House, to hold a party to account and to hold the Government to account.
So, if you think that the Government is doing the wrong thing in terms of MPs' offices, in terms of MPs and the community centres, by all means, vote the Government out, put a new government in, change the government and change the policy.
But, if you say, "Vote against the Government because somebody else will look after getting the PAP Government", you just become a free rider. If you vote Opposition, "No harm, the PAP will still be there", then I think the system must fail. Because the system can only work if people vote sincerely and honestly in accordance with what they really want and to produce a result which matches their true intentions. If they vote tactically, the consequence must be, one day, they will get the result which they mark the "X" for but which they did not intend.
I think that is a wrong thing to teach people to do. You go to the elections, you vote for the person whom you have trusted in, who will run your system and who will run your government. Our system is designed so that if you do that, it will be stable. If you do not do that, I think you are courting trouble.
I can understand why Mr Singh, as Leader of the Opposition and not in a position yet to challenge the Government, would like to make this argument; that the PAP Government will be there, do not worry, you can safely vote for me, I am not going to be the next Prime Minister. But I put it to you that that is not the right thing to do morally, and it is not the right thing to do for Singapore.
Thirdly, on the system still running, he quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew and, indeed, we have designed it to the best of our ability so that if the PAP is out of government, it shall not collapse straightaway. But let me just ask you whether you really believe, that if this team, that the PAP, one day, hands over to a new Opposition party, the system can work the way it has been working? Yes, you can keep it flying. There is an autopilot, you can fly straight and level for some time.
There are countries where the political system continually produces revolving-door Cabinets. Japan, for a time, was like that, before Mr Abe became Prime Minister a second time. Every six months, they have a new Prime Minister, a new Minister for Trade and Industry and so forth. The country did not collapse. Did it do well? No.
When Mr Abe came in, and I think this time he was eight to nine years in government, eight years; and got the team together and set directions, the country moved.
So, to say that the system is such that with civil servants, the SAF and so on, therefore, it does not matter who is the government, I think that is not being honest. In that case, we can dismiss all the Ministers, they can go on leave, you do not need Ministers, and anybody can be a Minister. But you need to run a system which is finely tuned and capable and you need a very capable hand at the top.
The Ministers are not just presiding. The Ministers are executive. They are running the Ministries. They are expected to know all about the Ministries, every in and out of the policy. When he comes here to answer in the Committee of Supply or in case there are Parliamentary Questions, he does not refer to his Administrative Vice Minister, which is what the Japanese have or, in our equivalent, would be the Permanent Secretaries. He must master and explain it. And when he runs the Ministry, he must decide what the contents are, what the direction is, the details; and if necessary, override the officials and decide on the direction.
That is how we have done COVID-19. That is how the Ministerial Task Force has operated – long discussions, all views heard. Finally, the Ministers must decide and, from time to time, the decisions are not what the staff consensus come up with, because there are other factors, partly there are political factors, but sometimes, because the Minister must exercise judgement and take responsibility.
The staff did not recommend the circuit breaker. We discussed it in Cabinet. There were many pros and cons. I said better think about this carefully, do not make a seat-of-the-pants decision; go back, sleep on it, work out the proposal, work out another proposal, 30% more draconian; come back day after tomorrow, come back tomorrow morning, talk about it, discuss, decide. Cabinet decides. It is a big decision, $5 billion dollars of Supplementary Budget.
Civil servants and the elected can make this happen, can carry this. If the new government comes in, can it know how to do this and have that feel and that trust and that confidence of Singaporeans as well as their officials as well as investors and everybody else watching us? Anybody can make it happen? I think that is not in this world.
I thank the Prime Minister for the responses. Just two points. The first one about the free rider. I do not think the residents in Aljunied, Hougang for 30 years now and even Sengkang, as a result of the results of the last election, would appreciate being called free riders. They are not free riders.
The residents of Aljunied, I can speak more authoritatively for Aljunied residents because I am a sitting Member there, we are not just doing nothing, having been voted in. We are not just letting the other guy, the government of the day do something. We have got to do what we have to do. We have got to run the Town Council, which is why Mr Lee Kuan Yew conceived of the Town Councils in the first place. Because if you want to move forward in the system as an Opposition MPs, you have got to prove your worth in the Town Council. And we have had growing pains. I am not going to deny that.
But if we were bungling things up, I would not be here today. My team would not be here today. We have tried our best in the circumstances that we are in. The Sengkang team is not going to have an easy time. For the first term, it is always going to be tough. But the voters of these constituencies put their faith in us because they know an opposition in Parliament is ultimately good for Singapore.
And it is not just – and if I can suggest this – it is not just the NCMP version of the opposition, with full respect to everyone who was an NCMP in this Parliament and those who came before, but it is when you have elected Opposition MPs, the Government listens harder. And that means something to people. That is my view. I am sure the PAP may have a different on it, but that is my perspective. And that is why it is important for there to be elected Opposition MPs.
The Prime Minister alluded to a dishonest sort of packaging of what I am suggesting. The bigger moral imperative that I have, and it is a huge burden, and I felt this burden before the last elections, was whether the people who are standing as WP candidates could follow through. That is the heaviest decision. That is the heaviest burden I have. And if you choose someone who is not committed, not vested, that is the biggest pain for me as the leader of one party that aspires to represent Singaporeans in Parliament.
So, I will have to do what is good and what is right by Singapore. Looking for the best people. Do I want to contest all the seats, more seats, slowly grow? A lot of it depends on the quality of people that come and are attracted by the WP and our platform. If Singaporeans are attracted to it, then sure, there is a prospect of growth. But it is not growth for growth's sake. I am not desperate for power, Prime Minister. But we have got to get good people if we want to bring this country forward. The PAP has been doing that as the Prime Minister has alluded to.
At this point in our growth, we have to grow our roots as a loyal Opposition. After more than 50 years of Independence, this is the first time the Government has recognised the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. We have many, many more miles to go. But we are not chasing a destination. We intend to do right by Singapore.
I appreciate Mr Pritam's explanations. I am in no way undervaluing his motivations, his passion and his desire to do right by Singapore, his wish to have a high-quality Opposition built up in Singapore. I understand that. I think it is good for Singapore that you have honest people in the Opposition, people who believe in what they are trying to do and people who will stand up and fight for their ideals. And from time to time, agree very strongly with the Government. I think that is entirely reasonably.
I think it is also good that you have Opposition who take their Town Council responsibilities seriously, who look after their constituencies assiduously and conscientiously and do their best for their voters and give the voters a reason to vote for them. I think it is entirely reasonable.
But I would say however, if you stand and you tell people, "Vote for me, I will be a better MP than the other one, the PAP MP", I think that is entirely reasonable. But if you say, "Vote for me; somebody else will vote for the PAP and therefore the PAP will be the government", that the economists will call a free rider. It means that you are taking advantage of somebody else who is doing the duty of electing a government for the nation. And you are not doing your part expressing your true views and preference as a voter whom you want to be the next government. And if everybody takes that attitude, then you are going to end up with a government which you do not want. Because the argument which he makes is that he is very careful, he only chooses candidates he can trust to be WP candidates. I think I will give him that. It is the right and responsible attitude to take. But I think other opposition parties may say they have been trying to get good candidates too. And they could make the same argument as you have, that it is good to have an Opposition in Singapore, "Vote for us. Somebody else will look after the government of Singapore".
So, supposing that the PSP had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and the Singapore Democratic Party had been as persuasive as Mr Pritam Singh, and more voters had taken such an attitude, where would Singapore be? Is that the right outcome for Singapore?
So, therefore, something is wrong when you say I really want one government, but I will vote for another one. And the system will go wrong when you do that. I think it is necessary that people understand this and understand what is at stake when you elect a government of Singapore.
Elections are not just about the Town Council. They are also about electing the government for the country and that is necessary for people to bear firmly in mind.
Any other clarifications? Mr Leong Mun Wai.
Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity. I am mindful that this is the first time I am attending Parliament and also just an NCMP, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Prime Minister a few clarifications. I do not know what privileges I have in terms of how I am going to speak but it may be a bit of my own opinions plus a bit of clarification and questions. So, it will be a mixture of that.
First of all, I think the Prime Minister had given a very touching presentation on the situation in Singapore today. But what we want to say is that, on the point of the free rider, I am not sure whether that concept is being used in line with what economists have in mind. But nevertheless, we do not go into that. What I want to ask the Prime Minister is, Singapore voters looking at the situation today see that there is actually a gap between having a strong Government, because the Government at the moment controls over 90% of the seats. So, as a result, there is a very comfortable margin. Because of that margin, you cannot prevent the voters from thinking, "Actually, there is a margin of error I can afford. So, as a result, I can have the best of both worlds – a strong Government and a strong Opposition voice in Parliament. Let us try."
And I can tell you, Mr Prime Minister, I am a very new politician. In fact, I am a rookie. I do not know much. But in the process of the last one year, when I interacted with voters on the ground, I felt that the Singaporean voters are really, really, very smart. They know how to control the process. So, what they are thinking now is, "There is a buffer, so I leave it. And I will wait until that buffer shrinks and I am not going to vote everybody, anybody in. Even if PSP is not good enough this round. I want to get the best people to go in. And as the buffer shrinks, I will make my decision again."
So, whether it is the Opposition or the electorate, from the position of the electorate, there is no question that, at the moment, everybody wants the present Government to continue. But that does not mean if, going forward, the performance of the Government does not improve, the electorate is going to sit by. But that is going to be very, very long down the road. So, that is one thing.
So, I wish to ask Mr Prime Minister to clarify whether what I said is something that is useable in the current political climate we have.
Secondly, what we are asking for now, in a lot of ways, is actually a rebalancing. We are not talking about a revolution. For example, on the issue of social safety net, what we are saying is, "Do you not think Singaporeans' livelihoods now is too hard?" And they are so hard to the extent that you cannot expect them to become entrepreneurs because their financial security is not there. There is no long-term plan that they can be comfortable about. As a result, we say, "We know we have this amount of national Reserves, can we not use the returns and help to improve the financial position of the Singaporeans so that they can have peace of mind to think of participating in the new economy that we are trying to put into our country?"
A lot of the debates have gone on about recruitment drop, how to create jobs and how to take back some of the jobs from the foreigners, which is not really something that we want to go very far with. We want to maintain our current foreign talent model as well. But, at the same time, when we were to create jobs and have a new economy, we need to have new capabilities, we need to have Singaporeans who can think independently and with the leeway to think. That is very important.
So, these are the two questions I want to pose to the Prime Minister. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr Speaker, I do not think I need to respond very elaborately to Mr Leong. On his first point, we have addressed the questions extensively. He does not add anything new to it. In fact, it reinforced the problem. Exactly. Mr Pritam Singh is not the only one making this argument. And if everyone makes this argument, everyone is going to be in trouble.
As for the other issues of rebalancing and not a revolution, I think these are matters which can eminently be discussed and are suitable for debate in this House. But it is not the focus of my speech today. I am talking here about which way Singapore politics is going, what their risks are in going in this direction, what we must do in order to make it turn out right and how it has worked out well for us in Singapore. And how we must try to continue to let this work for as long as we can, to serve Singaporeans, a new generation, new desires, but the same high quality of service of Government of commitment in order that there can continue to be more Reserves to argue about in the next Parliament.
Mr Heng Swee Keat.
Thank you, Speaker. I want to reiterate the point which the Prime Minister has just made about the difference between a founder's mindset and an inheritor's mindset, and address Mr Singh's suggestion about the use of the Reserves, as somebody who has been directly involved in using the reserves twice.
The first time was during the Global Financial Crisis when I was running the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) and we sought the President's approval for the use of $150 billion of our past Reserves to safeguard bank deposits. It was a very difficult decision because we never wanted to do it, until all the neighbouring countries have created bank deposit guarantees to guarantee all the deposits in the banks. And if we had a bank run, the consequences on Singapore would have been far worse. At that time, Mr Goh Chok Tong was my Chairman. After long discussions with him and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who was in MAS at that time, we decided to discuss with the Prime Minister, and we went to see the President.
It is a contingency. If you ask me today: could I have predicted it when I first went to MAS? No way. Could the world have predicted there was going to be a global financial crisis? Not at that time. Did we know that there would be governments around the world creating bank guarantees of that form? Not quite.
So, I think the Reserves, as a contingency fund to meet unexpected events for a small country with zero natural resource of any kind, is something which we must never forget. We must never forget that. And what kind of contingencies can happen? Let me touch on that in a while.
The second aspect is, this year, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we were projecting a fairly rosy picture before the financial year. Therefore, the Budget was made on the basis of even the amount that we will return and keep in past Reserves. But within 100 days, I did four Budgets and also, very recently, a Supplementary Statement. In those five Budgets and Statement altogether, I saw the President and the Council of Presidential Advisers five times and, each time, I can tell you, they asked very tough questions about all our assumptions and what we were looking at, what was the contingency and what could get worse. Eventually, they approved, after very, very tough questions given to me and my team, and we drew $52 billion of past Reserves as part of this almost $100 billion package.
Mr Pritam Singh also spoke about intergenerational equity. I have been looking at how other countries have funded all these programmes. A lot of them have funded them through borrowings. Somebody has to pay for those borrowings. Who? Future generations. The massive debts that have been incurred will have to be paid for by future generations.
As the Minister for Finance, I can tell Members that I felt so grateful to our founders for that founders' mindset in leaving us with these Reserves that my team and I were able to focus fully on what would best serve the interests of Singaporeans, how would we best help our businesses and how would we best provide resources for the frontline agencies, especially MOH, to tackle this major crisis. I did not have to worry about what terms I would have to negotiate with lenders and how we were going to pay for it.
Again, let me emphasise that, for a country with no natural resource of any kind who really live by our wits, having those Reserves gives us strength and allows us to keep jobs for our people, to restructure, to reform and that, even in the Budget, even in this crisis, we are talking about how we can emerge stronger, we have proposals on looking beyond COVID-19 and how we will re-establish relationships and even seek to emerge stronger.
Why are we able to do that? I think there is a certain mindset that we owe something not just to ourselves but to our future generations. Therefore, I hope that Mr Pritam Singh will bear that in mind when looking at this.
On the contingency question, one could ask what contingencies there could be in the future for which the Reserves may have to be used and whether the Reserves are enough. I can tell Mr Pritam Singh that I asked that question of myself all the time, because the nature of the economy is that it is going to be more volatile. We had the Asian Financial Crisis, we had the Global Financial Crisis, in between, we had SARS, the dotcom bubble and now, we have COVID-19.
Let me remind everybody that COVID-19 is not over. The COVID-19 situation is getting serious. Today, on the front page of The New York Times, they spoke about the situation in Spain and the worries in Europe about how things could get worse, whether a vaccine would be found soon enough and, even then, how would that work because now people are talking about the risk of re-infection.
So, we have to have a mindset that we have to prepare for contingencies and not think about, "Well, if I know how much it is, I can tell you how much to spend." Because the one big unknown is what are the contingencies that you have to prepare for. And I do not want to elaborate on the range of other contingencies that we have to prepare for. But a pandemic is certainly one very big area. A financial crisis and economic crisis of a very serious nature, I think we must expect that panics and crashes will continue to happen in the global economy. The global economy does not go on a straight line all the time. And we, being so open, will be exposed far more than many other economies.
So, I hope that Mr Pritam Singh will think about these carefully before thinking about "I must know how much before we know how much to spend". The principles on why we do it are quite clear.
Ms Poh Li San.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand in support of the Motion to thank the President for her Address. I would like to first thank the Prime Minister for his address and also the Members for their questions. The exchange of views has certainly added to the robustness of the debate in this House.
The COVID-19 pandemic is disrupting every aspect of our society. There is no road map for a solution and no one knows exactly what to do. Come what may, we must stay resilient. We must finish this race that is full of twists and turns. What good will come from COVID-19 is dependent on how Singapore runs as a team in this marathon.
To run this race, we must be able to respond to the challenges and be able to adapt and transform. We must nurture strong and new runners and let them start racing when they are still really young. Our youths must have a strong mindset and must always stay hungry in order to compete globally. Our youths will be the future. We must invest resources in them to accelerate the building of new capabilities for our future economy. The youths need to feel a strong sense of ownership and feel that they have a role in shaping the future of our country. So, how do we prepare and motivate our youths?
COVID-19 has brought about new opportunities. Digital transformation has accelerated the change necessary for productivity. The changes to the workforce we put in place now will greatly impact the future of our young Singaporeans.
Our millennials ought to play a bigger role in articulating their vision of Singapore in a post-COVID-19 world and the roles they want to undertake in shaping our collective future. Our youths must have more opportunities and responsibilities to lead the change and shape the future society they want to live in.
To prepare them to be able to compete globally, we need to invest and build deep capabilities, not just in growth sectors, but also to solve our nation’s fundamental problems like the shortage of manpower. Our youths must find a way to customise solutions with the use of more industry 4.0 technologies to seek ways to reduce the reliance on foreign workers in sectors like construction, hospitality and nursing.
Our youths should also focus on how the rising sea level is a slow boiling frog problem but with real existential threats to our nation’s survival. We also need to create conducive environments to spawn creativity and innovation. Better solutions often come out of intersections of different disciplines. I hope our education institutions will provide more opportunities for cross-disciplinary training for the students. Given the challenging job market now and instead of adding to the jobseekers' pool, polytechnics and universities could consider offering graduating students the option to study a second diploma or degree in a different field. This will broaden their knowledge and skillsets instead of being part of the current unemployed pool.
As marathoners, we must trim fats, stay lean and stay light. We can take supplements, but avoid quick fixes like steroids. Steroids may boost our performance very quickly but, in the long run, they do more harm to our health. As an open economy and an international brand, Singapore will certainly need the help of international talents. Foreign talents deepen and diversify our economy. Having said that, they should not cripple our organic capabilities. It is crucial to balance. We need to spread foreign talents across various industries so that there is more even growth and to create more opportunities for Singaporeans to excel in every sector.
We should also rejig our employment structure. Consider 70 to be a new retirement age. In a 45- to 50-year career lifespan, we should then take time to build a strong foundation to be good in developing a craft or a career, grow and develop our practical skillsets and experience, before moving into managerial or management roles. This will help our workforce not to be too top-heavy, resulting in us becoming expensive and uncompetitive.
At this point, I would like to take the opportunity to talk about our women marathoners. Women provide diversity and a different style of leadership at all levels and across diverse fields. While men work hard and tend to be strong and aggressive sometimes, women are naturally nurturing and resilient. These are qualities that are crucial when surviving a crisis or rebuilding the economy and society. I believe it is no coincidence that several international women leaders have managed the COVID-19 crisis well, for example, Prime Minister Jacinda Adern of New Zealand, Prime Minister Sanna Marin of Finland, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and so on.
We can harness the potential of our Singaporean women and encourage qualified Singaporean women to fill the roles first before hiring foreign talents. Many talented and capable Singaporean women have traded-off careers for their young families and children. These women do have the requisite skillsets, experience and maturity to contribute and lead in the workplace. They just need to be given that opportunity to rejoin the workforce. We should increase accessibility for these women to return to the workplace, especially after their children have grown up.
To attract and retain women in the workplace, the work environment must also transform. Ironically, COVID-19 has made flexible work arrangements workable and acceptable. Work from home, e-commerce and home-based businesses have now become the norm and we should make these structural shifts in the workplace permanent.
I would like to thank fellow colleague Mr Louis Ng for speaking up earlier for better and fairer workplaces for women. Echoing Mr Louis Ng's suggestions, I would like to suggest that we consider the possibilities of ensuring that all companies be more gender neutral. Perhaps MOM could embark on a review of potentially unfair or even discriminatory HR practices, such as reducing the gender wage gap.
The vision of Singapore in a post-COVID-19 world will be completely different from how we thought it would be a year ago. We must now undertake the responsibility to reshape our future creatively. We must be different to succeed, to seek autonomous solutions to build new areas of growth and to embrace deep capabilities to improve on our competence. We must be conscious of environment conservation solutions to live better. In our resource-scarce nation, everyone must work together to succeed in this post-COVID-19 world.
[Deputy Speaker (Mr Christopher de Souza) in the Chair]
There is a Zambian proverb that says, “When you run alone, you run fast. When you run together, you run far”. Around this time last year, 200 Singaporeans came together to run "Relay Majulah", to celebrate Singapore’s Bicentennial and to raise funds for President’s Challenge. Each runner ran either 10 kilometres or 20 kilometres and had to raise at least $5,000 each. After months of hard work and fund-raising, the 200-hour relay by the 200 runners, covering 2,000 kilometres, was completed successfully. That relay raised a total of $1.6 million, well over the target of $1 million. Amongst the 200 runners, there are five MPs in this House, including Mr Speaker, Sir, who ran in that relay. Relay Majulah indeed inspired many. It was a race that showed us that so long as we stayed determined to help one another, we can achieve our goal no matter how difficult it may seem.
As a nation, we must keep running this uphill marathon together, no matter what extremely harsh weather condition we may all need to go through. I am confident that we will eventually finish this race together, stronger and trimmer than when we started off. We will be an undefeated marathon team. I would like to say a few words in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mr Deputy Speaker, let me conclude my speech in Chinese. COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges to Singapore. The fight against COVID-19 and economic recovery is like a marathon, and the key lies in perseverance. Every member of the team must do his or her best and overcome the difficulties without fear. The youths must be brave to innovate and be entrepreneurial and use advanced technologies to solve the most challenging issues that the country is facing. They should also take on the responsibility to shape our future. Businesses should improve their competitiveness, keep agile, reduce the number of middle and senior executives and balance the proportions between local and foreign employees. Women are known to be soft and resilient. Their perspectives are different from the men. Hence, we should encourage them to participate more in the decision-making process at the senior level to work out a more holistic solution.
A marathon is tough. However, as long as we persevere and help each other with a strong belief in mind and a united team spirit, we can complete the run and reach our destination. Team Singapore is a group of unremitting marathon runners who are determined to win!
(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.
Ms Ng Ling Ling.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion of Thanks to the President for her Address. I would like to declare my role as an independent consultant in healthcare transformation.
Singapore is going through a challenging year. It will not be easy for us or the world to emerge from COVID-19 and its economic fall-out to recover fully any time soon. But I have confidence that we can grow and emerge from this difficult time. What we can and must count on and empower is our people, Singaporeans, young and old.
I have been reflecting on the last few words of our pledge: happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. What truly does happiness to a nation mean? To me, "happiness" is about ensuring and engendering the social and collective well-being of our society as a whole.
Economic growth is crucial, yes, and is the lifeblood of Singapore. But addressing the softer human needs and the collective well-being of our people can be a counter-balancing force when our economic growth may no longer be as fast as in the past decade. A balance in the pursuit of what is most important to benefit the wider population, especially the at-risk groups, will become increasingly important.
As such, my speech will focus on building our people, not just on the "bread and butter" issues affecting livelihoods and jobs, but also social and mental health of our people, and social cohesion.
First, I would like to talk about one group of at-risk people particularly impacted by this crisis, and many in this House have also spoken up about them: the older workers and how we can assist them. I resonate with them because I have been seeing the vulnerability of our older adult workers over 50 years old and those above 60 years old feel even more uncertain and anxious this period in my constituency.
We have started the most significant demographic shift of this generation – the near doubling of citizens aged 65 and older by 2030, with the number of elderly citizens projected to be about 900,000, or one in four by then.
As Minister of State Ms Gan Siow Huang had mentioned, the median age of our resident labour force today has also risen to 44, compared to 41 just a decade ago, and it will continue to rise. It is important that we recognise and appreciate the wealth of experience and skills of our older workers, who will make up an increasing share of our workforce.
I commend Moovaz, a Singapore-based startup specialising in international moving services. In a The Straits Times article reported on 24 August 2020, they employed Mdm Becky Chang, 60 years old, after she was let go from her company in the shipping industry. Moovaz valued her four decades of experience in the shipping industry and, importantly, her willingness to learn. We need more of such employers.
As Members of this House have quoted, and I would like to reinforce, as Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has aptly said, and I quote, "no Singaporean who is willing to learn should be 'too old' to hire. And no one who is willing to adapt should be viewed as 'overqualified'."
As a society, we must make every effort to continually support a more mature workforce in meaningful and dignifying work. What is even more important is for us to respect the emotional journey they are going through as they cope with the rapidly changing job market. I have met older adult residents who have lost or are at the risk of losing their jobs and they shared with me their anxiety in finding new jobs. Not for the lack of will to learn, but for the steep learning curve of acquiring new skills in growth areas and the learning pace they need. My constituency volunteers and I keep them supported by encouraging them not to give up.
The Government has started many good schemes to provide assistance to this group. Whether it be the strong support from the SG United Jobs and Skills Package, the new Jobs Growth Incentive or efforts from the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers. These are all commendable schemes, but we need to also systematically redesign jobs, shift workplace culture and HR policies to institutionalise new possibilities for our maturing workforce. We need to help them overcome the workplace barriers which may stand in the way of maximising their potential.
In my view, social service experts are adept in designing systemic environment and practices, designing new job roles, breaking down tasks and coaching them in partnership with employers, doing these in a way that build psycho-social wellness of people, bringing in elements of respect, dignity and empowerment.
We saw that in the hard-forged efforts in the movement for employment of persons with special needs, which organisations like the National Council of Social Service (NCSS), SG Enable alongside community-minded corporates like Pan Pacific Hotel Group, as well as Social Service Agencies like Autism Resource Centre led by our capable Mayor Denise Phua have made impactful progress in.
We need a similar movement for our older workers. To begin with, I have helped to bring together the NCSS and Pan Pacific Hotel Group to start dialogues on partnership to join forces and combine the social and business perspectives to enable awareness and resources for new job redesigns for the mature workforce. I am glad to share that there is much keenness to support this segment of our workers. For example, the hotel group in their sustainability pursuit are thinking of new roles such as urban farming specialists where they will encourage older workers to pursue and in a dignified way. I hope that more public, private and people sector organisations will collaborate and join in such efforts.
Change in workplace culture, mindsets, HR policies and practices that will ensure non-discriminatory hiring and retention of older workers will require relentless and collective efforts. Because of the important element of self-worth and self-empowerment that work brings, we must continually improve status quo to give assurance to our older workers and help them increase job security.
This brings me to the next part of my speech – the impact of the current crisis and uncertainties on social and mental health of our people.
The Centre for Research on Successful Ageing, a research centre based in the Singapore Management University (SMU), undertook a study recently to understand the possible impacts on elderly Singaporeans during the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings from their population-representative monthly survey, with about 7,500 respondents, tracking the lives of Singaporeans aged 55 to 75 during this period were reported in The Straits Times on 28 August this year.
There was an important finding: older adults experienced a drop in overall life satisfaction by 3.8% in April 2020 and 4% in May, as compared to January 2020. Respondents mentioned that they experienced a sharp increase in feelings of social isolation, with individuals living alone experiencing larger increases.
One factor that impacts quality of life is job security, and it is telling that many respondents in the survey expressed anxiety about the future, with about a third of respondents expressing being very or extremely worried about the health of their loved ones and the economy. In my opinion, this has potential impact on our people’s mental health.
In another survey conducted by the National University Health System (NUHS) Mind Science Centre on mental health resilience published in The Straits Times on 19 August this year, it found that younger Singaporeans 45 years and below are more likely to feel anxious and less mentally resilient than those aged 45 and above.
These two reports show that the impact of the current crisis on mental health is a complex one that affects different groups of Singaporeans in different ways, both young and old.
My hope is that our younger people today, who are more likely to talk about mental health more openly and honestly, can increasingly exercise "self-care" and be part of their normal vocabulary to be able to find support and care that they need. I am heartened that compared to five years ago, the awareness when talking about the stigmatisation of mental health among youths and young adults has vastly improved. But we must keep on this journey of bringing down the stigma for youths that need the help to find help.
Some of the older adults may find it difficult to talk openly about mental health. They may not dare to tell people that they are not doing well. Perhaps they feel that their dignity may be impacted, or they do not want to be a burden. We must continue to reduce the stigma of help seeking behaviours for Singaporeans, especially when it is at the early onset of mental health issues, such as mild depression or anxiety, for preventive care nearer to home in the community.
I hope to encourage more preventive mental health support in primary care providers, including the polyclinics and general practitioner (GP) clinics, which are closer to most people, with more support in terms of subsidies and integrated care with social services.
Social cohesion amongst all generations for a collective destiny is increasingly important. In dealing with the issues I have mentioned so far, we can see that we are facing more complex challenges among our people, both young and old. However, I remain hopeful that if we pull our strengths together, not seeing the emerging issues like what I have mentioned as solely the problems of one specific group or another but affecting our common destiny ahead, we can find new solutions together. After all, all our futures are closely intertwined with each other and how Singapore will continue to thrive ahead.
We can build intergenerational "Communities of Support" at work, in the neighbourhood and at home out of the Singapore Together conversations. Such communities can act as platforms that promote intergenerational bonding through embarking on shared projects with common interest that value each other's strengths and provide support that is enriching in a meaningful way intergenerationally
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to end my speech on a note of hope. Hope for all Singaporeans, young and old, during this period of uncertainty. Hope for a better nation as a whole. No matter how diverse our views are and no matter how complex the challenges we are facing, we can all prevail in a common destiny ahead if we know how to harness each other's strengths and will. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.
Mr Eric Chua.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion.
Mdm President said in her address that "Singapore is at an inflection point of our history." Indeed so, but I would argue that the issues that we confront are, in fact, of existential concern. Beyond the current fight with COVID-19, the real battle we have ahead of us is a virus of disillusionment in the longer-term future of Singapore. Let me explain.
I am a recent father to a baby boy, all of 77 days young. On occasion, where I have the luxury to lull him to sleep, questions inevitably flood my mind. When he completes National Service some 20 years later, what will Singapore be like? Can Singapore still work for him, as it did for me and my cohort?
I would like to bring the House 41 years back in time, when another little boy was just born in the now-defunct Toa Payoh Hospital. Yes, I am narrating my life story. Indeed, in the past couple of months, I have narrated my life story several times, since being introduced as a candidate. Juxtaposed against the life stories of many of my fellow first-term Parliamentarians, my story does seem a little "familiar", and some might even say, "cookie cutter".
May I defiantly suggest that these stories bear repeating, for they are the lived experiences of a generation where many young children started off in humble families, but in spite of their challenges, they held up hope, strived and they made good. And may I also suggest that these stories could not have been possible if our system had been running on the fuel of tokenism. These stories are not only emblematic of our generation of Singaporeans, but to impose broad and inaccurate characterisations on these life stories make a mockery of what the Singapore system stands for.
I had a simple but blessed childhood. Being both blue-collared workers, my parents worked very hard. At their urging, I too studied hard and was often reminded that getting good results was my ticket to a good life. Two years ago, CNA ran a documentary titled "Regardless of Class." In that programme, six youngsters from the Integrated Programme (IP) and Normal streams were brought together and had a visibly uncomfortable time together, as they shared about their ideals in life. That social experiment generated a fair amount of heated discussions around class divides in Singapore. And that reminded me that I, too, had my fair share of awkward brushes on the topic as I grew up.
There was once in primary school when we had to write a composition about our fathers. As a few of us strayed into casual chatter in that class, questions that are usually taboo in conversations between adults innocuously sprung up, "How much does your father earn monthly?" I remember wondering in amazement when a classmate of mine shared that her dad was a manager and that he earned a handsome monthly salary of $5,000. That was several times my household income at the time and was, to me then, an astronomical sum.
When I became older, another episode left a deep impression. I remember I was getting to know a group of new teenage friends when the conversation veered into where each of us lived. Amongst this group was a friend who had known me for some time and was quick to answer, on my behalf, albeit a little insensitively, "Oh, Eric lives in Ang Mo Kio, the slums near the Town Centre!" I remember feeling uneasy momentarily while another friend with a better emotional quotient, I think, quickly steered the conversation away to lighter topics.
To be sure, socioeconomic differences are present in every society. But what powers people forward and what keeps successive generations striving is the hope of a better future. The idea that if one works hard, he or she can potentially earn a train ticket for a better cabin class on our collective trip into the future. Mr Deputy Speaker, the very fuel for this train of hope – with future as its destination – is social mobility.
According to a 2018 paper published by the MSF, 14.3% of Singaporeans born between 1978 and 1982 to families from the lowest 20% in terms of household income made it to the top 20%, significantly higher than other developed countries, like the US and the UK. Families who make up this statistic are completely uplifted in a single generation. For families not far behind, this statistic serves as an aspirational target. Being born to a family of a lower socioeconomic status should not be a handicap. Who you are at birth should not determine who you will end up being in life. Conversely, problems occur when one gets entrenched in their situation at birth, essentially, being stuck with the hand you are dealt, with little to no means of getting a better deck of cards.
The bad news is entrenchment is the natural order of things. Most, if not all parents, regardless of their ability, will naturally want to provide their children with the best they can afford. In fact, no social order in the world organically ensures parity of opportunity. So, if left unchecked, our train of hope will eventually run out of fuel and tank.
But instead of simplistically alleging the failure of our meritocratic system, I suggest we need to take intervening steps to keep our systems going. To be sure through the work of the work of the ASPIRE committee and programmes such as UPLIFT and KidSTART, we have done quite a fair over the years to address uneven starting points.
But little has changed in the way that we, as a society, perceive success and how to get there. The tried and tested path of studying hard for a degree and landing a comfortable white-collar job remains the mainstay for most. But this remains only one out of the kaleidoscope of possible ways that one can succeed in life! After all, each of us are unique individuals, and I am not making a feel-good Disney statement here. It is high time we celebrate the diversity of our talents and just think about how much we can achieve if each of us pursue life to the fullest by mining our individual reservoirs of unique talents, instead of trying to fit square pegs into round holes.
Where then do we begin? A good start, perhaps, is for Singaporeans to develop a sense of respect for blue-collar work, an idea put forth by Dr Cheng Ching Siang in his Forum page contribution to The Straits Times and echoed by Mr Louis Ng earlier. Of course, respect alone is not enough. It takes a paradigm shift in our mindsets that beyond the typical, white-collared roles, there can be many other viable routes to success in life.
Along with this attitudinal shift, we need to take concrete steps not just to signal, but to tangibly show that there can truly be multiple pathways to different pinnacles of success. Take, for instance, apprenticeships or work-based learning. Not to be confused with internships or mistaken as a euphemism for cheap labour, apprenticeships offer a blend of on- and off-the-job learning. Apprenticeships offer individuals the chance to grow both in the classroom and at the workplace. It is a good way of enhancing the development of one's skillsets and preparing the individual for his or her career all at once. Apprenticeships are widely offered in European countries like Germany and Switzerland as a pathway that eventually leads to skilled employment in both blue- and white-collared roles. And it is not uncommon to hear of individuals working up the ranks to senior appointments, often without even a basic degree.
To be sure, designing and provisioning for apprenticeship programmes is an arduous process involving many stakeholders poring over details such as remuneration, time allotted for classroom instruction vis-à-vis productive work.
But the key obstacles we face today are the tinted lenses through which we view apprenticeships. We need to ask themselves the right questions when a young family member considers taking up an apprenticeship. It is not about whether the family can afford full-time classroom learning. It is much more about whether an apprenticeship provides the best pathway for the child to develop his or her full potential. At the same time, employers also need to see apprenticeships as a pipeline for talent development, not merely a manpower supply line.
I know our education institutions have been exploring work-study progression pathways for our children in recent years. They face an uphill task of changing deep-seated beliefs that we have held for a very long time. But if we are determined for our future generations not to trip over ourselves by sticking to narrow definitions of success, we have every collective interest to make sure apprenticeships flourish in our system.
Beyond pathways, we need to do more to help Singaporeans in non-white-collared roles as well. We can do so by helping our local industries, some of which are Uniquely Singapore, flourish. Take, for instance, our hawkers. Today, few would actually raise an eyebrow when they find food selections that made it to the Michelin Bib Gourmand list in our hawker centres. That alone is testimony of the quality of our hawkers' products. We can help our hawkers innovate their business models, scale up operations and even help them go regional! For other industry segments that are fledgling or non-existent locally, we can connect Singaporeans with aptitude to overseas centres of excellence. It is after all my belief that Singaporeans of all stripes, not just those with degrees, can make waves the world over.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this proposal I am talking about goes way beyond conserving hawker culture and ensuring our future generations will still get to eat our favourite chicken rice and chai tow kueh. It is most certainly not about having our own master watchmakers, or expert sommeliers simply for the vanity of it. At the heart of it all, we need tangible change to help Singaporeans reimagine and re-visualise a multi-dimensional definition of success.
On success, a 2018 survey commissioned by OnePeople.sg and CNA revealed very telling differences between different social classes. Respondents from the lower class cited: (a) hard work, (b) education and (c) knowing the right people, in this order, as key factors for success. And replying to the same question, respondents from the upper class cited; (a) knowing the right people, (b) ability, and (c) hard work, as their answers.
Indeed, one's networks has an impact on how well one does in life. As a general rule, it is not inconceivable that a family that is better off will be able to leverage a larger network to their children's advantage. And this speaks to our earlier point on entrenchment as the natural human order.
But this is where we need to take intervening steps to level the playing field. To provide access to young people from families where networks they can tap on for advice on career, education and lessons in life are limited. This is where mentorship programmes for our youths can be a useful counter against the natural forces of entrenchment, that critical leveller between the haves and the have nots.
I have been mentoring ITE students since 2014. Many mentees do well and go on to complete diploma courses in the polytechnics. One of them has even gone on to sign on with the Republic of Singapore Air Force and is now a pilot trainee. Another one, recently left Singapore, to pursue a hospitality apprenticeship in Switzerland. I do not lay claim to any of my mentees' successes, but simply being able to journey with them for part of their formative years has made me a better person.
So, to unlock the full potential of every Singaporean, we need to avail mentoring for our youths at skill and tap on the many who are willing to step out as mentors. I am sure many among the 14% who got uplifted in a single generation need no nudging. Many will want to make a difference by mentoring a younger person. We can tap on our collective energy and create conditions where people can step up to pave forward and for successive generations of young Singaporeans to do likewise.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, I venture an assumption that whether society views its future with optimism or otherwise can have a unifying or divisive effect on its constituents.
According to the Pew Research Centre, when asked to gaze at the crystal ball into 2050, many Americans are pessimistic about many aspects of life in the US, including a perceptible decline in living standards. For us here in Singapore, we can and will believe in Singapore, only if social mobility continues to feature as a defining part of our social compact.
Deputy Speaker, Sir, it takes an entire village to raise a child, and we owe it to each of the 39,000 Singaporean babies that we welcome to this world each year to ensure the continued and deliberate injection of hope and conviction, so that as one people, we, can keep Singapore going. [Applause.]
Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will deliver my speech in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Sir, President Halimah Yacob's speech at the opening session of the Fourteenth Parliament of Singapore, touched on the importance and need for Singapore's political and community leaders from all walks of life to unite, despite having their own different principles and philosophy, working together and contributing towards a happy, prosperous and developed Singapore.
In my speech, I would like to share my thoughts on strengthening unity in diversity.
It is natural that humans are created differently or in a state of diversity. This is normal and we must agree with and accept this natural state. Whether this diversity results in something good or not, the outcome depends on the way we accept and how we go through it.
My life experiences, especially as a counsellor, make me view diversity positively and accept it as a blessing and wisdom. This is because diversity offers choices, and it can also help and facilitate efforts to complement each other on any matter.
However, we must acknowledge that some differences that may arise from diversity are sometimes awkward and can pose challenges. In addressing such differences, we must be open, tolerant, have mutual respect and practise the principle of agreeing to disagree.
It is natural for us to practise the values of diversity in life. People who live in a community cannot live alone without engaging in the existing ecosystem, as the English saying goes “No man is an island”.
A combination of ideas and efforts is necessary in going through all aspects of life, especially within the challenging global situation today and in the future. In short, we need each other to complement each other.
Sir, going back to Mdm President’s address at the Opening Session of the Fourteenth Parliament, where she noted the outcome of the new General Election, in which 10 Parliamentary seats were won by the WP, while the ruling party experienced a fall in the percentage of national votes, signified the need for Singaporeans to have a diversity of views and thoughts in the country’s political and development processes.
Singapore voters want a more effective and constructive political landscape. They want a robust and cohesive check and balance system, and not a political system guided by the “ownself check ownself” approach. The “ownself check ownself” political approach is unhealthy. As human beings, we are exposed to the phenomenon of “blind spot” and “group thinking”. This is irrefutable.
Sir, we must accept that diversity in politics is something quite necessary. But we must also accept the fact that diversity can also cause anxiety and the possibility of fault lines. This is something that may not be avoided but can still be addressed or mitigated.
Diversity should not have a negative impact such as being divisive and discriminatory. There should not be any feelings or opinions by any party that their ideology or philosophy is more “superior” than the others. As I said earlier, this diversity is meant to complement each other and, if differences cannot be resolved, we should be prepared to agree to disagree.
Efforts to assimilate and practise unity in diversity in our society should start from the country's political leadership. The actions of political leaders will serve as examples and role models for the public. The ways leaders deal with and discuss sensitive and hot issues, whether inside or outside the House, to some extent, will shape and influence the tone of debate and discussion that will take place among the public.
Sir, in May this year, my colleague, Mr Leon Perera, proposed that Parliamentary sessions be broadcast live on the national television channel so that the public can appreciate the atmosphere of the Parliamentary sessions and understand the procedures better.
A spokesman for Minister Grace Fu, responding to this through the media, said "Live broadcasts of Parliament risk turning the House into a ‘form of theatre’ and do not add to transparency", and further said, "An element of public performance is unavoidable because Singaporeans want to see their concerns expressed, and hear their questions asked and answered in Parliament." In short, the answer given is that the live telecast does not improve transparency; in fact, it poses a risk of transforming Parliamentary sessions into performance theatre.
On this note, Sir, I would like to state for the record that I agree to having live telecast of Parliamentary sessions, because in my view, any Member who wants to put on a theatre performance in Parliament will still showcase their acting because they know that, although there is no live telecast, there are recordings done every second, from the start to the end of the Parliamentary session. In short, whether there is a live telecast or not, it is not the reason for a Member not to showcase their acting, because they know their acting can still be watched through recording clips over social media channels.
Sir, based on the responses that I shared earlier, it appears to express a concern that a situation will occur where a Member of the House will behave inappropriately during Parliamentary debates, to the point where Parliamentary sessions are akin to theatre performances.
This is something that should not happen. Members of this House should realise that whatever qualities they display, whether through verbal or verbal conduct, will have an impact on the public.
Sir, among the less appropriate qualities or approaches are personal attacks; avoid making personal attacks against Members of the House. This House is meant to discuss matters that can have a positive impact on the well-being of the community and the country. It is not an arena to launch personal attacks against anyone. Debates that incorporate personal attacks are unsuitable for this House as it will tarnish the integrity and status of this House as a legislature. The portrayal of a leader who makes personal attacks against another leader shows an unhealthy example to the followers.
Sir, a robust discussion is necessary so that the issues discussed can be explored more deeply and as best as possible. However, a robust discussion should be based on good order so as not to erode the value of unity.
As elected leaders, it is best for us to be more vigilant in the way we debate because it will become a model and example to the public, because negative examples can create unease and anxiety, and thus will likely lead to polarisation and disunity among the community.
Sir, another thing that can affect unity in diversity is the issue of justice. Justice is central in achieving unity especially in a multiracial, multi-religious and multicultural society. The desire for justice is part of human nature and when there is an injustice, there will be uneasiness.
Lately, many have expressed dissatisfaction, especially on social media, over the role of People's Association’s (PA) grassroot advisers in the constituency under the care of alternative parties being given to the defeated ruling party candidate in the general election. The PAP candidate is also, at the same time, holding the post of PAP branch chairman for the same constituency. This is considered an injustice.
Their question is, why are MPs elected from non-ruling parties not given the post as was done to the ruling party MPs? Why are there double standards?
It has been said in this House repeatedly that the PA is a statutory body and is not political in nature, it is neutral and is not inclined towards any political party. Several reasons have also been shared on why an opposition MP is not appointed as the PA's grassroots adviser. Among the reasons is that the main role of the grassroots advisers is to present and explain government policies and the opposition MPs will not be able to do this role well in situations where they do not support these policies.
But the explanation and reasons given failed to convince a large group of political observers amongst the public who still express the view that the PA is used as a platform to fulfil the political interests of the ruling party. Sir, I myself cannot accept that the PA is free from partisan politics.
I have proposed in this House to appoint senior public officers such as a Chief Executive Officer or Director, whether still in service or retired, and are not members of any political party, to be appointed as PA grassroots advisers. The experience of serving in ministries and statutory bodies is valuable and most appropriate for such individuals to hold this post.
I believe such appointments will eliminate the issue of injustice, that is, the PA's tendency towards partisan politics. Once again, I ask that my proposal be given serious consideration if the Government is sincere and honest in further strengthening the principle of unity in diversity.
I would now like to touch on the issue of religion and race, which is considered taboo and sensitive to be discussed openly. According to some leaders, such matters should only be discussed behind the scenes. Sir, this House has heard many times from several Members of both sides for an open discussion on topics related to religion and race. I think it is time for this matter to be given due attention.
Minister Shanmugam, as reported by the media, said that Singapore should find suitable ways that can be accepted by different generations to discuss issues of religion and race. More recently, Minister Edwin Tong also stated, “less confrontation, more mediation, when talking about sensitive issues”. Sir, I agree with both Ministers in this matter.
Sir, in the past two months, there have been two incidents that caused disquiet in relation to the issue of religious practices. One, where a Sikh man was asked whether he could remove his turban during a telephone interview because the reason given was that his appearance could cause unease. The second incident involved a Muslim salesgirl who was told to remove her hijab because it was considered unprofessional.
Such discriminatory incidents are deplorable and should not happen, given that efforts have been made over 55 years to develop a multiracial and multi-religious society. These two recent incidents indicate that there should be more open and dynamic approaches to further strengthen understanding, acceptance and tolerance among Singaporeans so that the discriminatory attributes, whether consciously or indirectly, can be better curbed. And such efforts should start at a leadership level.
Leaders should be open and not narrow-minded whenever an endeavour or discussion on issues related to religious practices are put forward. Avoid the use of words or phrases that can cause unease in society, words like “divisive” and “problematic”, when discussing religious issues. Speeches containing such words and phrases are not helpful to anyone and, in fact, it will give rise to anxiety that can lead to cracks to social cohesion.
Sir, it is better to have a humble and open approach when discussing matters that are considered sensitive such as religion and race. These qualities will enable discussions to be conducted rationally and constructively so that, in the end, they can result in consensus and good solutions for the community. If no solution can be agreed upon, at least the discussion can end in a “agree to disagree” situation and mutual respect. This is what is best in order to maintain unity in diversity.
Sir, in conclusion, my arguments are meant to invite all Members of this House, especially myself, as leaders, to do soul searching because any kind of values, character and behaviour displayed by leaders will have an impact on the public. Humility, openness and tolerance will strengthen unity while negative qualities will create fault lines instead. This is because leaders are role models to people who follow them.
Sir, last but not least, I would like to sincerely thank the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) voters for once again electing the WP team, to represent them in Parliament. Sir, I support the Motion.
Mr Xie Yao Quan.
Sir, I am heartened to hear the President reaffirm our commitment to take good care of our seniors to enable them to age well and with dignity. While our seniors strive to stay healthy for as long as possible, it is quite inevitable that at some point in time, disease sets in or an injury occurs. So, today, I would like to speak on how we, as a society, can also care well for our seniors and their dignity, in sickness and in infirmity, when they are at their most vulnerable.
Sir, fundamentally, the structure of our family unit has changed. Our seniors may have multiple siblings, but few children. Their siblings may offer some degree of support to each other, but all are ageing at the same time. Their children, on the other hand, have to balance the demands of supporting parents while building their own homes, raising kids and fulfilling career aspirations. In my house visits, I have met many seniors. They would tell me about their family portraits, their children and grandchildren. So often, their children would have moved out and built their own families.
Against this backdrop, we have to recognise the practical limits of the family unit in caring for our seniors if and when their healthcare needs become the highest. While the individual and family must continue to be cardinal and first line of support, we also need stronger interventions – by Government, local communities and society at large – to support families in providing dignified care for our seniors.
Any intervention would have fiscal or social implications or both. So, as a society, we would need frank and thorough discourse and seek to refresh our compact on personal and shared responsibilities.
Allow me to touch on some specific areas that we need to look it collectively.
Firstly, on our nursing homes and the intermediate and long-term care (ILTC) sector. The Government has steadily grown nursing home capacity and continues to do so. While we must avoid the moral hazard of institutionalising care as a society, we must also recognise that more families would require the support of long-term full-time institutional care for our seniors.
In the last decade, the sector has improved its quality of care significantly, but I believe it is time to go beyond basic care to dignified care. We can do more, in terms of integration with the community, rehabilitation and thoughtful design to improve residents' quality of life. For instance, could residents continue to enjoy their favourite hawker food in a nursing home? Could residents mix with children regularly and bond? Could our nursing homes be more home than nursing?
To achieve even better standards, cost of care in the sector would have to go up. To raise and sustain an ecosystem of capability building, innovation and human capital development, cost of care in the sector would have to go up. I believe there is scope for the Government to bear the bulk of incremental costs for these higher standards of care.
At the same time, while most nursing home residents are already getting some level of Government subsidies, I would urge a review of the current subsidy framework to see if we can do more and be even more progressive. Ultimately, we must keep long-term care dignified and affordable for those who need it the most.
And yet, we must guard against runaway healthcare costs in general. Indeed, in the COVID-19 "new normal", we face serious fiscal challenges. At the same time, demands for healthcare spending will only grow as our population ages. Therefore, while we keep at flattening the epidemic and unemployment curves in the COVID-19 new normal, we must also urgently flatten our healthcare cost inflation curve.
How do we do so? I believe we need to start with our hospitals, our tertiary care setting. At this point, I would like to declare my interest as an employee in a public healthcare institution. In our hospitals and tertiary care setting, we must continue to make difficult decisions on standard treatments and therapies. Even as the range of treatments and therapies available to patients continue to grow, our society would need to constantly review and refresh our consensus on this.
As importantly, we must continue guarding against fragmentation in tertiary care. An encik once told me, "Jantung (heart) got problem, better see jantung doctor lah". That is very understandable, but I wondered, "Hati (liver) also got problem, how? Paru-paru (lungs), tulang (bone) also got problem, how?" The point is more seniors will be affected by multiple conditions. And while we would expect to see a specialist for each organ, it may neither be sustainable nor lead to the best overall outcomes.
So, increasingly, we should move towards having a single doctor to coordinate care around a patient's whole range of conditions. For our healthcare system, this reduces duplication of resources and reduces costs. But, as importantly, for the patient, it means less visits and more convenience. Indeed, when illness is stressful and becomes more complex, care should become simpler – one patient, one principal doctor. This would require patients to shift their expectations about care fundamentally. And this would require our healthcare professionals to also refresh both mindsets and skillsets, starting with a training framework that must emphasise broad skills on top of deep skills.
Sir, in both hospitals and nursing homes, the Government has been adding beds. But ultimately, no bed matters quite as much to our seniors as the bed at home.
I have attended a number of wakes in my constituency and almost all of these residents who passed on have either passed on at home or wanted to do so. Indeed, we need to grow our home-based care capabilities in a major way, including the protocols, technology, financing and regulations. We should strive to provide what has traditionally been hospital-level care outside the hospital and in the home. Providers around the world are exploring this in earnest and we will need to evolve our own way. This may be a moonshot for our healthcare system, but one that I believe is worthy for us to apply our minds and energies to.
Sir, let me now talk about people. Firstly, we need more healthcare professionals, in particular, more nurses. We continue to improve productivity through technology and job redesign, but fundamentally, care remains a high-touch, highly human endeavour, especially if we want care to be dignified. We need more nurses going forward and it is key that we maintain a strong Singaporean Core.
So, to this end, we have intensified recruitment and reviewed salaries, training and career pathways for Singaporeans. But we also need to complement our workforce with foreign nurses. There had been several debates on this topic in this House, around qualifications, culture and language. Allow me to share my views with a simple story.
On 16 March, it was announced that the flow of people across the Causeway would all but cease within two days. Yet so many of our non-Singaporean nurses decided to stay with us in Singapore. Some rushed home to pack before crossing the Causeway just in time, even on foot. These nurses have not seen their families for months. Some have postponed weddings or missed funerals of loved ones. So, if there is anything that COVID-19 has taught the healthcare sector, it is that everyone, Singaporean or Work Pass holder, has made sacrifices and everyone has worked as one team to care for Singaporeans and keep Singaporeans in the community safe.
COVID-19 has taught us that we need resilience. We need a buffer in our system to anticipate disruptions. And so, I hope Singaporeans can recognise that going forward, we need more locals and more foreign nurses to continue working together as one team to ensure the best care possible for our seniors. To this end, I would also suggest a comprehensive review of the Dependency Ratio Ceiling and manpower strategies for the healthcare sector, especially for intermediate and long-term care. At the same time, we have to care better for our caregivers.
I have three suggestions. Firstly, we should enhance financial support for full-time caregivers. We need to define full-time caregiving carefully and guard against abuse in implementation. But fundamentally, we must recognise that full-time caregivers have sacrificed much in terms of career and income.
Secondly, we should reconsider parent-care leave. Both childcare and parent care are key burdens for Singaporeans in the “sandwich generation”. So, our policy principles for childcare and parent care should be consistent. Introducing parent-care leave entitlements send an important signal to workers, employers and the whole of society on our collective compact to care for seniors. At the same time, we have to recognise the impact on businesses. Therefore, flexible work arrangements must remain as our most sustainable strategy. COVID-19 has changed the way we think about workplace and collaboration, and we must use this opportunity to further cement flexibility of work as part of our new normal.
Thirdly, we should work with caregivers to raise the uptake of Lasting Power of Attorney and Advance Care Planning among seniors. These may be difficult conversations, but necessary ones as they significantly reduce caregiver stress down the road. We should support our caregivers to plan ahead and plan well with our seniors. Sir, in Chinese, before I conclude.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We all know that Singapore is ageing rapidly. When I make house visits, I have met many senior residents. The good thing is that many of our Pioneer Generation seniors were mistaken by me as the Merdeka Generation and many of those who are from the Merdeka Generation were mistaken by me as being middle-aged. In other words, our seniors look young and live a good life in their old age.
However, degeneration and ageing are inevitable. As the sandwich class, the children not only have to take care of their parents, but also their own children. Work and life have brought double amount of stress on them. Under these circumstances, the society and Government must better support Singaporeans and families, and ensure that seniors are properly taken care of, both physically and mentally, when they get old or fall sick.
Here I have three suggestions: first, the Government should focus on developing and building nursing homes, inject more resources, improve the quality of care beyond basic care, and at the same time increase subsidies for Singaporeans; second, explore more comprehensive home care services because hospital wards can never be as comfortable as a bedroom at home; and third, provide more financial assistance to full-time caregivers and establish a suitable parent care leave regime through the Tripartite partners.
Of course, as Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, our national pocket is not bottomless. Every policy comes with a price. As a society, how we help to share the burden will be a core issue in our future social compact. Let us face it squarely, make decisions based on care, protect the dignity of our seniors, and uphold the core value of respecting the elderly.
(In English): Sir, let me conclude. Keeping our seniors healthy will always be key. At the same time, becoming sick and losing functionality is part of being mortal, but it does not have to be morbid. We, as a society, must resolve that it will not be morbid for our seniors and the caregivers in our midst.
Families, community and Government must work together to provide dignified care for our seniors and preserve their quality of life as much as possible. This means even better standards in our nursing homes and allowing as much optionality as possible for care within the home, where our seniors truly want to be. At the same time, we need to make hard choices on treatments and therapies and involve our tertiary care model to keep a lid on overall costs. Yet, overall costs would go up and these would have to be funded.
And certainly, our society would need more passionate individuals, both local and foreign, to step forward to provide the best care possible for our seniors.
And finally, as a society, we must also care better for our caregivers.
We must be a society that commits to dignified care for our seniors, because it is the right thing to do. And we must be a society that commits to stepping in and stepping up to help each other with the burdens of care, especially where the individual or the family is unable to manage, because this is who we must be as a people. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.]
PAPERCUTS