Debate on President's Address

Madam, the Government has always prioritised creating economic growth and nobody seriously disputes that growth is one of the ingredients for social progress. However, the surge in the population since 2005 has had its repercussions on our quality of life. Singaporeans were waiting longer to board public transport with less comfortable rides, wasting more time and petrol stuck in traffic jams, and increasingly feeling like strangers in our own country.

Page: 21

As everyone fights for scarce resources, we must ensure that Singaporeans have the assurance that we live in a safe, fair and just society, and have access to essential services at a standard we can be proud of. To this end, I would like to highlight two areas we should pay attention to, namely, challenges for the Home Team and access to justice. I will later argue for a culture of greater research and gathering and sharing of data in crime and justice matters.

First, I would like to talk about some challenges facing the Home Team.

Let me, at the onset, acknowledge the tremendous pressure on the Home Team in recent years, as it tries to cope with the surge in population. With millions more residents and visitors to handle, there is an exponential increase in the number of encounters with Home Team officers, and with that, a higher risk of mistakes occurring, statistically. When mistakes happen, a measured reaction should be taken, to diagnose the cause and prevent its recurrence. Heads may need to roll, but scape-goating should be avoided.

The public, too, should play a constructive role and not add to the problem. Why do I say that? About six years ago, a man managed to clear immigration at Changi Airport using his son's passport. This incident was widely reported and was the subject of much public criticism. Later, an ICA officer shared with me that in the aftermath of that incident, some Singaporeans clearing Woodlands checkpoint found it amusing to ridicule the ICA officers by asking them to recheck their passports in case they were travelling on their father's or mother's passports. The officers had to take such jibes in their stride while focusing on the sheer volume of people and vehicles to process.

The security manpower at our checkpoints is a complex ecosystem of ICA, SPF, auxiliary police, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), customs and LTA, requiring attention to segmentation of tasks and supervision. Today, I understand that Singaporeans are facing slower clearances at Woodlands, as the security procedures for checking vehicles have been tightened since the various security breaches there this year. I note that a Ministerial-level Committee is reviewing and strengthening the security measures at the checkpoints. As we plug the gaps, it is also important not to add more red tape to slow down the clearance process.

I turn now to policing. Policing needs have evolved and undoubtedly increased; the MHA Addendum mentions a new Divisional HQ in Woodlands and two new Neighbourhood Police Centres in Geylang and Bartley. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riots, the Commissioner of Police expressed his view that he would need 1,000 more Police officers. Can we ever find enough manpower? Since our local birth rate is low, will we be forced to turn to foreign manpower for policing? For instance, we have historically accepted

Page: 22

Malaysians and Nepalese Gurkhas into the SPF. Will we be doing more of that?

The need to leverage on technology to reduce manpower is a must, and it is good to note that the SPF has clearly been doing this. For example, the nationwide PolCam project will install CCTV cameras at lift lobbies, staircases and multi-storey car parks of HDB blocks. PolCam is now substantially implemented and has been very welcomed by the public. However, there is no equivalent of PolCam in the private estates. Though I do not think the residents in private estates expect that, they do have their crime concerns.

When the new Community Oriented Policing System (COPS) was launched, one of the justifications was that it would enable the Police to cater to an ageing and diverse population. To this end, one of the innovations I am not sure of, is the revamp of the Neighbourhood Police Posts under COPS. The new NPPs, called e-NPPs or enhanced NPPs, offer electronic services, but are completely unmanned. I note that a pilot phase involving three NPPs began about six months ago. How did the elderly cope with the change to an unmanned NPP? I visited one of the revamped NPPs recently and noted online services at the e-kiosk are in English. Are the services available in other languages? With the e-NPPs, was there any change to the Police response times, compared to a physical presence at the NPP? I believe this needs to be assessed carefully to ensure there is no compromise in Police response.

Next, Madam, access to justice. Much as we would like to think that justice is blind, it is a fact across the world that the rich and the poor access the criminal justice system differently. While the rich have the resources to engage expensive lawyers and experts to support their cases, the poor have to make decisions based on their means. This sometimes includes pleading guilty, when they do not have the time or resources to contest their charges. This problem is not unique to Singapore.

Having legal representation when facing criminal charges is a necessity, as it is not easy for a layman to understand legal jargon and navigate his way through the various procedures. To this end, the Law Society had stepped up to fill a void left by the Government. The Society has been running its Criminal Legal Aid Scheme since the late 1980s to provide free legal representation to poorer accused facing non-capital charges. Despite the Law Society's most noble aims, the scheme had some limitations, as it covered only certain types of offences and only when the accused intended to claim trial. Thus, we have residents telling us they were turned away from the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) because their offence was not covered, for example, charges under the Immigration Act and Moneylenders Act, or because they wanted to plead guilty and only needed help in mitigation for a lighter sentence.

To this end, it is heartening that MinLaw has changed its stance. The MinLaw Addendum specifically emphasises its funding to the Law Society's Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) for direct assistance to poorer suspects. With greater and sustained Government support, the

Page: 23

aim should be to provide legal aid to all accused persons of limited means.

MinLaw's Addendum also talks of an impending Criminal Procedure Review to develop a plea bargaining framework for early resolution of criminal cases. I do not know what the Ministry has in mind at this stage. Early resolution of cases is good for the Court system and for public resources; it can also be good for the accused provided he is fully aware of the nature and consequences of his actions, for example, if he pleads guilty to reduced charges.

However, there is a risk of persons taking certain courses of action out of ignorance or convenience, not realising they have a valid defence, and not being aware of the effect of certain types of convictions on their future prospects. To this end, the plea bargaining framework should include ensuring that persons entering such bargains are legally represented even if they cannot afford their own lawyers.

Another important aspect of access to justice is bail. The ability to be released on bail before trial is important, especially when one intends to contest the charge. Being at liberty allows a person to keep his job; he can also prepare his defence more effectively. As bail tends to be set based on monetary amounts, this operates against the poor who may not have family or friends with such means. The consequences of not receiving bail would affect not only the suspect but also his or her dependents.

In countries such as the US, studies have shown that not being released on bail may lead to higher chances of conviction and heavier sentences. This has led to some reforms to facilitate more poor people being released on bail, for example, by putting more information before the judges about the defendant's roots in the community, family ties and employment. With more information, judges were then more likely to remove or reduce the monetary condition and enable more of the poor to be released pre-trial.

Turning to home, it was good that the Government set up a Bail Court in 2007 to focus on bail applications. Today, I still come across residents who say there is no way they can bail their son or daughter out due to the sums set. I hope the Courts will look more closely at the possibility of more non-monetary bail conditions being set, so that more of the poor can obtain pre-trial release. To this end, I have sent to the Government some research I did on this area, for further study.

Finally, let me argue for a stronger culture of scientific decision-making in crime and justice matters. There is still relatively little data available to the public and even to Members of Parliament to make informed decisions about crime and justice in Singapore. Let me give just two examples to illustrate my point.

Page: 24

First, do we really know the crime situation in Singapore? There is an over-reliance on Police statistics as giving the true picture. For instance, in a recent Police factsheet on the new COPS, it was stated that from 1997 to 2013, crime rates had gone down by 44%, concluding that the NPC system which started in 1997 had worked well to keep our neighbourhoods safe. But is there a clear cause and effect established? For one thing, not all crime is reported to the Police. In a rare population study in Singapore on offences of violence against women (Bouhours et al 2013, International Violence against Women Survey: Final Report on Singapore), it was estimated that less than one quarter of incidences of violence against women in Singapore was reported to the Police, meaning about 75% was unreported.

The under-reporting of crimes is a global phenomenon, with varying reporting rates for different crimes. Even if crimes are reported, how the Police classify or reclassify the reports will affect crime rates.

Another complication for Singapore is that there is a significant foreign population here. We know that foreign workers are subject to policing by auxiliary police, and how this affects the official recording of crimes is uncertain.

To take another example of unknowns, we can look at the composition of our prison population. The Prisons Service publishes data on the number of inmates, segmented by type of offence, gender, and even educational level. But the Government does not reveal the ethnic composition or nationalities, and whether certain groups are over-represented relative to the general population. I filed a Parliamentary Question on this but was told the data could not be revealed.

Madam, the reporting of ethnicity and nationality of prison population is a common practice elsewhere. The purpose of such reporting is not meant to embarrass certain communities, but to facilitate a holistic assessment as to why certain groups may be disproportionately incarcerated. With open data, public interest would be generated, and Parliament would more likely debate such issues. Publishing such data in other countries has led to law enforcement agencies and the courts reviewing their operational practices and decision-making, to ensure that they do not discriminate or stereotype people based on ethnicity or nationality. It has led to examination of social conditions and whether there has been fair economic opportunity. Well-meaning citizens would also take an interest to support families and children of at-risk groups. Government decision-making would be helped by those outside Government applying their minds to resolve the matter. I would argue that disclosure would promote social cohesion. In any case, I note that CNB has been publishing data on ethnicity of drug arrests for many years.

Page: 25

Madam, my point is that in order for decisions to be taken in a disciplined manner, the Government should be more open to gathering and sharing data on crime and justice issues. What I hope we can aim for is to have a culture of producing scientific papers on a regular basis for the public to better understand crime and justice issues. The British government has a strong research arm in Crime and Justice, which regularly publishes data and analyses on crime and law enforcement matters. Among the most important projects undertaken is the British Crime Survey, which is a population survey to ascertain the levels of unreported crime. Other topics include crimes of interest, the exercise of police powers and crime experiences of vulnerable groups. At home, I believe the MHA does have its research wings, but not many papers are published for public consumption. I hope this can change.

Besides the Government's own research being published, there is also a need to facilitate and encourage other independent researchers, such as universities, think tanks and concerned members of the public, to conduct criminological research. It is important that at least some of the findings are seen to be independent of the Government, so that more can participate in our sense making and we can have wider ownership of the directions we take. Further, we should encourage school leavers to take up such studies and become researchers to add to the rigour of public discourse on crime and justice issues. The new full-time undergraduate degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Criminology and Security offered by the Singapore Institute of Technology and the University of Liverpool gives hope in this direction.

Finally, Madam, let me make a few observations. The last few years have seen some significant policy changes in the field of law and home affairs. Five years ago, the Criminal Procedure Code underwent a major review, which among other things changed the pre-trial process to force more disclosure from both state and defence to enable better preparations for trial.

In 2012, after decades of consistently defending the need for the mandatory death penalty to apply to many offences, the Government suddenly and without warning, announced in this House a scaling-back of the mandatory death penalty for certain homicide and drug offences. For many years before, the Government had been reluctant to provide criminal legal aid to those facing non-capital charges; this has also moved forward. Personally, having studied these issues and spoken for change for several years, I was pleasantly surprised that the Government was able to slaughter these cows that appeared sacred for too long. This is good for Singapore. We should not be afraid to change our minds and make U-turns.

There are other areas for improvement. Protecting civil liberties, recognising crime victims' needs and rights, and better safeguards for suspects during Police investigations are but some. We should approach these and other issues with an open-mind. Ultimately, it is

Page: 26

in our common interest to have a safe, fair and just society.

Madam, the President's Address is notable for the Government's re-emphasis on the social dimensions of governance. I welcome the seldom asked "how" questions: how do we build a fair and just society? How do we live up to the founding ideals of this improbable nation? How do we act on our pledge for a better Singapore?

I hope these considerations will be the bedrock of governance and policy-making henceforth. Process matters as much, if not more, than the outcome. We will reach our destination in good shape and as one people, if we journey well and be true to our founding aspirations and ideals. We will be impoverished if wealth and asset enhancement are the be-all-and-end-all of the Singapore Dream. Indeed, post-material aspirations and concerns have grown in importance in Singaporeans' hierarchy of needs and increasingly define what it means to be Singaporean.

In my remarks today, I will focus primarily on education and meritocracy and its impact on income inequality, social mobility and inclusiveness. I will also briefly discuss the urgent need to maintain and enhance the legitimacy of key institutions of our society and on constructive politics.

On education, I welcome the call to keep pathways open to all. One vivid early childhood memory of mine was my family's move in 1974 from the Mount Vernon police quarters, where I spent the first four years of my life, to a new HDB apartment in Marine Parade. I recall the bare concrete floor of my new home, which remained bare for about a decade. With the third child due in end 1974 and a fourth in 1976, my parents felt that putting floor tiles was a luxury that should be deferred for more important needs. Besides, money had to be set aside for the imminent governmental fines for not stopping at two then! Today, my parents still live in the same flat, a home with rich memories for my family.

Despite their limited educational opportunities, my "Pioneer Generation" parents did what they could for their children's education. They wanted my siblings and me to have as rich and holistic an education as possible. We were encouraged to take an active part in extra-curricular activities. We led simple, dignified lives but we never felt deprived despite there being six of us on one modest Police officer's income.

My parents' focus on sound values, hard work and sacrifices has paid off. With scholarships, my siblings and I were able to earn degrees from the National University of

Page: 27

Singapore (NUS), the London School of Economics and Political Science, Oxford, Cambridge and Stanford universities. My older sister, perhaps hard done by the unforgiving education system in the 1980s, perseveres in ensuring that her two sons will have much better opportunities than her husband and her. My younger brother sailed for Singapore in the Southeast Asian and Asian Games. He became a full-time athlete after graduating from NUS Law School and went on to compete in two Olympic Games of 2000 and 2004. My other brother, the youngest, works in London's financial sector after having worked in Singapore and in Tokyo.

Many Members would have similar personal experiences of the rapid progress experienced by their own families. I narrated mine not because it is exceptional but because it should strike a chord in each and every one of us. It should resonate with us that ordinary families can and must thrive under the Singapore sun. These stories of progress very much reflected the tenor of our society then – of growth with equity and inclusiveness, and of people progressing in tandem as the nation did.

However, in recent times, I ask myself whether another Singaporean family today, in the same position that my parents were in, would be able to see their life chances and that of their children improve in one generation. This, at a time, when there is a growing income and wealth gap, seeming social stratification and divide. Would our children inherit a Singapore that will continue to be an inclusive society, a land of opportunities, hope and confidence for all?

Madam, we must do what we can now to ensure that Singapore does not become a society characterised by high inequality and low social mobility. This double whammy would mean social stasis and would fundamentally change the ethos of our society.

In Singapore, education has long been viewed as the primary vehicle by which one can ascend the ladder of opportunity. When I look at the diverse education landscape today, I see a much envied system, but I also ask myself whether our system, in the name of different peaks of excellence, instead, acts as a source of and unwittingly perpetuates the inequalities in our society.

Education, ironically, has become high stakes. Even the primary school admission exercise has become "high stakes" requiring many years of preparation and strategising like the national milestone examinations.

The different peaks of excellence education model, undergirded through differentiation by streaming and by different types of schools with different fees and curricula, may actually

Page: 28

have segregating effects that reinforce social immobility.

At one end, we have the Integrated Programme (IP) schools, many of which also offer the school-based gifted education programme. Many IP schools are also independent schools. At the other end, we have the Normal (Technical) stream students who are primarily channelled to vocational studies. True, students have different abilities and talents and to expect them to progress at a similar academic pace is unrealistic.

Yet, there is international research to suggest that certain characteristics in an educational system tend to decrease intergenerational mobility. These include ability-based and school-based streaming, privatisation of basic and tertiary education and the expansion of tertiary education with increasing fees. These are found in varying degrees in the Singapore system.

While there is greater effort towards interventions, such as more financial assistance and more affordable access to preschool education, we should recognise that these measures are essentially remedial. They kick in after a fact, and have limited efficacy and effectiveness in levelling up children from less well-to-do backgrounds if the overall system reinforces social immobility.

I appreciate that our education and meritocratic system is premised on equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. But the real question is whether every child, regardless of his or her socioeconomic background, is able to access the opportunities available. Does our system incentivise opportunity hoarding at the top? Improving social mobility requires upward mobility and, less appreciated, downward mobility from the top as well.

Let me reiterate that there is much to praise about our education system. A key platform for socialisation of young Singaporeans, our education system has been a lynchpin of our progress. But we should always question the fundamentals to avoid policy blind spots and be mindful of unintended consequences.

Even as the education system seeks to develop each child to his full potential, are we paying too high a price for that? Can the trade-off be less onerous and more equitable, such that we have greater social equity without compromising academic standards and ideals, something which I understand countries like Finland is able to do?

I may look back with sentimentality at my formative school days at Raffles Institution (RI) in the 1980s. But what left an indelible mark on me was how the majority of my peers came from humble backgrounds and how the system provided relatively abundant

Page: 29

opportunities to all of us and with high academic standards to boot. It was a school in which our home backgrounds did not matter. Instead, what mattered was how we disciplined our minds for academic excellence and how we filled our hearts with passion and purpose in the pursuit of our extra-curricular activities.

My sense is that today's RI is perhaps less representative than it was in my time. Is my alma mater one that I am immensely proud of, less of a beacon of hope of Singapore's meritocracy? It does not seem to attract as many students from neighbourhood schools and Malay students as it ought to. Has its ethos changed such that RI has become forbidding in this regard?

Prof Cham Tao Soon, the immediate past chairman of the RI Board of Governors, wrote in his book "The Making of NTU" that RI pupils "while brilliant in studies, from feedback, it appears that, generally, they lack a sense of humility and social consciousness. These are attributes we need to try to develop through a holistic education". I lament how this state of affairs has come to pass.

Has the quest for superlative academic performance in our top schools dulled the sense of purpose and values expected of them? Have we valued value and materialism over values? Is this state of affairs replicated in other top schools as well?

What is education for after all? It is certainly not to endow a sense of entitlement in the brightest. Have we become obsessed with degrees and achievements? What about the love of learning and the cultivation of a soul and of values that require us to remember that more is expected from the best and brightest?

Madam, when equality of opportunity co-exists with strong inequality, it raises legitimate questions of how fair and equitable a society is. It also engenders in the successful a sense of what they get from a meritocratic system is what they have earned through their individual effort. For the not so successful, they may attribute their lot in life to either it being their own fault and/or, of greater concern, that the system is weighted against them, particularly if immobility acquires an inheritable complexion.

I, therefore, urge the Government to consider whether our policies and programmes, in education and in other areas, undermine our quest for a society of "one united people" in a "democratic society based on justice and equality".

Yes, the concerted efforts at providing an enhanced suite of Government transfers in recent years have a marginal redistributive effect reducing the Gini coefficient, which, unfortunately, remains high. But it begs the question of whether this remedial measure of

Page: 30

Government transfers can be avoided in the first place through having a fairer system.

We should not always have to play "catch-up", always chasing our own tails. Social structure is not easy to change. It has been likened to a constant rather than a variable. This means that society and the Government need to work together at ensuring that Singapore is not flatlining on social mobility and inclusivity.

We should critically re-examine our system of meritocracy. Is our conception of merit too narrow, geared towards a privileged few? It has served us well but can we make it work better and infuse it with a sense of justice and fairness? Can we leaven our meritocracy so that it does not have a crushing effect on those who are not so meritorious under the current system? Can we ensure that our meritocracy ameliorates the harsh workings of the winner-takes-all mentality and the win-at-all-costs mindset?

We must do all we can to ensure that Singapore and our way of life here continue to be immensely relevant and purposeful to her people. If we are not able to do so, then nation-building is imperilled and we will see two Singapores, not just within the geographical confines of this city-state but also in the hearts and minds of our people. A nation divided cannot be relevant to the world.

As we are at the threshold of our 50 years of Independence, it is timely and necessary for the Government and Singaporeans to review the many policies, programmes and laws that have enabled us to transform into a thriving metropolis.

What may have worked well in the last five decades needs to continue to be fit for purpose in form and in substance. There should be no sacred cows. In today's complex world, we should operate from the premise that there are no self-evident truths in policymaking.

Hence, I welcome the deliberative process and the final report of the recently concluded Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS). Keeping National Service (NS) relevant and responsive to a new generation of Singaporeans is an existential challenge. We cannot take it for granted that NS will automatically secure the buy-in from all Singaporeans, including those of us who have served.

In similar fashion, the Central Provident Fund (CPF) is in need of a fundamental rethink and rejuvenation if this institution is to continue earning the trust, confidence and support of Singaporeans. The Government should not take it for granted that the virtues of the CPF system are self-evident. CPF requirements, such as the Minimum Sum and interest rates payable, are being actively questioned and even resented by some CPF members.

Page: 31

If there is inadequate buy-in and engagement, we will see the whittling away of the legitimacy of these vital institutions.

Madam, I move on to constructive politics. The call for "constructive politics" has, expectedly, met with spirited response since Monday. The President's Address is inherently political in that the Government is laying out its plans for the rest of its term in office. They will constitute some of the key performance indicators by which many Singaporeans will assess and judge the Government on its performance.

"Constructive politics" defies definition. But what it speaks to us is the sort of politics that Singaporeans should demand from their politicians and the system of government. Every Singaporean has a stake and a say in the sort of politics in our political landscape.

As a Nominated Member, I am privileged to witness and to participate in the robust debates infused with passion, conviction and the occasional rhetoric in the past two-and-a-quarter years.

Despite this Parliament having the largest number of Opposition Members since the very first Parliament sat in December 1965, this House has set the appropriate tone in its debates and proceedings. Some Singaporeans may wish for more drama and excitement in this Chamber. But we must be clear that politics has real world consequences; it is not reality TV.

As I see it, the emphasis on constructive politics reflects a concern that the largely decorous nature in this House is vastly different from the tenor and tone of political engagement and contestation outside of the House. Does the incongruence in political engagement in and outside of Parliament reflect the perception that the debates in this House do not quite capture the sentiments in the public sphere? Not at all. I see the elected Members of Parliament, the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and the cross-bench Nominated Members of Parliament articulating a wide range of views on the various hot-button issues. A perusal of Hansard will confirm that this is so. Mainstream media reports of Parliamentary proceedings can certainly do better to capture not just the dominant view but also the range of opposing and alternative views canvassed and the atmospherics as well.

Where Parliament may not do so well is with regard to the strident views and these views tend to be in their element in the online sphere. Due to the digital world's "echo chamber" effect, these extreme views tend to dominate and acquire a following of their own.

An example of the stridency and the divisiveness can be seen in the online airing of views related to immigration. Because the online sphere is more accessible than

Page: 32

Parliamentary official reports, there could be the dominant view that divisive politics is the tenor of Singaporean politics today. This is far from accurate in my view.

Should Parliament then seek to articulate these strident unmeritorious views? Probably not. Instead, Members of Parliament and the Government should rebut these views with facts and reasoned arguments although this might give such views more publicity than they already deserve.

What is critical to constructive politics is the average Singaporean's perception of the political system, which includes the electoral system. Singaporeans must feel enfranchised and have a deep sense of ownership in the political system. Singaporeans must also have the cognitive and affective connection to the political system. For this to happen, the political system must be buttressed by integrity and the unquestioned dedication to the greater good. Not only must it be fair but it must also be seen to be fair in its workings.

In this regard, I hope the Government will take heed of the Singaporean desire for a fairer political system. Singaporeans care a lot for fair play. I sincerely hope that the Government will review the electoral rules and system with the aim of making it fairer. This will contribute immensely towards constructive politics.

Let me conclude, Madam. The imperatives facing Singapore today remain very much the same as they were in 1965. The harsh reality for Singapore is that we always have to be relevant to the world. The moment we cease to be of relevance is the start of our decline and of our nation-building. But we must be relevant to the world on our own terms.

While we must be alive to our constraints, we should not fear them. We have been able to turn our so-called limitations into strengths. These include developing our only resource, our people, for the global economy; transforming our severe lack of water self-sufficiency into growing self-sufficiency and, in the process, strengthening our sovereignty; creating an important global transport and supply chain node despite being located amid larger and better endowed and, from time to time, hostile neighbours. Today, we are in a much better position to take on the various evolving challenges facing Singapore.

A key challenge is how do we continue to ensure that our strengths, which are not pre-ordained, do not degenerate into immutable weaknesses? Our "3 to 1" Singapore Story of our country moving from Third World to First World in one generation has perhaps little resonance or significance for the millennial generation of Singaporeans who tend to treat the prosperity, the sheltered and good lives almost as a given, a birth-right.

Page: 33

The President's Address is titled "Pledging Ourselves to a Better Singapore". That is and has always been our shared purpose. Crucially, how we get there and whether a better age awaits future generations of Singaporeans will depend very much on whether we have a wholesome, life-giving set of shared values and a system of politics that does what is objectively right and principled.

Madam, on that note, I support the Motion of thanks to the President for his Address at the opening of the Second Session of this Twelfth Parliament.

Mdm Speaker, I am not from RI but I would like to seek clarification from Assoc Prof Eugene Tan on how he thinks RI should decide on the admission of the students to ensure that it is fair to our society. That is the first clarification.

The second clarification: what would be the best way, in his opinion, to emplace students to the various schools after Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE)?

My third clarification, again based on his speech on education: does Assoc Prof Eugene Tan think that diversity in terms of social economic status could be one of the key yardsticks in determining placement of pupils in secondary schools after their PSLE?

Thank you, Madam. I thank the hon Mr Zainal Sapari for this opportunity to clarify. On admission to RI – our top schools should make greater efforts to reach out to very different students, such as students who come from schools which are not their traditional feeder schools. My sense is, from speaking to teachers and old boys, that many of the top schools tend to target selected schools for admissions. It is important that our top schools, as part of our system of meritocracy, endeavour to reach out to ensure that they recruit students from a diversity of schools, including neighbourhood schools. At the same time, it is important to emphasise the various financial assistance schemes that are in place, to ensure that cost does not become an issue.

But I am more concerned whether the tenor and the ethos of the schools have changed such that these top schools may actually have an elitist complexion.

As for placement of students to schools after PSLE, merit will still have to be the main mode of selection. What I raised in my remarks is whether our education system may actually accentuate the inequalities because we stream students at a fairly young age, the

Page: 34

opportunities that are given to students from different types of schools vary significantly. I would say that the system is still premised on equality of opportunity but the key point I make is whether we can actually ensure that the ability to access these opportunities is real.

Let me give an analogy. Everyone in Singapore has a right to start in a 100-metre race. The key question though is whether everyone who appears at the starting line is equipped similarly to do well in the race. I am of the view that our system of education enables some students to be better equipped to take on the rigours of the 100-metre race.

I did not quite get Mr Zainal Sapari's third question.

Thank you. The challenge here is how do we balance this diversity of socioeconomic status of our students with the need to ensure that the system is based on academic merit. In my remarks, I suggested that perhaps we should have a wider conception of merit; that it should not just be based on academic performance alone. More importantly, the thrust of my remarks is that we should try to make our system fairer, to make it more equitable. Yes, there is the need to ensure that our students are equipped for the realities of the modern economy. However, I wonder whether we are having too high a trade-off; that because we stream students into different channels at a very early stage in their education, we determine their life chances too prematurely.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. Today, we speak at the half term – with two and a half years or fewer before the next elections. But today, we also speak at 15 years past the millennium – with another 15 years before 2030.

By 2030, the ice caps would have melted considerably and the sea levels would have risen and new lanes would have opened. By 2030, Indonesia would be the world's 16th largest economy, overtaking the United Kingdom and Germany. By 2030, Singapore may have more than 6.5 million people and 8% more land. What is the collective destiny of these six-plus million Singaporeans?

Page: 35

In my travels, and from the policymakers who have come here to study Singapore from a diverse range of political systems, the success of Singapore is not so much a matter of "good governance" as one of great collective action. There is, of course, some sense in which the two are the same.

Let us take our public housing programme, which has been cited globally, and rightly so, as one of the most comprehensive and successful programmes. We have done a pretty good job here. But is it rocket science to build more homes? Is it high technology to lay bricks one on top of the other? It is, however, considerably more difficult to get people to agree – to give up their land for collective use – to agree to make a sacrifice so that the greater good can be accomplished.

So, in part, our public housing is not so much a matter of good engineering as good community relations. We had a common Singapore Dream and we agreed to all go for it. Some may lose, some will win, but, overall, Singapore will emerge the winner in the end.

And in many ways, we did – in housing, in transport, in economic growth. By quite a few measures, we have done well. But by some other measures we have not done as well. In distribution of wealth, in providing welfare, in making sure that we measure success not just by PSLE scores and prices and salaries, but by other means, we need to do much better.

The lack of success in these areas have now reached worrying levels; a fact which some of my colleagues have alluded to in the debate on the White Paper on Population. Some have called it a crisis of trust in the Government which is clearly exaggerated and, fortunately, not the case.

Madam, I agree that we need a better resonance of public policy with popular needs and wants. But in the speeches of fellow Members so far, from both sides of the bench, there has been much handwringing and criticism of what we have failed to do. Everyone has new and different ideas of what is best for Singapore.

Collective action 2030 – how do we move together?

In the past, many things were difficult – our population was poor, we had no reserves, many national projects were funded by loans from international agencies. But things had a clarity then – we needed growth, we needed jobs, to move forward quickly. Today, many things appear easy – we have large reserves, we have many educated people, strong foundation of public housing, transport and schools. And yet, things have become more difficult – the most difficult of which seems to garner agreement on collective action.

Page: 36

There is a sense of crisis about congested public transportation, high HDB/ Certificate of Entitlement prices, rising inflation and cost of living. The Government has gone some way to addressing these concerns – and it has done well on this front. Incidentally, to whom is credit due for this?

Over the course of the Eleventh and Twelfth Parliament, I have spoken about single mothers being mothers first and singles second – and the Government has given them the maternity leave that I lobbied for. Paternity leave was finally legislated after I had pushed for it for five consecutive years. I also spoke on the need for more welfare for the elderly – and the Government has given out $8 billion in the Pioneer Generation Package. I asked for more subsidies for healthcare and the Finance Minister has more than doubled the healthcare budget.

Ah, the power of speech-making and a Parliamentary seat! I feel as powerful as an Administrative Service officer on some days. Why let a few hon Members lay sole claim to the use of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" – a Latin phrase which means "after this, therefore, because of this"? I must say, that was quite good fun.

But, Madam, I make the political point to underscore the need for us to lay it aside – collective action can only be possible when we see one another as fellow Singaporeans working for the larger good, not vote-grabbing politicians seeking popular advantage. We need to resonate with what the people want, and not only expound populist measures, or shy away from taking a stand on difficult policies. This is what constructive politics is – a certain magnanimity and respect for good ideas.

Today, there is a sense in which people from different parties must, at all cost, run one another down before we make policy. This was not what politics had been in the past, and not what it should be now, nor in the future.

And now, I would like to make a suggestion about PSLE – not because the voters of Marine Parade GRC will be able to point to me and say, "This is the man who made the Government abolish PSLE!" But because, truly, it is an exam that has passed its time.

The mysterious PSLE. Madam, each year, about 3% of students fail PSLE and they get filtered out into other parts of the education system. So, 100% of children – and probably 200% of parents – go through the stress and frenzied preparation that is the PSLE.

Let me ask those of us who are employers – do you hire students based on their PSLE scores? No. Do we rank better internationally because our 12-year-olds can draw better models and memorise idioms for English compositions? No. Do parents need the PSLE scores

Page: 37

to be proud of their children? No.

What then is the role of a national examination at 12? Nothing – except the bureaucratic function of sorting students into schools.

But 97% of primary school students pass and move on to secondary school education. The remaining 3% are retained or go on to assigned secondary schools. But each year, in Primary 1 to 5, there are pupils who fail and are held back. Why can we not treat the Primary 6 exams the same way we treat other exams – to each school its own?

Why do we insist on a narrow and insular measure of educational abilities and potentials for 12-year-olds when the demands and entry requirements for tertiary education already make such tests obsolete? Our universities benchmark themselves against the world and recognise global examination results.

The larger exams. But whether the Government decides in the end to abolish PSLE or not, one fact remains – Singaporeans need to take larger exams than the PSLE. The reality remains that Singapore is a small nation-state in a sea of neighbours who owe us no favours and who are different from us in many fundamental ways. It is common now to greet such comments with a roll of the eyes and accuse the Government of scaremongering. But wait. Let us see how all this reality hangs together.

The rising tide. We have recently been told about global warming leading to rising sea levels. Arctic melting is not a mere matter for polar bears and marine life. It will result in opening up of the Northern Sea Route which will greatly reduce transshipments to Singapore.

This will mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs related to transportation, logistics and relevant supporting business chains. All these will have major and long-term impact on Singapore's survival in economic, environmental and other areas.

Many global events will shape and change our future whether we like it or not. For example, the Euro zone crisis, the US financial troubles, the Middle East revolts, Israel/Palestinian conflicts, the Korean peninsula's nuclear threats, escalated tensions in the East China Sea and South China Sea, the state of China's economy, the rising of regional powers, such as Indonesia.

Overcoming all these major challenges require long-term vision and planning by the Government. But ideas cannot be held as good or bad just by a small group of people because the land – this 700 sq km – is held jointly by all of us. Whether in District 9, 10, 11 or in Woodlands or Sembawang, Singapore, this land is a freehold property with many million

Page: 38

owners.

The decision about who we want to invite into our homes, the key renovations we want to make, what kinds of protection we need – all these are collective decisions which require the full support of Singaporeans.

Singapore has become First World in many ways because of our basis for collective action. But it is clear that such collective action will be very much more difficult in the future. At this point in our national life, we all want so many different things.

Mdm Speaker, the negative narrative that has been imputed to the Population White Paper – that it is about economic growth over values, wealth over welfare, prosperity over people – this cannot be further from the truth. All policies – be it on population, education, housing, security, economy – all serve to build for the present and also future generations of Singaporeans a fair and just society, regardless of race, language or religion; so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation.

The fox and the hedgehog. Mdm Speaker, the President spoke about and reiterated the pledge to happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. These remain the foundations of the Singapore Dream.

We all want what is good for Singapore but the trouble is, we do not all think "good" is just one thing. It is like the difference between the fox and the hedgehog in ancient Greek parables. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog only knows one big thing. I do not know much philosophy so, in my own way, I understand the first to be a post-modernist position and the second, a more anti-pluralist one.

The fox believes there are many truths, but the hedgehog believes that things are either true or false but not both.

In the early days, we can all believe in the same thing – pro-growth, pro-market, homes, jobs and development. Small government, large role for market forces, private enterprise, transparent competitive public sector salaries.

Is this one big thing with many small details? Or many small things?

I say the first. We have always believed in one big thing – one common vision. Now, however, we seem to be less of a hedgehog because the collective vision is increasingly contentious. We no longer know what the one big thing is. Instead, we each have our version

Page: 39

of the smaller things that we know.

How then can we move together? We move together by affirming the basics, interpreting our future based on our shared past, and undertaking this exercise in good faith that we work for the collective good, and not personal gain. These basics are reflected in the President's speech – they include the national pledge, the Constitution and our commitment to rule of law.

Within these basics, however, there is wide room for new and different interpretations of the good life. The Finance Minister has, in his Budgets so far, made radical changes to the Budgets in the first half of the term of this Government. We have moved more into explicit welfare provision, more into social spending, more into progressive taxes. We had used more non-price incentives, including regulatory mechanisms, in public policy.

More recently, he has made another radical move to improve real wages for poorer Singaporeans. Madam, in this, I want to point out that Singapore, like many other developed and developing nations, is increasingly a society where there is great wealth disparity.

I have, in the course of the past five years, pointed out that much of what we call meritocracy has been sullied by the unfairness of those who perform so much better because they are born into wealth. This is a fact of life, and not one that we can totally erase – nor should we wish to. The motivation to provide well for our family is the driving force for many of us to strive ceaselessly.

And yet, the massive accumulation of wealth by some runs against the tenets of an equal society. Our duty is to ensure that there is significant and regular redistribution of wealth, in a fair and transparent manner. This sharing of the country's success and the strengthening of our social safety nets must go hand in hand.

Within our basic tenets of Singapore life, we can and we must tolerate even more radical changes, including a reform of our civil and administrative service. We must continue to pursue prosperity and progress but there needs to be a new collective interpretation.

I believe there are rights and wrongs even in interpretations. In his book "Justice for Hedgehogs", Dworkin spoke about the difference between personal ethics and collective morality. He wrote, and I quote him: "Moral standards prescribe how we ought to treat others; ethical standards, how we ought to live ourselves. The happiness that Plato and Aristotle evoked was to be achieved by living ethically; and this meant living according to independent moral principles."

Page: 40

If we live our lives well, we give it meaning, the sort of meaning that "stands up to the fact and fear of death".

In this, our duty as a Government is to provide the environment to make this possible – the sort of opportunities that allow us to live a meaningful life – one that stands up to the fact and fear of death.

But there is a difference between life for a person and life as a nation.

Mark Lee, one of Singapore's most popular comedians, recently had a set in English at the Esplanade – in a show called Happy Ever Laughter. He spoke about his journey in being a comic actor, earning just $25 a week when he started. His success is a matter of chance and self-application. Or as Mark Lee himself put it – good luck and "gut lad" or Hokkien for hard work. It was a big risk, but he was determined to make it work. And he succeeded in great measure.

But let us think again. What if he did not? Even if we took the risk and the risk did not pay off, our lives remain good and meaningful because trying and striving are their own reward. Living well, on an individual level, sometimes can mean choosing what is likely to be a worse life. As Dworkin says, and I quote him again: "Living well is not the same as maximising the chance of producing the best possible life."

This individual can take chances, he can gamble on a dream, and, indeed, this is what makes life meaningful. But does logic hold true for the collective?

Mdm Speaker, physics ensures that we can only live one life. We cannot know in advance whether we succeed or not. But countries must live according to their collective morality. As leaders in this House, we bear an additional duty, not just to lead an ethical life, but shape a larger morality.

In this, we have a duty to steer a course that stays true to the values of Singaporeans. Not economics, not even policies, but to recognise and shape the collective morality for Singapore – and I think this is the real challenge of 2030.

In these years since 2011, we have charted many new courses, taken many new paths. But I also urge us all to see that all this is in line with the larger interpretation of the good life by Singaporeans, for continued prosperity, for education as a way of realising a secure future, for happiness and for domestic peace and strength.

Page: 41

This is the Singapore Story and while we may add new chapters, we need to bear in mind the larger picture, that there are right and wrong interpretations of our collective morality. There are interpretations that speak to clean and responsible public discourse, to open and transparent Civil Service and to progressive values. There are interpretations, too, that speak to the opposition – to irresponsible allegations, to falsehoods, to bravado over real political courage.

There are rights and wrongs in political life, Mdm Speaker. Our duty is to get it right. On that note, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Madam, Singapore has come a long way. Like many small nation states, we are plagued by so many issues and challenges. A recent case in point is that of Ukraine. We are not immune to these challenges. However, the efficiency, vision in planning and strategies of our Government have kept us developing, progressive, adaptable to global changes and resilient. It has not been a walk in the park. Tasks involved are not easy. Decisions to be made were not simple or straightforward. It requires vision and a deep understanding of the variety of challenges and issues.

Political stability has been a very critical factor in the growth and development of Singapore into the Nation of Opportunities we have today. On the global platform, our brand name is strong and respected. All these came from the very strong and correct foundations that were set so many years ago by our forefathers and our Pioneers – the men and women who started building Singapore. Here, I wish to pay tribute to our samsui women who mostly came here between 1934 and 1949. Some 200,000 of them came, just like some of our new immigrants now. They had the courage to travel far and negotiate change. They had a hard life, and they lived in crammed and rudimentary conditions. They worked hard, mostly in construction and rebuilding, putting in a lot of hard labour. Their efforts, sacrifices, hard work and commitment contributed to the development of Singapore. Today, there are a handful of them left and I am privileged to have known one of them.

Madam, on education, it has proven to be one of the great equalisers in our meritocratic society. Those from very humble and less privileged backgrounds, who strive and excel, can go the extra mile in achieving their dreams. With the strong foundation and basics we have here, I have to say, "If you can do well in Singapore, you can make it anywhere in the world." That is what I tell my students and the doctors that I teach. The various pathways to the many mountain peaks we have created is, indeed, the right way forward.

Page: 42

Finetuning the education system would require: (a) more values-based education: to help inculcate the kindness and graciousness we want to see; (b) more flexibility for those who want to pursue other talents and interest along the way; (c) more time for community involvement, whether local or global, to deepen understanding of human relationships; and (d) more personal time for reflection and thinking, so that we can create more thought leaders.

There is, however, one dilemma we are facing today. As our society progresses and we push the bell curve of achievement to the right, there will be a need for more places and placements in our institutions of higher learning. The Government has announced the creation and allocation of many more places, but we will still not be able to meet the demands completely. This group may then have to seek alternative sources more likely in private or overseas institutions. Herein lies the challenge: funding.

They will not be able to utilise their parents' CPF for education. They also do not usually fall in the group that is going to be able to attain scholarships easily. They may have to turn to bank loans or study loans if their families qualify. Frustrations may arise not only for them but their parents too and, of course, they may be at a loss as to how to proceed. Perhaps the Government can consider how we can assist this group.

Education is meant to bring out the best in every child and every adult. It is a continuum, a spectrum – from pre-school right up to lifelong learning in our Pioneers and building up life skills. The following are some suggestions I have: (a) can we have more learning communities, where there are lessons to be learnt everywhere and anywhere, including through play and activities? Then, we can be a society with a strong emphasis on learning at every critical point; (b) can we inculcate more creativity by being more flexible?; and (c) can we use more narratives for learners at all ages to share stories, experiences and be better integrated as they form networks of trust and greater friendships?

On community capacity building – we have built ourselves to become one of the most efficient societies on the globe, I think. But let us reflect: are we able to explicitly promote the ethics of caring as a fundamental societal value? After all, part of citizenship is about respect and obligation to care for one another. Are we ready to inculcate this at all levels of our communities and society – teaching, mentoring, coaching, sharing, being positive role models and utilising our shared common space together amicably?

Can we all put forth our capabilities and resources, which we have a lot of, and take ownership and become empowered? Are we ready to change our mindsets as to how things get done? Better still, are we ready to see through some of these things ourselves, with our neighbours and friends? Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Laurence Lien wanted citizens' involvement at more levels. Well, the platforms are there, but will our citizens come

Page: 43

forward to voluntarily serve and do what they have to do?

Community capacity building can win you friends and unite people: Singaporeans and new immigrants, young and seniors, different races, different backgrounds and inter-generations. It can help in the intensification of people-to-people interactions. Strong and caring communities start with citizens and residents at the very base. With this model , nation-building, cohesion and even national identity can be strengthened. Community problems may be resolved together. Conflicts can be managed in a more positive way. Our social capital and cultural capital can then flourish even better. Partnerships will be forged as a way forward. Kindness and graciousness will then, hopefully, become a way of life. It will be all about relationship building.

Everyone of us is born kind: it is an inherent human value. And here, I would like to quote a Chinese saying which says: "人之初，性本善", which means at the start of human life, we are all originally kind. However, external factors get subjected to a lot of determinants which make us manifest ungraciousness. What are these? Stress, jealousy, competition and so on.

Will our intrinsic, inherent value of kindness be strong enough to overcome these external stressors and allow us to be kind and gracious? After all, all of us have got 86,400 seconds every day. Do spend some of these doing acts of kindness. We can use kindness to help, show care, befriend and contribute to society. Let us learn to throw that kindness boomerang, as it will always be returned eventually back to us.

In the process of integration, we are doing a lot. Can our foreign friends and new immigrants also have an open mindset and a big heart to adapt their ways, respect ours, and come together? Can Singaporeans and new immigrant neighbours be buddies as we see in a buddy system, and develop close and nurturing relationships? This way, we can enlarge our social, cultural and even kindness capital.

The recent outburst and reaction towards the Philippines independence day was really uncalled for. Every day, Madam, I work with many Filipino doctors and nurses at the hospital – they care for Singaporeans, they care for any and every patient. And I have to say they do a very good job in our extremely hectic and overloaded healthcare system, and I respect them and the many foreigners who work in our system. Madam, in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Throughout 50 years of Singapore's development, our Malay/Muslim community has become more progressive and excellent in many fields and areas. But in terms of taking care of our health, it is clear that there are

Page: 44

weaknesses to be addressed.

Singapore's health system and policy are comprehensive and cover many aspects for Singaporeans.

Recently, there have been many references and improvements made to help all levels of society pay for the costs of their treatment and medicine. The schemes that are available and have been refined includes the 3M, CHAS, Chronic Disease Management Programme (CDMP), Medication Assistance Fund (MAF).

Although a lot of help is available, many still do not understand and are unaware of schemes that are beneficial to them. In fact, it not only benefits individuals and the elderly, but the whole family as well, because their children or grandchildren are usually the ones who help bear their treatment costs. If we take a closer look, if we use the schemes that are available, the subsidy is quite substantial. Therefore, I urge those who are unaware or do not understand, to come to the dialogue sessions or seminars that provide explanations like the one held recently for the Pioneer Generation Package.

Many people within our community, who upon becoming ill, will accept it as fate. In fact, some refuse to do anything and get treatment. This attitude is wrong. Please make the effort and get treatment because the treatment is already available.

Health literacy amongst our community is also low. This is also the reason for the high rate of chronic diseases in our community compared to other communities. Our lifestyle and diet are also generally unhealthy. If we wish for change and improvement, it should begin with us, by changing our mindset to correct the wrong and outdated perceptions.

For working adults, the exercise regime that can usually be done at the workplace, together with their colleagues, is good and useful. Employers can also give support. The Health Promotion Board (HPB) can help companies appoint health champions or health ambassadors who can influence their colleagues through good habits. Mental health programmes can also be enhanced because many of our adults at the workplace sometimes experience a lot of stress.

The number of those who have health insurance within our community should also be improved. Many do not care about this issue until, as the Malay saying goes "only after you knock against something, you try to avoid hitting it", because they did not plan early. I would like to urge our younger generation to take positive steps to help their families in these issues since they are more knowledgeable. Some of those affected come from the low-income and middle income families, who do not understand how to manage their finances and family

Page: 45

expenses and would simply want to take out all their CPF savings right now to settle their financial problems for the short term. That is unhealthy. Your CPF savings are kept safe for future withdrawal and for your retirement years. There are many schemes that are available now to assist you.

The elderly and our Pioneer Generation should also take proactive steps by taking care of their health. With an ageing population, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, stroke and other illnesses are still increasing. Do we know how to take care of family members who are affected? Have we ever undergone a course to become caregivers?

The social service sector and the Health Ministry should organise more courses and dialogues to provide guidance and encouragement to the caregivers. Their staff and workers should go to the ground more often and garner feedback directly.

In conclusion, although our community has progressed far and achieved further excellence, there are a few issues that are still hampering us. Issues like dysfunctional families, single mothers, divorces, drug problems and others.

I am sure that with a mindset change in our community, the combination of efforts and the spirit of gotong-royong and collaboration, together, we can help these people gradually move inch by inch out of poverty trap and vicious cycle.

(In English): In the area of healthcare, there are still a few issues to be sorted out although we have a very good healthcare system. I would just like to highlight a few.

We need more long-term and intermediate care facilities. We have heard the numbers that are going to be ramped up in the next few years. I have one suggestion to share. Would it be possible to use our HDB flat model as one to provide a facility, perhaps called the "Vertical Step-down Care Facility"? And why not? One block of HDB flats has between 100 and 150 units that could house at least a similar number of residents, seniors or patients. There are lifts that stop on every floor. It is elderly-friendly. It is disabled-friendly. There are toileting facilities in every unit which are excellent for hygiene and accessibility perspectives.

Perhaps, MND and MOH can consider piloting this model in land-scarce Singapore to nurse and manage the less critically ill patients needing chronic management. The cost will be very reasonable, I would say. Of course, the timing would also be very reasonable, compared to having to build a nursing home from scratch. As we talk about productivity and innovation, well, this, indeed, is about being productive and innovative.

Page: 46

Let us help and support those with mental illness as well, as they need a bit more care facilities and also rehabilitation facilities in the community.

On healthcare manpower, we are, indeed, in need of a major ramping up because at several polyclinics these days, they have to reject registrations from as early as one or two o'clock in the afternoon because allocated reasonable quota of daily attendances has been reached for each staff, who will need time to actually settle all the cases they need to see and provide consultations.

Let me also correct one misperception that may have been generated from hon Member Mr Inderjit Singh's comments in today's TODAY newspaper on restructured hospitals promoting medical tourism around the region.

As a practitioner in healthcare in the last 24 years, please understand that Singaporeans are at the heart of all we do. That is the reason why I strive and work 24 – well, some say 25 – hours a day. We have a strong and good, effective healthcare system. Our reputation is good, our brand name is strong and this has been built over the years with good vision. Is it wrong for international patients to want to seek care here?

Well, everything we plan is planned with Singaporeans in mind in our restructured hospitals. All in, we need efficient and timely ramping up. As we await the announced enhancements, changes are going on. Change is the only constant in our lives. Our seniors are continuing to grow old. Diseases, such as dementia, are being diagnosed and increasing daily. The situation is very dynamic. The question to ask is: will we have to play the "catch-up" game every time?

Finally, can we incorporate flexibilities into our policies and schemes because people, their lives, their experiences and their situations are unique and there will always be differences? Staff from the public service and Government agencies will need to spend more time on the ground in order to appreciate the root causes of situations and the interplay of various factors, especially in cases that do not satisfy the standard guidelines.

Let me, at this juncture, share with Members very quickly a story. I have the approval of this lady to share this anecdote with you. She is a 34-year-old lady, married to a 40-year-old Singaporean, has three children aged 13, 11 and 4, and the youngest has got special needs. They live in a 3-room flat and I have been helping her through various sources in a multifaceted way. Last night, she came to see me. Her husband had passed on within the last three weeks. He had Stage 4 advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma, which is a cancer. Tears welled up in her eyes as she made an attempt to tell me what she wanted. It was not about help. It was not about finances. She was asking whether I could help her extend her

Page: 47

Long-Term Visit Pass or perhaps get her a Permanent Resident because now, as a housewife, she would have to work to support her three Singaporean children and she was not going to go back to her original country. All her stakes are now here in Singapore.

What would you do? Make representation for a foreigner? She has got no other contacts, relatives, no extended family. Can we let three young children lose their mum after losing their dad? With the notion of a caring society moving all through my neural networks in the gray matter, I decided to write that letter last night. If not for anything, it is at least for the youngest child with special needs.

How effective, responsible and responsive the Government and the agencies are, is something that must be acknowledged by the ground and the people. Flexibility can enhance our position as a caring society. From a nation of opportunities, can we become a city of the future that inspires? From just efficiency and effectiveness, can we add humanistic values like care and share, and increase our caring capital? A lot has been said about constructive politics. Well, I hope to promote the practice of what I would call "conscience politics". With that, Madam, I support the Motion.

Thank you, Madam. This Motion of thanks for the President's Address takes place amidst worrying developments in our neighbourhood. At the recent ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, ASEAN Foreign Ministers issued a statement on 10 May 2014 expressing their serious concerns over the ongoing developments in the South China Sea, which increased tensions in the area. There have been many references from the Government over the last few months about hostilities between Ukraine and Russia, and the implications for Singapore.

In the South China Sea, tensions are increasing between China and a whole host of countries. It is a sea line of communications central to our survival – US$5.3 trillion worth of trade passes through it every year. Needless to say, the South China Sea is right at our doorstep, too. The geopolitical jockeying taking place in the region takes place in a year when we celebrate 30 years of Total Defence, a national initiative that first began in 1984.

Madam, my colleagues have already spoken and will continue to speak during this debate on a wide range of important domestic matters, as covered in the President's Address. I will focus my speech on national security, specifically to issues pertaining to foreign affairs

Page: 48

and defence.

In spite of the American pivot towards Asia, the fact remains that the benign American security umbrella in Asia has to accommodate China's economic and growing military power. The real manifestations of a changing power equilibrium in East and Southeast Asia are taking place. Over the last year, developments in the East and South China Sea, in particular, are causing serious concerns amongst several Asian countries, including Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam – all in the eye of the storm.

A Code of Conduct on the South China Sea to address these territorial spats is unlikely to come to pass anytime soon. This is in spite of hopes for it to be hurried along, as most recently expressed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his visit to Washington two weeks ago. In contrast, the Prime Minister's more sober remarks in Tokyo on the back of the Nikkei International Conference last week that any nation would be cautious about signing on to a set of guidelines which may constrain its freedom of action are noteworthy.

Seen from this perspective, while the early agreement of a Code of Conduct would be warmly welcomed by Singapore, it is not terribly realistic to expect this of China or any other major power in its shoes. As China grows economically, it has taken a long view of history to ensure that it is in the foremost position to determine the power dynamics of its immediate neighbourhood, which it sees as a core interest.

Such big power behaviour is not unusual. Big powers march to their own drumbeat. Even the US, while accepting the widely ratified United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as customary international law, has not moved to ratify the treaty for reasons best known to American lawmakers.

In a sense, China's reactions can be read as a direct response to the perception of a gradually minifying ability and keenness of the United States to impose its will on the world. This is coupled with the slow and uneven post-Cold War shift to a more multi-polar world. As part of this process, it would have come as no surprise to hear of the 30-year $400 billion gas deal between China and Russia last week, even as barbed exchanges and spats were taking place over the South China Sea.

For Singapore, the jockeying in our neighbourhood suggests that the external environment in the years to come is likely to be more, and not less, unpredictable. In the event our external trade is affected by skirmishes and hostilities in the South China Sea or a chill permeates through the markets and business confidence sinks as a result of it, our resilience as a people is likely to be severely tested.

Page: 49

Beyond hosting a strong Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) that is ready for battle, how prepared are we as a country if conflict in a foreign region has a debilitating effect on our economy and society? With our fast-changing population, have the pillars of Total Defence been unwittingly weakened? Is our economy strong, resilient and diversified enough to survive a crisis in the South China Sea?

With close to 40% of Singapore comprising of non-Singaporeans, will Singaporeans and foreigners look out for each other or turn to look after their respective communities? These numbers should inform the Government that the next 30 years that undergird Total Defence will be much more important than the last 30. While SAF and Home Team National Servicemen reinstate their commitment to Singapore, the Government should assess if we have over-extended ourselves in outsourcing many critical public functions.

In times of conflict, we can certainly expect job losses and some foreigners returning to safer pastures. How will our municipal, health, transport and telecommunication services hold up, given the large number of foreigners manning them? Will some of our foreign friends among us respond nationalistically, favouring the Philippines or Vietnam, depending on their ethnicity and original citizenship, even as Singapore would prefer to stand as a neutral party?

We would need to prepare for these unexpected outcomes and review our crisis strategies even as the Government presses ahead with economic growth and with the expansion of foreign manpower continuing. Insofar as national resilience is concerned, the announcement by the Committee to Strengthen National Service (CSNS) in recommending a Volunteer Corps is a laudable initiative. This is even if it is, for all intents and purposes, a pilot initiative and a small baby step targeted at new citizens, first-generation PRs and women.

I would urge all new citizens, in particular, to apply to join the SAF Volunteer Corps and join hands with Singaporeans who already dedicate a minimum of 12 years of their life to National Service.

As a young nation, but with close to 40% of our population comprising non-Singaporeans, questions of identity and commitment of the new arrivals are likely to remain in the minds of Singaporeans for the foreseeable future. This has a direct consequence on our resilience as a country and a people. The Government should continue to explore how new citizens and PRs can contribute to our national security and how the total defence concept can be reinforced in light of the new realities.

Mdm Speaker, it was instructive to note MFA's Addendum to the President's Address referring specifically to the fact that good relations with our immediate neighbours, namely,

Page: 50

Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, are essential for our security and prosperity.

I recently attended the 34th Singapore Lecture delivered by Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei in April this year. The Sultan took the opportunity to applaud Singapore's offer of the Changi Command and Control Centre as a regional humanitarian disaster and relief co-host centre. Such Singaporean initiatives are hallmarks of effective defence diplomacy and we should build on this. Going forward, it may be appropriate for us to explore how our defence ties with our immediate neighbours, in particular, can be further improved. This would be solely to increase reservoirs of trust with our neighbours with the view to completely eradicate the prospects of hostilities as far as practically possible. This would have to be a long-term strategy but it is not impossible.

We can start with Malaysia. As our populations and economies become more interconnected with Iskandar Johor and the rapid transit system between Johor Baru and Woodlands in the works, the logic of conflict between us will make less and less sense as the years go by. To this end, a new multilateral architecture among Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei that eradicates the prospect of conflict and promotes military inter-operability and joint training may well operate to create a far more benign security environment in our immediate neighbourhood so as to allow for a more flexible and targeted use of our defence dollar in the long run.

Whilst Singapore must ultimately remain responsible for its own security, steady and determined confidence-building measures with our neighbours and the willingness to put the past behind can alter the security landscape. I would suggest that we are in a much better starting position. The Government already actively encourages Singapore businesses to operate in Iskandar Johor as evinced most recently in the Prime Minister's remarks during the Malay/Muslim business conference held earlier this month.

Singapore already conducts a wide range of military exercises with our immediate neighbours. It would also be helpful to add some cultural ballast to deepening defence ties by restating the importance of the Malay Language and encouraging its use, even informally, since Singapore will always be located in the Malay Archipelago.

We should also take the opportunity in so far as our local discourse is concerned, to remind policymakers that the fear of putting a Malay serviceman behind a machine gun is already over. We are all Singaporeans and, with 50 years of Independence behind us, now more than ever, when you are conscripted to defend your home Singapore, in whatever capacity, your race is not a factor.

Page: 51

Mdm Speaker, much has been said about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade agreement to expand the 2005 Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement. The TPP seeks to enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development.

For Singaporeans, the implications of the TPP for Singapore have not been discussed beyond broad motherhood statements even as many groups and lobbies in potential TPP signatory countries are protesting against the treaty, especially those economies heavily weighted in favour of particular industries, such as automotive and agriculture, amongst others. Even environmentalists and Internet freedom advocates have raised a hue and cry about the implications of the TPP.

Whilst Singapore's considerations will be different in view of the externally oriented nature of our economy, it would be important for the Government to inform Singaporeans what is in it for us. These questions are especially important for Singapore businesses and for the world we want to bequeath to our children, questions that go beyond economics in view of the implications of the TPP for the Asia Pacific region. Will the TPP allow Singaporean companies to go overseas and do business the same way big companies are allowed to come to Singapore and compete for major contracts with local businesses? Which businesses and industries, if any, are likely to be killed off by the TPP?

Mdm Speaker, it would be helpful if the Government flesh out the opportunities and pitfalls awaiting our local SMEs should the TPP come to pass so that our businesses are not blind-sided by it. In fact, such a strategy going beyond communication with Chambers of Commerce and business federations may well encourage greater entrepreneurship amongst our people. Equally, greater sharing of information with budding businesses, startups and those that are still primarily locally oriented will vindicate and justify the policymaking hours spent by our civil servants and Government officials on TPP negotiations.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, with our total external trade hitting almost one trillion dollars according to 2013 statistics, Singapore will be acutely vulnerable should a conflict erupt in the South China Sea. Beyond our neutrality and our relentless diplomatic efforts, Singapore will have to adjust and deal with the reality that comes our way. A former Permanent Secretary of MFA once observed, not incorrectly, Singapore will always be a price taker, not a price setter in the international realm. Nonetheless, we may be in a better position to determine the price we take with regard to our immediate neighbours, given the greater inter-dependence between Singapore and Malaysia in particular.

Unfortunately, we are not in a position to determine or prevent a conflict in the South China Sea, beyond offering ourselves as a neutral arbiter and an advocate for a code of conduct in the South China Sea. We can, however, start working on scenarios to determine

Page: 52

how we can better be prepared for a regional conflict, especially given the deep changes that have taken place in our society over the last 10-15 years with regard to our population policies and economic strategies in particular. The standoff between Ukraine and Russia is not wholly relevant to Singapore but there are more immediate worries closer to home.

Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion of thanks on the President's Address.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether, in his speech, he was alluding to the fact that Malays in the Armed Forces are not deployed to handle machine guns? That is my first clarification.

My second clarification is to ask Mr Pritam Singh whether he is aware of the fact that today, many Malays are actually deployed in different parts of the Armed Forces – artillery, signal – and whether he would agree with me that that signals that the Armed Forces have actually opened up these places to the Malays as well.

I thank the hon Member for the question. It is a very important one. Indeed, he is right. I remember my own experience as a National Serviceman in the Combat Engineer Unit, as a platoon commander, where we had no Malay servicemen in the rank-and-file, at least when I was there. And a few years ago, one of my best friends took over command of a similar unit and I was pleasantly surprised actually to see Malay Servicemen in the rank-and-file. So, in that sense, it is very good to know that we have moved.

Unfortunately, on the ground, you have certain noises, sometimes coming up from the Malay community, that somehow these messages of earlier political leaders in Singapore suggest that we have not moved. But as the hon Member rightly pointed out, we have moved forward. As I mentioned in my speech, I think we have to move forward with this idea that right now, we are moving forward as one united people, no matter what your race and religion is, you will defend Singapore with no one doubting your intentions because of your race.