Debate on President's Address

Thank you, Madam. I just want to clarify a point that Dr Janil said in his speech earlier on. I never said or suggested that health insurance payouts should be more than the premiums collected. But for a social health insurance scheme which is what MediShield Life should be, the premiums collected do not need to be so much more.

Page: 51

As a point of comparison, the US Affordable Care Act, the new ObamaCare, mandates a minimum loss ratio of between 80% and 85%. Ours is, on average, 63% over the last 11 years, and it was 75% in 2012. So, the US Affordable Care Act mandates that the minimum loss ratio should be between 80% and 85% and that insurers who do not spend 80%-85% of their premiums in healthcare costs must now issue rebates to consumers. And these are all commercial insurers. These are not social health insurers.

Thank you, Madam. Mr Giam brings up some very good points. And if I could take them in reverse order. Firstly, we are talking about a public social insurance and he is comparing it with a private, for-profit environment in the United States. So, I do not think his comparison is valid.

Secondly, I am loath to use the United States as the be-all and end-all for a model of where our healthcare system should evolve to. Even the policymakers and office holders in the United States would readily admit that the short-term electoral outlook significantly constrains their ability to take a long-term strategic vision for the healthcare system of their nation.

Lastly, I would like to make one point, which is: what if he is wrong? What if Mr Giam's supposition that we could increase payouts is wrong and we should compare that to what if the current situation is the wrong decision? If the current situation where, as he puts it, the payouts are far less than the premiums collected, that is the wrong decision. We save a little bit too much. If he is wrong, and we pay out more, if we pay out more and he is wrong, what is the worst case scenario? The worst case scenario is that our public healthcare financing becomes insolvent and we are unable to support the healthcare needs of a generation possibly.

This has happened in many other countries. The intellectually honest thing to do is to compare risks versus risks, benefits versus benefits, and worst-case scenarios against worst-case scenarios – not to cherry-pick the benefits of your proposal against the potential risks of the proposal in front of you. Thank you, Madam, for your indulgence.

Madam, I am glad he made that clarification. In fact, I cited ObamaCare precisely because of the US health system and the trouble that it is in today and the fact that it is a commercial insurance scheme rather than a social insurance scheme. In fact, a social insurance scheme should have a much higher loss ratio than a commercial insurance scheme because commercial insurance wants to make money, whereas the Government is not in the business of making money. In fact, MediShield is supposed to be a

Page: 52

not-for-profit insurance scheme.

Secondly, he asked about the grave scenario if payouts become more than the premiums collected. Now, in the case of medical insurance, it is relatively easy to be able to project what are the likely payouts to be and compared to, let us, say, earthquake insurance or something that has a much lower frequency compared to health insurance, where you are able to see the trend and the cost of medical expenses over the years and be able to project what the payouts should be.

So, the question is: if it comes to the point where, because of the miscalculations, we aim for a 90% or 80% medical loss ratio but, for some reason, there is SARS that year or something like that happens, then we have a situation where the Government would have to step in to subsidise a bit more of the cost and the premiums can rise behind the increase in cost, not before you know that the costs are going to increase, then you raise the premiums.

Madam, because we are talking about a social public good, it is, therefore, incumbent that we take a longer term, prudent approach, past one electoral cycle. I am glad that Mr Giam feels that medical expenditure is predictable. I and my professional colleagues would completely disagree. There is a lot of uncertainty about how costs will rise.

Myself and my brothers and sisters in the healthcare profession are part of that problem because we keep researching and coming up with all kinds of ways to spend the Health Minister's money.

Lastly, the example of SARS is a great example. It is precisely because of the prudent, conservative, risk-averse approach that we take on a day-to-day basis that when something like SARS comes along, the Government is able to step in and do what needs to be done.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. Madam, the President's Address outlined several programmes to strengthen our social safety net. One of the key areas is keeping healthcare affordable for Singaporeans.

Page: 53

In the last few years, we have reshaped our health and aged care services – adding capacity, bringing services closer to citizens and we have taken steps to make healthcare services more affordable for Singaporeans.

We have increased subsidies in our hospitals and intermediate and long-term care facilities. We have expanded Medisave uses in the outpatient setting for chronic disease treatment, selected vaccinations and screenings.

To make primary care at GP clinics more affordable, we introduced the Primary Care Partnership Scheme which later became the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS). CHAS was last enhanced this year with the removal of the age criterion and the inclusion of additional chronic diseases. We are going one step further to enhance CHAS by extending it to all pioneers regardless of their income and assets, and with even better benefits.

In the next few years, we will put in place a new social compact so that all Singaporeans know that they are looked after, in good times and bad.

One major initiative in this direction is the proposed MediShield Life. MediShield has played an important role in helping Singaporeans with large medical bills. Over the years, we have improved MediShield to keep up with the changing needs of Singaporeans. We extended the maximum age of coverage because Singaporeans are now living longer. We increased the claim limits to keep pace with medical inflation and improvements in healthcare technology.

Here, I must disagree with Mr Giam that healthcare inflation is easy to estimate. It is very difficult to estimate what kind of healthcare costs we will be facing because there are many, many drivers for healthcare costs. Ageing is one aspect; development of new technology is another aspect; easier access will also drive up demand and demand will drive up costs.

Last year, we expanded MediShield to also cover congenital and neonatal conditions. With each improvement, Singaporeans are better protected.

Moving from MediShield to MediShield Life next year is a much more significant shift. It will provide stronger and lifetime protection for all of us today and our children in future. It will also reflect a stronger sense of community, because it will involve Singaporeans coming together collectively to look after one another. This is what an inclusive and caring society is about.

Page: 54

MediShield Life works on the concept of risk-pooling. All of us will each contribute our share into the pool and the few among us who face large hospital bills can then draw on the pool to help pay for their bills. This way, all of us can be protected and assured.

However, for MediShield Life to work to protect all Singaporeans, all of us need to do our part. We must contribute our share of the premiums and we must do all we can to keep healthy. And I would encourage you to adopt the eight steps promulgated by Dr Janil Puthucheary. That would help us keep healthy longer. Healthcare providers need to deliver cost-effective services and avoid driving up demand or pushing up claims which will eventually result in higher premiums in future years.

The Government has committed to ensuring that premiums for MediShield Life are affordable for everyone, not just the high income, but also for the middle and lower income. This is a long-term commitment, so that everyone will always be protected and have peace of mind.

The MediShield Life Review Committee has been working since last November to review and recommend the key benefits and parameters for MediShield Life.

Led by Mr Bobby Chin, the Committee has intensively engaged people of all ages and backgrounds. They have also spoken to key stakeholders and experts, such as the unions, grassroots, employers, academics, insurers, actuaries and healthcare professionals. I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the Committee's hard work and for those who have contributed their views, including the Government Parliamentary Committee on Health, which has put up a comprehensive list of proposals.

It is, indeed, encouraging to hear that MediShield Life has received broad-based support from Singaporeans. Those with friends or family members who could not be covered by insurance due to their pre-existing conditions, such as those with cancer, stroke or heart conditions, were especially appreciative that MediShield Life would cover them and give them peace of mind about healthcare costs.

I visited a National Kidney Foundation (NKF) Dialysis Centre last week in Ang Mo Kio and some of the patients there could not get insurance protection because of their kidney conditions. But with MediShield Life, they will be able to get the protection and peace of mind they have longed for, not just for dialysis treatments but also for hospital bills that they may face from time to time.

Many Singaporeans understand that premiums will have to go up when benefits are improved. Some are concerned that improvements to benefits would lead to over-

Page: 55

consumption of healthcare services, resulting in higher costs and higher premiums in the long run.

The Committee has to calibrate carefully and strike a balance between providing better protection for Singaporeans and keeping premiums affordable.

The Committee shared in March this year its preliminary findings and thinking on MediShield Life. They suggested three key shifts: removing the lifetime claim limit of $300,000; increasing claim limits significantly for hospital stays and outpatient cancer treatments; and cutting patients' co-insurance rates by half.

The Government is supportive of these recommendations. If implemented, MediShield Life will pay out more and cover a larger portion of the bills, reducing significantly what patients have to pay.

Let me give you some examples of how these will work out.

Forty-eight-year-old Mr Yee Kwek Chin was hospitalised for 14 days for stroke. His MediShield currently covered about $5,000 of his subsidised bill and he paid the remaining $4,800 using his Medisave. With the higher daily ward limits and lower co-insurance rates, the Committee has recommended for MediShield Life, patients like Mr Yee would need to pay only $2,500 of his bill, or half of what he has to pay today.

Currently, MediShield coverage stops when one reaches 91 years old. For those Singaporeans who are older, like Mr Yasmuddin Rasul, who is 92 years old, they will not be covered under MediShield today. With MediShield Life, there will be no age limit. Older Singaporeans will be brought into the scheme and be covered for life.

The removal of the lifetime claims limit will benefit long-term dialysis patients like Mr Hashim Abdul Rahim whom I met last week at the NKF Dialysis Centre. MediShield Life will also benefit patients like Mdm Wong Kui Lan, who is 65 years old and has no insurance coverage. She has been undergoing dialysis for about a year and suffers from high blood pressure, heart conditions and cataract. In the past year, the total subsidised bill for her hospital stays came close to $8,000. MediShield Life will protect Singaporeans like Mr Hashim and Mdm Wong in the future, reducing the amount they have to pay for their healthcare bills and relieving them of a heavy burden.

The Committee has shared with me that most Singaporeans hope that the MediShield Life premiums will remain affordable and can be fully paid for with Medisave so that they do not have to fork out cash for their premiums. Some shared that they are providing for a large

Page: 56

family, for their children as well as their elderly parents, and are worried about whether they can continue to pay for their premiums in the future. They hope that the Government will provide those in financial need with more support to pay for their premiums.

The Government understands their concerns and we would provide direct help to Singaporeans in three ways. First, we will provide permanent premium subsidies for the less well-off and our pioneers. These are permanent subsidies and not one-off help. To help everyone transit from MediShield to MediShield Life, the Government will also be providing transitional support for the first few years for all Singaporeans, so that the premium increases will be phased in. Secondly, we will provide Medisave top-ups for the elderly and the low-income to help them pay for the premiums. Thirdly, for those who still cannot afford the premiums, we will provide direct financial assistance, such as through Medifund, over and above the premium subsidies.

The Committee is currently finalising its proposed recommendations to MediShield Life and I understand that they will be ready to share some of these details next month. My Ministry will review and finalise the design of MediShield Life after the Committee has submitted its final report and aim to implement it by the end of 2015.

Madam, we have announced the Pioneer Generation Package to recognise and honour our pioneers and address their concerns on healthcare. Together with MediShield Life and enhancements to subsidies for outpatient care, we reassure our seniors that we will take care of their healthcare needs. We will do more for them.

Beyond lessening their worries, we want our seniors to live life to the fullest, to always have something to look forward to and continue to achieve their aspirations in their silver years.

While we speak of the challenges of an ageing population, we should not forget that ageing and longevity are a blessing after all. We are all living longer and that is a good thing. But we must plan ahead to help Singaporeans age successfully and meaningfully.

The Ministerial Committee on Ageing has spent the last few years building up aged care services to support an ageing population. By 2020, we will add about 5,000 nursing home beds as well as expand the capacity of our centre-based services. We will also give home care a big push to support seniors to age in place. We have rolled out a set of quality standards on nursing homes and we are in the midst of developing guidelines for home care. Aged care services are made more affordable with higher and more targeted Government subsidies for the middle- and lower-income families.

Page: 57

Moving beyond developing aged care services, the Committee will coordinate a whole-of-nation effort to put together a coherent national agenda to prepare our population for successful ageing. This is an action plan that will holistically chart strategies and initiatives to support and enable Singaporeans to achieve meaningful and successful ageing. It will cover seven diverse areas – lifelong learning for seniors, employment, volunteerism, urban infrastructure, healthcare, retirement adequacy and research into ageing.

Ageing is a conversation that involves all of us – our aspirations for our silver years, how we hope to live our lives to the fullest, how we wish to relate to our peers and the younger generation, and the kind of society we wish to live in when we grow old. It is a conversation not just among the old, but also with the young.

From the middle of this year, the MCA will hold a series of public consultations to hear the aspirations and suggestions from Singaporeans on what we should do to collectively plan for successful ageing for our seniors and ourselves in time to come. We will also engage voluntary welfare organisations, businesses, unions and academia in this whole-of-nation conversation on ageing.

Let us now change the conversation about ageing – from worrying about the challenges that come from ageing to celebrating longevity.

We want to hear ideas from educational institutions, voluntary welfare organisations and senior learners themselves on what can be done to help seniors continue to learn new things so that they can remain active and their days filled with excitement.

For example, the Council for Third Age (C3A) has initiated Kopi and Toast, where active seniors mentor and encourage less active seniors to adopt an active lifestyle. Through this programme, the more reserved seniors have become more active and participated in activities which they had not done before, such as ukulele classes and even signing up as a volunteer for the 2015 SEA Games. The pilot run, which was conducted in 2013 with 68 seniors, received very good feedback through various success stories shared by participants.

We also want to hear suggestions from unions, employers and HR practitioners on how we can tap the talents and growth opportunities from a workforce that will enjoy longer years of productive lives and how the workplace can be made more welcoming and empowering for our seniors to put their experience and talents to good use.

St Luke's ElderCare is a good example. Its comprehensive age-friendly HR strategy has empowered seniors and developed a culture of lifelong learning and this allows seniors to be more competent, confident and appreciative of their work while at the same time keeping

Page: 58

them engaged. St Luke's has shown that, given opportunities, seniors can continue to contribute meaningfully.

We also welcome ideas from community leaders, healthcare professionals and active agers on what we can do collectively to encourage and support our seniors to age actively and preserve good health for as long as possible. It is also important to explore how we can encourage and provide better support for multi-generation families, in terms of housing and amenities in the estates, how we can support them in strengthening family values and intergenerational bonds. For example, we are rolling out larger 3Gen flats for multigenerational families to stay together and injecting aged care services in our estates so that seniors can age at home close to their loved ones.

Professionals like architects, IT experts and urban and transport planners can also share their ideas on how we can build an intelligent city for all ages, leveraging on technology to make living easier for seniors, allowing them to participate as an active member of our society.

The formulation of the action plan will involve various Government agencies and Ministries, private and the people sectors. We will consult widely and we hope that the plan will be ready by next year. The ideas and suggestions we gather will then be incorporated into our national action plan for successful ageing. We hope that, through the collective efforts of Singaporeans – of all ages and from all walks of life – we can build a Nation for All Ages.

Singapore celebrates 50 years as a nation next year. The last 50 years of the Singapore Story is an amazing one of rapid development and growth, fuelled by youthful idealism and the strife for success.

For the next 50 years and beyond, the Singapore Story will surely continue. But it will not be identical to the last 50 years because we are now more mature and also wiser, economically stronger and more confident about our future. But we are still young as a nation. We must remain youthful in our ideals and aspirations, even as each of us grow older.

We will turn longevity into our advantage. We will work together to forge an action plan to make Singapore a Nation for All Ages. This will be the best tribute to our pioneers and the best gift to our next generation.

Page: 59

Mdm Speaker, I will be speaking on education and social mobility. And, yes, I believe that constructive politics should be concise and I will be so in my speech. I will finish well within the allotted time. I wish to declare that I own businesses that provide services and products to schools.

Education is a key factor for social mobility. It is often presumed that access to education will level the playing field for students of different backgrounds, thus creating an environment where individual merits can be identified and rewarded. Indeed, it has been so for a good number of Singaporeans as our country move from Third World to First in a relatively short time.

Today, I wish to warn of dangers that can compromise our ability to achieve social mobility through education. First is the danger of education perpetuating class stratifications instead of levelling the playing field. It has been acknowledged, both by politicians and scholars, that entry into branded schools in Singapore is a reflection of parents' social class than of students' merits. Entry into the more prestigious and popular Primary schools, for example, is based strongly on factors, such as the location of the family home and parents' connections to the school.

Former Minister Mentor Mr Lee Kuan Yew had observed that admission to Primary schools is based on the social class of parents. In a Parliamentary reply in 2012, it was revealed that only 40% of the students in six of the most popular Primary schools lived in HDB flats. This contrasts greatly with 80% of all Primary school students residing in HDB flats. MOE had replied that this reflected a mix of residential housing in the vicinity of these six schools. Given the current Primary 1 admission rules, it will mean that those in the higher social classes will continue to have preferences to enter popular schools.

A second worrying data that suggests the reproduction of class is a profile of the Public Service Commission (PSC) scholarship holders. In 2008, the PSC revealed that 47% of the PSC scholarship recipients that year lived in HDB flats and 53% lived in private housing. This is an over-representation of the private housing, as up to 85% of Singaporeans live in HDB flats.

Another set of data that also showed class stratification is the profile of students entering Universities. In response to a Parliamentary Question from Member Ms Sylvia Lim in 2008, it was revealed that students from 5-room and private housing were more likely to enter University. MOE tracked the 1990 to 1992 Primary 1 cohorts until they reached ages 22 to 24 in 2007 to ascertain levels of University participation according to household types. According to MOE, "One out of every eight undergraduates comes from poorer families who live in 1- to 3-room flats when compared to the distribution of households of Primary 1

Page: 60

cohorts. Students whose parents are more successful are more likely to make it to university".

From the data, only 13% of those living in 1- to 3-room HDB flats made it to University although they had formed 23% of their Primary 1 cohort. In contrast, 19% of those in private housing made it to University when they formed only 12% of their Primary 1 cohort. MOE's reply stated that, "admission to a publicly-funded university is strictly on the basis of merit. All those who qualify will have a place regardless of social economic status".

However, the definition of meritocracy is premised mainly on good examination results which, in turn, do not reflect structural disadvantages that working class families may face, such as not being able to afford good tuition or academic enrichment classes.

Taken together, this trend should compel us to critically examine how we can strengthen education's role as a key facilitator of social mobility. I will list a few areas for review.

First, there are subtle trends of class stratifications within the education system. The practice of dollar-for-dollar top-up of the Child Development Account (CDA) is one such example. Here, parents who allocate more funds to their child's CDA will get more public funds than parents who cannot afford to allocate as much. This is up to $6,000 each for the first two children, $12,000 each for the third and fourth child, and $18,000 each for the fifth child and beyond. Such a practice has the effect of rewarding higher income households while withholding funds from lower-income households. The CDA is often used for preschool education courses and, therefore, gives children a leg-up.

Yesterday, I was quite alarmed to hear from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary Mr Hawazi Daipi that since 2001, only 64% of the CDA's budget allocated was actually used. No breakdown was provided by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary yesterday. But it will not be surprising to anyone that the lower-income group which should be using this scheme for their children's education are not drawing on the CDA's budget.

I wish to propose that the funds be allocated to the CDA automatically and that the quantum be standardised to $10,000 for each child. Parents can have the option of topping up the CDA up to $10,000 for each child if they wish to, to earn higher interest offered by the CDA as a way of earmarking savings for the child's education.

Second, I repeat my concern that student-care facilities in schools should expand at a faster rate. Student care is an excellent way to help weaker students through care and coaching programmes within the schools, before and after school hours. Demand is very strong across all schools that offer such services. Even with the expansion plan by MOE, more

Page: 61

than one third of all schools will still not have school-based student care by 2016.

The impact is felt most strongly by young families where both parents need to work and alternative care at home or from extended families is lacking. The demand for student care mirrors the strong demand for childcare facilities that have caught the Government off-guard and from which we are ramping up the supply of places and teachers now. We need to put more attention and resources into student care right now. By reassuring parents that every school will have sufficient and affordable student care places within the school, many young parents can be more assured to have children, and the need for private tuition will be reduced.

Next, I wish to reiterate a proposal I presented several times in this House. We currently have a competitive system that relies mainly on academic results to sort out students into Secondary schools and academic streams. While MOE repeatedly stated that every school is a good school, parents know which schools and which academic streams are most desired. Secondary schools are today highly differentiated and resourced differently. This created a huge billion-dollar-a-year private tuition industry for those who could afford to seek additional help for the children to give a boost to their academic results.

A disproportionate effort is being spent on chasing academic scores over and above other forms of academic development. I hope to see pilot neighbourhood schools that offer 10-year Integrated Programme from Primary 1 to Secondary 4, or even from kindergarten to Secondary 4. These schools will allow for holistic development of students without the distraction of high-pressured sorting and streaming examinations. It will allow students of mixed abilities to develop together in the same school throughout the 10 years in an environment that is more representative of our mix and society and real life.

We will also need to constantly guard against developing a gap in resources between schools and between programmes. The widening income gap amongst Singaporeans has manifested itself in a variety of ways – the so-called branded or elite schools which have larger alumnus or networks may be able to offer more expensive and more comprehensive learning programmes.

I also wish to reiterate my call for smaller class sizes, especially in Primary schools. More schools in Singapore have a class size of around 40, while Primary 1 and 2 classes have 30 students. This is large, compared to the OECD's average of 21 per class.

MOE has consistently emphasised that teaching quality is more important than going for small class sizes. I agree that teaching quality is important. However, it does not mean

Page: 62

that we cannot move towards having general class sizes that are smaller.

With falling birth rates, it appears from MOE's statistics that the cohort of students in primary schools is getting smaller each year. In 2012, there were nearly 49,000 students in Primary 6 versus less than 39,000 students per level in Primary 1 and Primary 2 – a difference of 10,000 students a year.

In contrast, the number of teachers is increasing. It has grown from under 30,000 in 2009 to 31,800 in 2012, and it is projected to grow to 33,000 by 2015. I understand some of these increases have been, and will be used by schools to decide how teachers will be flexibly deployed in specific situations, such as for learning support programmes and, sometimes, there are two teachers in a class of 40.

The best time to do planning for smaller class sizes is now. With increasingly smaller student enrolments, we may not need a lot more teachers than what MOE had already planned for. We can start moving towards smaller class sizes, say, starting at 30 students per class from Primary 3 and 4, and then gradually moving towards that ratio for Primary 5 and 6.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Seah Kian Peng) in the Chair]

That would necessitate some redesign of physical infrastructure in schools to have more classrooms. The smaller class sizes will also allow teachers to better understand individual students, which will be essential as we move towards a more holistic character and values-based education system. It will also help make classroom management easier for teachers, who may otherwise not be able to pay attention to the weaker students.

In my Committee of Supply (COS) speech last year, I had cited studies which noted that large class-size reductions can have significant long-term effects on students' achievements and these effects seem to be largest for students from less advantaged backgrounds.

Finally, I would like to add my thoughts on the topic of constructive politics which the President had spoken about. I am all for constructive debate in the contest of ideas, conducted with decorum. I believe that debate should be measured and not personal. At the same time, I believe there should be an environment where politics is seen to be fair and important institutions are independent, so that we can encourage the development of constructive politics.

I do not mean constructive politics just in this House, as Mdm Speaker herself had observed that "we do have quite a constructive Parliament". As the Secretary-General of the

Page: 63

Workers' Party, Mr Low Thia Khiang, said yesterday, to achieve constructive politics in a diverse and open society, everyone across society has their part to play.

Since I started my speech on the topic of education, I would like to repeat a call I had made in my maiden speech in this House, which is to have political education in schools, so that we can train up a new generation to be able to participate in constructive politics.

Political education can be about learning how to handle diversity and disagreement in views. It can help students understand our Constitution, the role of various institutions, citizenry rights and obligations, as well as the rationale behind these rights and obligations. It can provide them with platforms to air their views on policies and learn how to handle differences in opinions.

Our education system should allow students to engage deeper into subjects where there are ambiguities, where there are not always clear right and wrong answers. Such education programmes can help our future generations to be more confident to deal with the diversity of views in the public spaces when they grow up. This will allow Singapore to move towards more constructive debates in politics as the country matures.

Sir, come 1 June 2014, Singapore will host an impressive group of high-level government and business leaders in the World Cities Summit, definitely a prestigious global event. Included in the programme are specially designed Learning Journeys to unique sites in Singapore. Summit participants will visit:

(a) Punggol 21, a water-town of the 21st century;

(b) The Marina Barrage, an engineering marvel that not only boosts Singapore's water supply and flood control, but is also a recreational destination;

(c) The Sports Hub, our latest state-of-the-art, fully integrated sports, entertainment and lifestyle hub;

(d) The new downtown at Marina Bay; and

(e) Pinnacle@Duxton, the first award-winning public housing project and Singapore's first 50-storey public housing.

Page: 64

For a young nation, Singapore has, indeed, much to show. Led by a Pioneer Generation of fearless leaders and a determined people who built this city, Singapore has made it, in a mere 50 years. Yet, we are not the happiest campers in the world. We are prone to complain about how many things in our country are simply not right or good enough; and how others should do more to make our lives better. Even our repute as one of the cleanest places on earth is under question, not the outcome of good habits. The Chairman of the Public Hygiene Council, Mr Liak Teng Lit, tells me with indignance, "We are a cleaned city; not a clean city, because an army of cleaners clean up after us!"

Sir, the pledges and vision shared by the President in his Address, such as keeping pathways open to all, strengthening our social safety nets, caring for the vulnerable, poor and the old, are things that cannot be seen or quantified but things that count. They are the very aspirations surfaced in the one-year-long national conversations, Our Singapore Conversation, engaging some 46,000 Singaporeans through surveys and numerous labour-intensive face-to-face focus groups.

While I support the Motion of thanks, I, however, cannot agree with certainty the President's conclusion that "Our Best Years Lie Ahead". Our best years may not lie ahead. Sir, our best years can only lie ahead if we continue to labour on that which is unseen, yet highly valuable, in our country.

Today, I would like to touch on two areas: one, the Presidency Office, and two, the Public Sector.

The Presidency. Sir, it is not the first time that I have raised the issue of updating our political landscape and the need to review the Elected Presidency, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) and the Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) schemes.

In the debate on the President's Address in October 2011, I had called for the Government to examine if these created offices are still relevant in today's new political environment. And if the conditions under which they were introduced have changed, let us have the courage to slay these sacred cows before they become obese and unhealthy.

I would like to focus on the Elected Presidency scheme today.

The Presidency became a popularly-elected political office following constitutional amendments enacted in 1991. Until then, the President was a neutral ceremonial Head of State. The amendments gave the Elected President reserve powers over Government expenditure of the financial reserves of our country and also key public office appointments. The Elected President holds the executive right to block attempts by the Government of the

Page: 65

day, including specified Statutory Boards, to draw down reserves that it did not accumulate.

I share hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang's reservations about the power given to the Elected President.

If the government of the day is elected by popular vote, the electorate has to learn to live with its elected candidates and remove them at the next General Elections should there be better choices.

Added to my concern is also how the Elected Presidency scheme has admitted candidates who were non-executive chairpersons of companies or portfolio managers with no strong substantive executive experience, expecting them to exercise the very critical executive functions asked of the Elected President.

I long for the day of a senior statesman who can represent our country as a head of state in the likes of ex-Presidents Yusof bin Ishak and Dr Benjamin Sheares; statesmen who need not be lugged through yet another political campaigning process that divides the country instead of healing and uniting the people of Singapore.

Sir, as a foundation for more good years to come, we should re-examine the Elected Presidency scheme.

The Public Sector. Sir, the next suggestion I have to ensure that our country's best years are yet ahead, concerns another important key institution in our country – the Public Sector, the Public Service.

I recently watched the play, "Yes, Prime Minister", which caused me to ponder on the key institutions of Singapore's national political landscape. The play was adapted from a British political comedy, a satire, a favourite television programme of ex-British Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher.

The series depicts how in a world of revolving-door politics, where politicians come and go, how senior civil servants are, in fact, running the country, believing that it is the Civil Service that knows best what is good for the country. The power games in the television series that were played were hilarious but, at the same time, sobering. As our political system becomes more vibrant, what is depicted in "Yes, Prime Minister" is not an improbable scenario.

With the maturing of the political system and the gradual eroding perception of the politics of fear, the likelihood of revolving-door politics may one day become a reality in

Page: 66

Singapore. The top echelon of the Civil Service, of the Public Service, is set to play a critical role to ensure Singapore's stability and survival.

The Public Service, our Executive branch, is the largest employer in Singapore, employing some 139,000 officers in 16 Ministries and more than 50 Statutory Boards.

Together with the other Government-linked organisations, they form our nation's backbone. In recent years, they even set the trends and pace in being one of the best pay-masters. The Civil Service picks the crème-de-la crème to join its ranks and grooms them to helm its many Ministries and agencies. Its top performers are sometimes eyed for political appointments.

In my opinion, the Public Service needs to upgrade its operating system in at least three ways.

One, in the way it selects and develops especially its leaders. We are In a day and age when a mere web-search will produce an avalanche of good ideas. There is a need to rethink the kind of competencies we need for leadership in the Civil Service in the 21st century – 21st century competencies, such as facilitation, learning how to coax the best out of partners and staff, networking, communicating effectively in a digital age to citizens who have grown up digital.

Is there still a need for an elite Administrative Service which primarily admits persons of a specific form of intelligence? Or should the Administrative Service scheme be replaced by a more open and robust system to identify different talents and competencies for different types of leadership jobs? Is there a space for a Civil Service Human Resource (HR) system that is less exclusive and more porous, so that those without the traditional pedigree and yet own the desired leadership competencies might stand a chance of being in the leadership team in the Public Service?

Two, the Public Service also needs to upgrade its operating system in the way it recognises and rewards performances. The traditional system by which officers are ranked in groups amongst supervisors who hardly know the staff, calls for an update. There is rumbling on the ground by even civil servants themselves, no less, on the quality of a recognition system that is based in part on how aggressive one's supervisor fights for one's ranking against other similarly enthused supervisors similarly pushing for their own staff.

Three, the Public Service needs to redesign and resource a more effective communication blueprint that allows it to: one, proactively identify issues that matter on the ground; two, consults and co-shapes with citizens important policies and programmes that

Page: 67

affect the lives of the people of Singapore, such as the CPF Minimum Sum Scheme or even the latest Pioneer Generation Package; and three, not only informs decisions that ultimately have to be taken, but also explains and takes feedback, not once but on an ongoing basis in order to finetune and hone its work in order to meet its purpose.

Sir, in the possibility of a future of revolving-door politics where incumbent politicians may not stay long enough to dwell deeper into critical national issues, I feel there is a strong need to take stock of the strengths and weaknesses and update one of the most important key institutions of our country, the Public Service.

In conclusion, Sir, I cannot agree more with the President when he said that an increase in Government spending, especially on social programmes, "does not necessarily create a wealthier, a better or a happier society". Neither will cheaper flats, lower COEs, universal healthcare coverage make us all happier, I suspect.

What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul? Ultimately, however strong or weak our political and public institutions are, our saving grace must come from within each one of us, each Singaporean. Each of us needs to invest in our moral fibre to do the right thing and not do what is populist and self-serving. Each of us needs to exercise the power of one and ensure that our conscience stays intact.

As a people, we need to examine and agree on some fundamentals, update them, so that, indeed, the best days lie ahead. For example, as we pursue First World ambitions, can we look up from our smart phones and tithe some of our time and resources for those amongst us who are disadvantaged, such as the severely disabled, the abandoned elderly, the ex-convicts and their families, knowing that it would take more than paid social workers and Government agencies to give them a fighting chance for success?

Can we pledge that the family unit remains the fundamental unit of our society and the first port of call for love and help, that we do not abandon the care of our loved ones to the care of others? Can we continue to endorse the principle that work comes before welfare, that if we can work, we work, before we seek welfare?

Can we agree that the doers who make things happen, the blue-collar workers who clean up after us, deserve a better lot and a better place in our society? Can we exercise not just courage to speak up for our own needs and causes, but extend consideration and courtesy for others who, too, have their own needs and causes?

Sir, the Our Singapore Conversation has only just begun. I agree with other Members of this House who have asked for the national conversations to be continued. A friend of mine

Page: 68

who runs a successful tuition agency, a very successful one, asked his students, all youths, what they thought of Singaporeans. The word "selfish" comes up often. When Minister Lim Swee Say recently called for Singaporeans to be better customers, there were a number of people who disagreed with him, claiming that it was bad service that trigger bad customers. But two wrongs – bad service, bad customers – do not make a right.

Hence, until the majority of us agree on the social contract that governs our society, that governs how we treat each other, especially the least amongst us, I am afraid our best days may be over. Nonetheless, Sir, I still support the Motion of thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of the Second Session of the Twelfth Parliament. I thank him for his vision.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to thank the President for his Address. The President spoke about the challenges we face in building our future together. His words strongly resonated with me.

A key trend that Singapore needs to manage well is our ageing population. This was not a factor in the last few decades of our development. But it is now a key issue that has major ramifications in our social and economic spheres.

This is all the more pertinent when we consider that Singapore's population will age even more rapidly than Japan's. The proportion of seniors in Japan increased from 10% to 23% within 25 years from 1985 to 2010. In comparison, Singapore's proportion of seniors, which was 9% in 2010, is projected to hit 24% within a span of just 20 years, by 2030.

There are valuable lessons we can draw from Japan's experience. Thus far, despite an ageing population, Japan has remarkably managed to sustain a high standard of living, from the 1980s till present. This may be attributed to policies that successfully increase labour force participation rates as well as innovations that increase productivity and reduce manpower requirements. Nonetheless, these measures will delay, not avert, the long-term demographic threat to Japan's growth and the complexion of their society.

Today, I would like to reflect on this issue. How do we, as a nation, confront the challenges from the inexorable ageing of our population? What will our future be as our population ages and how can we build Singapore into a place for us not only to grow up in, but also to grow old in?

Page: 69

As the Chairman of REACH, I have listened to the numerous concerns of our fellow Singaporeans and ageing is one that deeply affects many Singaporeans.

I would, first, like to focus on such anxieties with reference to one particular group of Singaporeans. This is the middle-aged and older PMEs who are in the lower-middle and middle-income groups. They are in their 40s and above – many have children still dependent on them and aged parents to take care of.

Concerns remain for this group of PMEs. They are worried about the looming healthcare costs for themselves as they age, as well as for their aged parents. They have started thinking about their retirement. Will they be able to stay active and continue to work for as long as they are able to? And will they be able to save enough and retire with financial peace of mind? They are also worried about their job security, that they will be retrenched, replaced by someone younger and, subsequently, find it difficult to secure another job.

Like many of my fellow Members who have spoken on the matter – Mr Patrick Tay and Ms Foo Mee Har, to name a few – I understand their concerns. Recently, one of my grassroots leaders came up to me and asked me for help. He is 54 and had worked as a supervisor in a manufacturing company all his life. The company closed down his division. He lost his job and now finds it difficult to find another job. We see them at our Meet-the-People sessions and we do our best to help them. As a Government, we are committed to assuaging their fears.

In the area of healthcare, we are striving to ensure that quality healthcare remains affordable and accessible. We have put in place multiple tiers of protection to keep healthcare affordable – heavy Government subsidies, together with our 3M framework – Medisave, MediShield and Medifund.

We are making policy shifts to make healthcare even more affordable through more Government subsidies, more Medisave use, and a move from MediShield to MediShield Life to better protect against large hospitalisation bills. We enhanced subsidies for long-term care in 2012 and will continue to strengthen long-term care financing.

In addition, the Pioneer Generation Package will go some way to give greater peace of mind to those in the Pioneer Generation and their families. The outpatient care components of the Package, that is, an additional 50% off subsidised services at the Specialist Outpatient Clinics and polyclinics, as well as special subsidies under the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS), will commence on 1 September this year.

Page: 70

Mr Zaqy Mohamad, Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Dhinakaran have rightly highlighted the importance of communicating Government policies to the people. They will be heartened to know that the Pioneer Generation Taskforce, co-chaired by Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo and myself, has been working hard to improve outreach and communications to Singaporeans about the package. The taskforce includes members from the people and social sectors, as well as from media-related fields.

I am glad that several groups of volunteers and organisations have stepped forward to offer their help to reach out to our pioneers, to let them know about the package and the benefits. Together with our own efforts, such community outreach will enable our messages to be sustained. We will keep an open mind, and we are trying out various outreach methods. We will learn as we go along, on how best to help our pioneers better understand and benefit from the package.

For instance, we recognise the need to go beyond English and use vernacular languages in our outreach. The taskforce has published advertorials about the Pioneer Generation Package in the Chinese, Malay and Tamil newspapers, as well as played radio advertisements on Capital 95.8 FM in six Chinese dialects. On top of publicity through the mass media, we are also taking our messages to our various contact points with pioneers.

On the healthcare front, we are training healthcare staff across our public healthcare institutions, such as polyclinics and Specialist Outpatient Clinics, to equip them with information about the Pioneer Generation Package and help address common questions and concerns from Singaporeans. To date, we have reached out to more than a thousand healthcare staff. We are also enlisting the help of staff at Senior Activity Centres and Senior Care Centres, who are in frequent contact with their pioneer generation clients. They, too, can help explain the package to pioneers in the languages they are comfortable in.

Our healthcare providers in the private sector are important as well. Minister Gan has just recently announced that all pioneer generation members will be eligible for special CHAS subsidies starting in September. We are thus embarking on an outreach to the CHAS GP and dental clinics to prepare them for these changes. At the same time, I hope that more GP clinics and dental clinics can join CHAS so that our pioneers can benefit.

In the area of retirement adequacy, we also seek to provide Singaporeans with greater peace of mind by constantly making improvements to the CPF. For example, in recent years, we introduced CPF LIFE to provide monthly payouts from our own CPF savings for as long as we live – doing away with the worry that our savings may run out in later years. Monetisation schemes help elderly Singaporeans unlock the value of their flats, many of which have

Page: 71

appreciated substantially over the years.

Many middle-aged PMEs who are soon approaching 55 years old are also concerned about the CPF Minimum Sum. This has been the subject of much discussion and debate online, as well as in our kopi tiams.

Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has provided a detailed explanation of the rationale for the CPF and the Minimum Sum in his blog post last Sunday. So, I will not repeat his points but I would like to encourage us all to read it so that we can explain the policy better to our constituents.

I acknowledge that it is not a perfect system, and I assure Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, Ms Tan Su Shan and others that we will continue to review how else we can improve it, taking into account feedback and suggestions, such as whether we should raise older worker contribution rates further, whether payouts should be inflation-indexed, and whether there are better ways for the elderly to unlock the value of their flats.

For PMEs who find themselves in between jobs, employment facilitation is critical to help our displaced PMEs get back into employment quickly. This goes hand-in-hand with training and lifelong learning so that skills can be refreshed and new job opportunities seized. Thus far, we have made some progress to empower PMEs, by setting up CaliberLink in 2011, as well as through WDA-funded training programmes.

As we work longer, staying employed in a single job or profession throughout our working lives will become a thing of the past. As Mr Patrick Tay said yesterday, having a second skill will make us more resilient to economic changes because what we know today may be obsolete tomorrow. Hence, we will do more to provide our PMEs with the opportunities to reskill and upskill.

It is never too late to go back to school. If Kumar can go back to school, so can you! Hence, we are making major revisions to our CET Masterplan, to give greater emphasis to self-initiated upgrading, and to better empower individuals to pursue their career goals and aspirations through CET. This will boost adult education and allow Singaporeans to have, as the President mentioned in his Address, "a second chance … and always have the chance to try again … to learn, and to earn our own success".

In addition, the Fair Consideration Framework signals our expectation for employers to give Singaporeans a fair chance at available job opportunities, before hiring Employment Pass holders. It does not mean that firms have to hire Singaporeans first or Singaporeans only, but it allows our displaced older PMEs to have a fair chance of securing that job.

Page: 72

Ms Foo Mee Har advocated a "Hire Singaporeans First" policy. That may have unintended consequences in our context. In the globalised economy, competition for jobs tends to be between countries and not only within countries. As a small city-state, we must be able to first compete with other cities for job opportunities by making sure that Singapore remains an attractive place for businesses. Many companies come to Singapore to serve the region. In doing so, they create quality jobs for Singaporeans. At the same time, companies need access to skills and expertise from overseas to complement the local workforce.

Our approach is to maintain a level playing field, and help equip Singaporeans with the skills they need to fill the quality jobs created by the economy. We are, in fact, putting the interests of Singaporeans first when we say that we want to grow the economy and job opportunities. But we need to be practical about how we go about doing it. Compelling employers to hire local PMEs who may not have the right skills will introduce significant labour market rigidity. Employers may feel constrained and be unable to hire the best person for the job. That may, ultimately, hurt Singaporeans when companies find their manpower needs unmet and they relocate some or all of their operations elsewhere.

For older workers, including many of our PMEs, we want to help them remain employed for as long as they are willing and able to work. The Tripartite Committee on the Employability of Older Workers, or Tricom for short, and which I chair, drives efforts to support the continued employment of older workers.

The Tricom is looking at the extension of the re-employment age from 65 to 67. At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to review and iron out any outstanding implementation issues, such as guidelines on wage adjustment and presumption of medical fitness, and update the law and the Tripartite Guidelines on the Re-employment of Older Employees. We are finalising the proposals with our tripartite partners and should be ready to share these plans later this year.

But even before the law is changed, I want to encourage employers to re-employ those who have reached 65 years old as long as they are able and willing to work. This could help mitigate some of the effects of the current tight labour market.

As noted by the Prime Minister, the Civil Service is already taking the lead and has re-employed almost 800 workers above 65 years. I have also read about PRIMA Limited, which manages the Prima Deli bakery franchise – last year, it became the first unionised firm in the F&B industry to formally commit to rehiring workers beyond 65 years old and with no pay cut.

Page: 73

Let me also clarify some misconceptions about the re-employment age.

First, raising the re-employment age does not mean that we do not want Singaporeans to retire. It means that we want to help those who wish to continue working to be able to do so.

Second, the statutory retirement age of 62 is not to require Singaporeans to retire at 62. The law, in fact, protects workers below 62 from being dismissed on the grounds of age. There is no legal requirement for employers to retire workers at a certain age.

I think Singaporeans who want to work longer will welcome this. Mr Heng Chee How will also be very happy. After we introduced re-employment legislation in 2012, 99% of private sector local employees who turned 62 in the year ending June 2013 were offered re-employment, and 98% – or almost all – accepted the offer. Recently, of the 50 workers aged above 55 years interviewed by The Straits Times on 2 May 2014, 70% said that they wanted to work beyond 65 years, even if it means getting less pay.

When it comes to addressing the challenges of ageing, perceptions matter as much as policy. It takes a mindset change by all members of our society, including employers, co-workers and the public to support older workers at work. As the saying goes, "Ageing is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter."

This brings me to a broader point: that even as we provide greater assurance to Singaporeans on healthcare affordability, retirement adequacy and employment issues, ageing brings a set of psychological and emotional challenges. We need to remember that ageing should not be something we dread.

We need to change the way we think about growing old and move the conversation from a negative one of worrying about the problems of ageing to a positive one of tapping on the opportunities from our increased longevity.

As we all know, Singapore's life expectancy has increased dramatically within one generation – children born today can expect to live a full decade longer than their parents born 30 years ago. Now, we have the fourth longest life expectancy in the world! While some see the demographic burden of an increasingly aged population, I see opportunity in this longevity.

First, "chronological" age does not equate to "health" age. While we generally think of someone above the age of 65 years as a "senior", 65 is not a magical number where our seniors instantly become ridden with disability and turn into a burden to the rest of society.

Page: 74

True, our body functions become less than optimal as we age, but through better nutrition, education, healthcare and technology, we are already bending this curve, and, in fact, many of our seniors continue to be active, enthusiastic contributors to our society.

We can learn from some of the world's oldest nations which are adjusting their approaches so that their seniors can continue leading active lifestyles. For example, Japan is encouraging the use of technology, such as robots, to help seniors handle daily tasks and remain independent. Many seniors in Japan also continue to be active – working or volunteering in the community.

Second, we should rethink how we want to capitalise on this additional longevity. The mindset that many people have today is to study hard for the first one-third of our life, work hard for the next one-third, and spend the last one-third in retirement. If we live till 90 or 100, that is some 30 years in retirement!

How then should we re-plan our lives taking into account the longer lives that we can expect to live? For some, it could mean desiring to work for as long as one is able to. And that is where our Re-employment Legislation and our new CET Masterplan will help.

Yet, for others, living a longer life affords them more time to fulfil their many aspirations. With more time, can we keep our minds active by learning a new skill that we had always wanted to pick up, but had been too busy to? More importantly, can we take some time to contribute back to society through volunteer work and enrich ours as well as the lives of others?

These are questions we can reflect on, to make the best use of our increased longevity. You might not believe this – as I think I have done a great maintenance job – perhaps because I have picked up some of the eight secrets to a long and healthy life that Dr Janil has shared, but in less than a decade, I will edge towards this magical age of 65. Some of these issues are beginning to weigh on my mind. In fact, I think, indeed, the spirit is willing but I am afraid the flesh might be getting weaker.

Third, as we change the conversation on ageing to a more optimistic one, we should use this opportunity to shape the values that we, as a society, want, and define the social texture of the nation that we will grow old in.

Every society is anchored in its older generation. They are the nation's repository of wisdom and experience, and the conduit through which its values are passed on, something which Mr Ang Hin Kee pointed out as well. If there is one value that defines our nation, it would be filial piety. In the Our Singapore Conversation survey of 4,000 Singaporeans, filial

Page: 75

piety was the one value that strongly resonated with people regardless of background, age and education levels.

I am, therefore, heartened by the preliminary findings of the recently concluded HDB Sample Household Survey which showed that more young couples are living together with or near their parents in the same HDB estate. Minister Khaw is thus mulling over whether such couples should be given even greater assistance to do so. This would, indeed, help our elderly to age in place, among family and friends.

Minister Gan has outlined the plans of the Ministerial Committee on Ageing (MCA) to hold a series of public consultations to develop a national plan for successful ageing. I encourage Singaporeans from all walks of life to share their aspirations for successful ageing.

As we celebrate our nation's golden jubilee next year, it is fitting that we reflect on our own golden years. Can we be optimistic about ageing and change the way we think about growing old? Let me share a quote from the late Catholic writer Henri Nouwen – "Ageing is not a reason for despair, but a basis for hope, not a slow decaying but a gradual maturing, not a fate to be undergone but a chance to be embraced."

We should not sit back and allow what some call the "Silver Tsunami" to overwhelm us. Instead, we should choose to see the silver lining in the grey clouds and see opportunity in longevity, so that we can build an empowering environment that we can all look forward to growing old in, as envisioned by Minister Gan – our Nation for All Ages.

I thank the Member for her clarification. In fact, that is the reason why we are implementing the Fair Consideration Framework so that Singaporeans would be given a fair chance to secure that job. But they will have to also compete in terms of having the appropriate skills and relevance to the job.

It is very clear in the Fair Consideration Framework that the employer needs to advertise the job for 14 days. But I think what would have been very helpful is if it were to go a bit further in having the merit of the application also considered. So, if Singaporeans are equally qualified for the job, if MOM would consider, going forward, that Singaporeans would be considered first if they are equally qualified, two equally qualified persons, that the Singaporean would be given the opportunity first. This is for MOM to consider going forward for its policy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Firstly, I would like to thank the President for his speech that was encouraging and provides direction to the Government for the Twelfth Parliament. Within a short period of time, we have developed from a lethargic trading centre to a prosperous and vibrant city. Just by looking at the skyscrapers at night, a lot can be said about the Government's efforts to build this nation.

Behind the scenes, our Pioneer Generation and leaders had put in a lot of blood and sweat as well as dedication to build a strong foundation for our society. The sacrifices made by our Pioneer Generation are something we should be proud of.

Our nation is half a century old and is still young, compared to other countries. They have history, culture and policies that are centuries old while we are still mastering many sectors. Sometimes, we explore on our own, and sometimes, we explore further. Certainly, our journey will become more challenging in the era of globalisation. These are interesting times with the exchange of ideas and rapid development but, at times, social stability is affected. We must find the balance between pursuing change and development, and navigating current challenges. We must also look ahead and help the people realise their aspirations.

With a higher standard of living and the voicing of opinions being made easier, more Singaporeans are keen to step forward and voice their opinions.

Page: 87

It does not matter whether they voice out as a politician or as a citizen, or sometimes as both. Any debate about the challenges that our nation faces is something that is healthy and will help us explore new ideas.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The public must remain calm and objective when engaging in any debate, especially a political one. Otherwise, during a heated debate, they may overlook logic and analysis which could lead to negative effects.

In March, we saw students in Taiwan forcefully taking over their Legislative Council to demonstrate against the Services and Trade Agreement signed between Taiwan and China. Recently, in Vietnam, we have seen territorial dispute-triggered demonstrations, causing damage to property and even loss of lives. There are many such cases in other parts of the world, including the situation in Thailand today, which is very worrisome.

Singapore is a diverse, multiracial country, so it is not easy to maintain social stability. Many politicians abroad envy our political and social stability and development.

When we engage actively in debate, we need to see it with a long-term perspective and consider the common interests of our people. Sometimes, people choose a quick solution for short-term gains. However, the long-term invisible negative effects can be difficult to reverse. In order for our political debates to be more constructive, we need to be open-minded and listen to other people's suggestions. Remarks that lack detailed explanations or logical analysis, and words full of hatred will not only not help but can also cause a divide in the society. It is easy to criticise policies, but just to criticise without offering an alternative solution is not constructive. It is not only not constructive, sometimes it can even be damaging.

To push for populist policies may be easy; but it is extremely difficult to come up with policies that consider the long-term interests of the country. The Government continuously adjusts its policies to better take care of the different needs of the people, and help our people meet various challenges. For example, our seniors will benefit from the Pioneer Generation Package which aims to substantially reduce their healthcare cost burden. Singaporeans also enjoy more healthcare benefits.

As for children who are now growing up, MOE will improve our education system, including changing the school curriculum. The aim of education should never be just to get better grades. It is more important to nurture our students so that they have the right moral

Page: 88

values and good character.

This is also why we have now introduced the Singapore Youth Volunteering Scheme. This scheme allows our youths to have the chance to do volunteer work, both in Singapore and abroad, building up their living skills and character as well. I hope that more youths will participate more actively in this meaningful scheme.

(In English): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government has been focusing on ways to provide lifelong learning opportunities for PMETs to remain relevant. The Continuing Education and Training (CET) Masterplan is aimed at creating a lifelong learning system that helps employees seize opportunities with newer and better skills. The CET has involved exemplary public and private providers, as well as education institutions, to design and fund training pathways for various industries.

The Government is even funding courses in UniSIM for working adults. They can upgrade existing skills or even have the freedom of switching to a new career path. These are evidence of the Government's dedication to ensure that there are sufficient economic opportunities for its people.

For the middle income, the Government understands their difficulties as the sandwiched middle class, and has introduced a slew of measures to relieve their financial difficulties. Many benefits previously only available to the lower income have also been extended to the middle income class. These include reviewing the Housing Grants and income ceilings, availing more subsidies for Kindergarten education through the Kindergarten Fee Assistance Scheme, and bursaries for tertiary students from middle income families.

Certainly, there is always room for improvement, and I am glad to see that in recent years, with every Budget, there are bold moves to seek changes and improvement for the various groups of Singaporeans.

I would like to focus on a few areas where I feel we can further strengthen our social infrastructure. I know that the Government is doing a lot to push for more buses to be put into service to complement the MRT lines. I hope, in doing so, we do not also lose sight of the fact that as more vehicles are on the road, the traffic flow will have to be more efficiently managed. We should also review the size of the bus stops and their locations, so that we do not try to solve one problem but create another in the process. The network of main and arterial roads should also be reviewed to see how we can best use them to ensure an efficient traffic flow.

Page: 89

On this note, I would like to ask our Minister for Transport what is the status of road works in Yishun, especially the alternative route to the Expressways because there are so many new BTOs being built, more and more residents shifting to Yishun, especially Nee Soon South, I would like to know what is the status of interchange construction linking the Central Expressway (CTE), Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) and Seletar Expressway (SLE). When will these be completed?

Over the years, we have also seen the revival of another form of transport – the bicycles. If our transport cost continues to rise, we may see more people switching to this mode of moving from one point to another.

I know of one office building in the city where the developer built a "cage" for bicycles to be secured, and with bathrooms nearby for cyclists to get a quick change to office wear. We need to do more for our cyclists. When I was in France last year for our World Table Tennis Championship, I noticed that there is an extensive bicycle lane at the road side. That means parallel with the road with the bicycle signage, and then people cycle in single file. In Holland, there are extensive dedicated cycling paths. Whichever model that we would like to adopt, we need to make a decision, so that more cyclists can have a safer place to cycle.

On the other hand, with urbanisation and the tussle for space, I feel that all road users – motorists, cyclists and pedestrians – should show more courtesy to one another. Last Sunday, when I was at a coffee shop in Nee Soon South, quite a number of residents came up to me and told me that, very often, cyclists cycled through coffee shops and they were nearly knocked down by bicycles.

Next, on housing. I am glad that the Minister has adopted my suggestion of building three-generation flats and I hope that more will be built. This is to enable residents to live under one roof. For those who choose to live near their parents, I hope that they will be given priority in allocation, so that they can live near their parents. May I also suggest that we build more Studio Apartments and give priority to parents who choose to live near their children? That means we give priority to children who want to live near their parents; we also give priority to parents who want to right-size their flat and live near their children.

Next, give more help to those who want to buy flats, especially first-timers and divorcees with children. I notice that HDB has this habit of asking residents to show their bank accounts. Last night, during my Meet-the-People Session, I just saw a mother and her daughter. Daughter, 20 years old, her name is Amanda, left Sports School two years ago and she first worked as a freelance swimming coach and took home about $900. Her parents divorced when she was seven years old. The mother earns about $31,000 a year. Amanda wants to buy a flat with her mum. She is a first-timer, her mother is a divorcee. They went to HDB to ask for a loan. HDB said no, Amanda works as a freelance swimming coach, no

Page: 90

steady income, so cannot buy HDB flat. Amanda got a steady income job since February 2013 and her monthly salary is $2,800. Besides that, she continued as a freelance coach earning another $900 and, happily, they went to see HDB. This time, HDB says no again. Why? HDB says that their bank account does not show that they are building up their savings.

I would like to ask how many of you in this House, when you just first started working had savings in your bank account? I remember I was living from hand-to-mouth. I remember I went to my HR department once, telling them that they forgot to pay my salary. But when they checked, they saw that they had already paid but then it was because I had spent it. So, not many people have that kind of savings. Since she has a steady income, her mother also has income, I think we should let them buy their HDB flat. And Amanda is not the only one. I have seen taxi drivers and entrepreneurs having the same problem. They say that "HDB saw my accounts and thinks that I cannot afford to buy a flat".

The next group of residents are those who are 55 years or older who want to buy flats. I think we know that when we reach 55, our money in the Ordinary Accounts and Special Accounts are locked away in the Retirement Accounts. So, for those who are 50-plus nearing 55, they are very anxious. Many of them, when they want to buy flats, they have money in their Retirement Accounts, but they do not have flats because they say they need the money in the Retirement Accounts to buy the Studio Apartments. I have been seeing this group of residents quite regularly.

One last group of residents that I feel we need to help is the group of residents affected by the "valuation limit". They have money in CPF but they do not have cash. Because CPF says that they have reached the valuation limit, they cannot use CPF to pay their mortgage. Normally, this group of residents are in their 40s, late 40s, in their 50s. They have a lot of responsibilities, children's tertiary education and so on. I hope that we can review this policy.

Our compassionate Minister Khaw and his team have done a lot, have done well, over the last few years. Many of my residents have got their flats except those that I mentioned above. And those are some suggestions on finetuning, so as to perfect our caring and compassionate housing policies.

Just as we need good transport network, the housing estates will also need hawker centres which are places to get cheap food. The hawker centres have become popular gathering areas for community bonding and networking. I hope NEA can build more hawker centres and build them faster. NEA announced that there would be a hawker centre in Yishun and the announcement was made in 2011.

Page: 91

And if I may say it in Hokkien, "Wu tia thio sia, bo kua thio ngia". Until now, we have not seen anything and I certainly hope that construction work can start this year.

Mr Deputy Speaker, our physical environment also requires close attention. As we have a higher population density in our estates, we need to pay more attention to greenery, cleanliness and environmental health issues. The Government is already working on addressing these problems but, in some areas, residents should take on more personal responsibility.

I am pleased that Nee Soon South residents have been very supportive of our monthly litter-picking exercises. I am pleased that residents also supported "No Cleaners Day" on 1 May. We started this last year. Last year, on "No Cleaners Day", residents picked up 1,430 kg of litter. That is a lot. This year, on our second "No Cleaners Day", residents picked up 500 kg of litter. There is a reduction but I still think that more can be done. We will make "No Cleaners Day" on May Day a permanent fixture in Nee Soon South. I hope this can be done nationwide.

Next, I would like to touch on the ill-effects of tobacco use. Tobacco use kills more than five million people per year. Five million people – that is like the population in Singapore.