Audrey Wong Wai Yen
Singapore
“A means to bring people together with unity and not uniformity, meaning not to replicate programmes over and over again unless there is indeed interest within their respective fields. The Member's third point really is raising standards.”
“Therefore, I hope MICA will allocate funds for more research and scholarship on arts, culture and heritage, including resourcing critical writing platforms in Singapore, whether print or online, and tapping into the expertise and experience of writers, curators and critics living and working in Singapore.”
“There are certainly still areas for debate which other Members of the House have already raised: how to increase productivity levels and reduce dependence on foreign workers – just to name two ongoing long-term issues.”
“There is a saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and so a strong society is one where its leadership pays attention to those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder to enhance not only the material and economic well-being but also the social well-being of its people.”
“I think that where business is concerned, a lot of companies will find different ways and means to earn extra income and to get around the rules, and I hope that the Ministry will continue to be vigilant to some of these practices.”
“However, as a Bill that protects the family and especially the rights of children, the Women's Charter continues to be an extremely important piece of legislation for our society, and I thank the MCYS Minister for proposing the amendments. With that, I support the Bill. 5.40 pm”
The complete record
Every one of 130 lines we hold for Audrey Wong Wai Yen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“When the proposed amendments to the Medical Registration Act were put out for public consultation in early 2009, there was understandably much interest and concern. Healthcare and housing issues probably draw the most emotional responses from Singaporeans as they affect all of us at some point in our lives. It is emotionally draining and heartbreaking to fall severely ill, or to care for a loved one who is sick, or to watch someone you love suffering. Added to this emotional aspect of the issue of regulating medical practice is the rising number of complaints handled by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in the last three years. According to a New Paper report in 2009, there were 81 cases in 2006, 115 in 2007 and 138 in 2008. There has also been an increase in the number of claims for compensation being filed by patients against doctors. According to a Straits Times report, also last year, the claims rate is going up by about 10% a year. Singaporeans are definitely becoming more demanding patients; they do not only desire the best clinical care, they also demand good service and customer care from doctors and hospitals. And this has put more pressure on the modern-day doctor. With many diseases and their treatments being complicated, there is always a risk of patients and doctors ending up in situations of misunderstanding. There is also the growing practice of aesthetic medicine, where patient satisfaction is not based solely on the doctor prescribing the right treatment for a clinical condition.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join this debate. I understand that it has been some years since the Medical Registration Act was last amended and since then, there have certainly been new developments in the medical profession and practice. I am in support of the Bill’s broad aims which take into account new needs and developments in the sector, while maintaining the necessity of self-regulation by the medical profession and the importance of upholding the very highest standards of treatment, care and, last but not least, ethics. The proposed amendments certainly appear to be aimed at developing more rigour in the Medical Council’s self-regulatory mechanisms and are also broadening aspects of the Council’s powers and scope to take into account the more complex issues in medical practice today. It also takes into account the increasing number of complaints and a better-read public with more access to information about medicine. Among the changes, I welcome the formation of a Register of Family Physicians. This field of medicine which provides comprehensive health care for the person and the family covering the biological, clinical, and behavioural aspects of medicine for all ages, from children to the elderly, is likely to be more important for our society which is aging rapidly and where people are more susceptible to stress-related, mental as well as physical ailments at different stages of their lives. We have a College of Family Physicians founded in 1971 and a Register of Family Physicians recognises this branch of medicine and will encourage a high standard of practice.”
“Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Manpower in cases where employers of foreign domestic workers are not able to afford the full payment of their maids' medical, hospitalisation and related bills (a) what are the options available to the employers; (b) whether it is possible to put a cap on the maximum liability of the employer; and (c) whether part of the foreign maid levies collected can go towards a fund to pay for the excess beyond the maximum liability. 12. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Manpower (a) how the new minimum medical insurance coverage of $15,000 for foreign domestic workers (FDWs) compares with other countries; (b) what are the percentages, numbers and medians of hospital bills in excess of $5,000 incurred by FDWs over the last three years; and (c) what is the rationale for requiring employers to face unlimited liability for their FDWs' hospital bills compared to the standard employment contract in which employers have limited liability for their employees' hospital bills.”
“Two supplementary questions, Minister. First, I would like to ask if the Ministry is studying the impact of the poor economy on the arts in Singapore as a whole and, secondly, whether the increase in the Esplanade's programming has actually impacted on the use and attendance at other theatre venues in Singapore. RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew: On the impact of the poor economy, we were not looking only at the Esplanade but, in fact, looking at how we could make available additional resources for the different arts groups and the practitioners. Originally, we had planned to do a Singapore Season overseas, and we decided that this was not the right time to do so for a variety of reasons. One, of course, sponsorship was going to be difficult; two, the overseas audience would, I think, be distracted by some of the difficulties in the financial and economic spheres. But the most important consideration was actually that we wanted to swing more of the resources to support the domestic market and make more money and more support available to our arts practitioners. Although we recognise, of course, that they do benefit from the exposure overseas but we felt that we could do more by channelling the money that would otherwise be spent on Singapore Season overseas to support arts groups here in Singapore. When the economy recovers, we actually would think of renewing some of these programmes. FOREIGN DOMESTIC WORKERS (Payments of medical bills) 11.”
“I will also like to lend my voice to support my fellow Member, Mr Christopher de Souza's call for the Casino Regulatory Authority to work more closely with NCPG and the Ministry of Home Affairs to track the social impact of the activities of casinos on Singapore as a whole, for instance, to track the trends or any rise in illegal activities or negative activities in society at large such as money laundering, loansharking and vice activities. In last month's parliamentary session, there seemed to be a lot of concern about the visibility of illegal moneylenders and how they harass residents in HDB estates. These clearly are concerns for many Singaporeans and I hope that we continue to monitor and track how we regulate the casinos in Singapore. With that, I support the Bill. 4.13 pm”
“In some of the Australian states, restrictions on advertising and promotion of gambling and casinos are written into legislation. In the Australian Capital Territory's Gambling Industry Code of Practice, there is also a stipulation that information about gambling counselling services must be made available in conjunction with advertising. As it stands, it appears that gambling might be on its way to becoming more socially acceptable. Mdm Ho Geok Choo had earlier cited certain surveys to show that the number of gamblers has increased. I find it interesting also to read in the survey on participation and gambling activities among Singapore residents in 2008 which was published by the National Council on Problem Gambling, that compared to the findings in 2005, the proportion of respondents in 2008 who considered 4D, Toto, Singapore Sweep and social gambling as leisure activities actually increased and "increased substantially", in the survey's own words. I believe around 50% of respondents considered these forms of gambling to be leisure activities. Other Members of the House have spoken on these disturbing trends as well. I am aware that MCYS and National Council on Problem Gambling are seriously addressing these issues and that they have already made a headstart on them. I hope that the relevant Ministries will continue to monitor and review the measures on gambling-related activities and to propose new legislation as the need arises.”
“Perhaps, we should have a period of careful study once the casinos are in operation to monitor the efficacy of the legislation as well as the regulatory mechanisms, including those mechanisms that are managed by the casinos themselves, and not be afraid to make further amendments in the future, if necessary. Please allow me now to turn to another issue of concern – the regulations and restrictions on public advertising of the casinos. When the Integrated Resorts open, we can expect a lot of fanfare, glitz, media coverage and advertising. It will be premature to presume that increased media coverage and advertising will encourage Singaporeans to gamble more. But we should be careful not to discount the impact of aggressive advertising on human behaviour, particularly if casino-related activities are portrayed as glamorous lifestyle and entertainment options. There are already regulations against advertising on gambling in Singapore and I understand there will be restrictions on advertising of the casinos in Singapore. I would like to seek further clarifications on specific regulations regarding advertising of the IRs and casino activity. Will casino operators be subject to a certain advertising code of practice? For instance, would advertising depicting gambling-related activities or any aspect of the IRs which relates to gambling be allowed at bus-stops near schools? We already have some regulations on certain activities such as the screening and advertising of R(A) movies in Singapore, with the rationale being to protect the innocence of the young. Will we have more specific regulations to protect the vulnerable with regard to IR advertising and how will this be implemented and enforced?”
“I would urge that exclusion orders, when they are implemented, to be done with due consideration of their impact on the individual on their sense of responsibility to their families as well as the impact on their family relationships and also to ensure that these individuals have the chance to improve their financial circumstances. I hope the Minister will further explicate the reasons for automatic exclusion. I would also like to ask for more explanation on how automatic exclusion will be implemented. Does it mean there will be much more inter-agency cooperation because different agencies handle casino regulation, Public Assistance and bankruptcy? Would MCYS and the Public Trustees Office share information and automatically and regularly update the Council on the names and particulars of persons on Public Assistance and undischarged bankrupts, including automatically informing the Council when a bankrupt has been discharged? Will there be a time lag between the discharge of a bankrupt and the revocation of an exclusion order by the Council? And is there still provision for someone who may wish to object to his exclusion as provided for in the existing Chapter 165 of the Act or will this no longer apply once automatic exclusion kicks in? I am not in opposition to the spirit of the law with regard to protecting those most at risk. We are all aware of the destructive and painful effects of problem gambling on families and individuals. Singapore is entering into new territory with the IRs and our regulatory mechanisms will be tested as the IRs start to operate and these would include the laws on exclusion orders.”
“Paulin Tay Straughan, I am concerned about whether automatic exclusion or some of the exclusion orders would erode the sense of responsibility of the individual by taking away the powers of self-determination. If individuals are not allowed to determine for themselves what is good for their families and to make the right judgments and decisions, take responsibility for their own families, it might reinforce the attitude of dependency on the State. And automatic exclusion I feel could perhaps reinforce an attitude of dependency on the State. We must encourage people to take responsibility for their lives. I am sure we would all like Singaporeans to be much more self-reliant and resilient. Undoubtedly, it is irresponsible for someone on Public Assistance or someone who is an undischarged bankrupt especially to use Public Assistance funds to gamble or to use it to pay the $100 admission charge to the casinos. However, automatic exclusion may not actually stop persons with poor credit records from potentially developing gambling problems. Anyone can still get their fix from other forms of gambling they are permitted – 4D, football betting – or even take that bus ride up to Genting. In drawing up the amendment, I am sure the Ministry was thinking of protecting those at risk and it is indeed not easy to strike an exact balance between regulation and protection of the more vulnerable members of society. At the same time, with automatic exclusion, it could also stigmatise those who, for whatever reason, are on Public Assistance.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to join the debate on this Bill. Like many other Singaporeans, I was very concerned with the introduction of the Integrated Resorts (IRs) and, of course, followed the debates on the Casino Control Bill from the start. I would like to seek a few clarifications from the Ministry on the section of the Bill with regard to persons to be excluded from the casinos and also to raise some related concerns on problem gambling which other Members of the House have also spoken on today. As I understand it, the spirit of the proposed amendment to section 165 of the principal Act is to offer more protection to those persons and their families who are most at risk from losing everything they have through uncontrolled gambling. While there was provision in the original Act for a person with poor credit record to make a voluntary application for exclusion, the new amendments take away this option for those who are on Public Assistance or are undischarged bankrupts. There will now be automatic exclusion for these persons. In fact, I understand that this is already the practice with the third-party exclusion order and it has also been stated in a brochure I saw on casino exclusion published by the National Council on Problem Gambling. I have to say this definitely offers more protection to a particular group of persons who might be most at risk, particularly to the children and elderly parents who might rely on their children for support and these would be the more vulnerable groups. This might well be the reason for the amendment. However, like my fellow Member, Assoc. Prof.”
“I want to take this opportunity to thank the Prime Minister and his Government for listening to the concerns raised by parents, especially those by working mothers. And I want to tell the Prime Minister that he must not give up – and to press on in his quest to get young Singaporeans married and have kids. As a mother, I am truly appreciative of Singapore – this is my home, where I raise my children in a safe, stable and peaceful environment. We will do our part as we pledge our allegiance to the nation building tenets enshrined in the National Pledge. 6.06 pm”
“That the state supports family work is a necessary condition for encouraging marriage and parenthood. While there is still much work to be done to facilitate family formation and raise the status of marriage in the face of contesting demands on younger Singaporeans, we have certainly come a long way in terms of repositioning the family. It will take time for norms to shift, and for family work to regain a cool status. As more women enter the labour force and dual-income families dominate household structures, work-life balance remains a critical concern. Here, I urge all employers to adopt a long-term perceptive on human resource investment. In particular, working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence in the workplace have an important role to play. We must play our part in shifting norms at the workplace. Do not expect our younger colleagues to adhere to the traditional rigid parameters that we might have been subjected to when we were struggling with career commitments and family demands. Instead, I urge all working mothers who have arrived at a status of influence to reflect on what we would have appreciated – the flexibility that is essential, and trust that in spite of our need to run in and out of the office, we can still deliver and make significant contributions to the organisation. We must give this flexibility and trust to our employees and supervisees. Young parents need flexibility in work schedules as they tend to the needs of younger children. Help them raise their children well, and when the children become independent, these mothers will be free to focus primarily on work demands. And they will be loyal and reliable employees.”
“Many of my classmates are now practising medicine or law. Amongst the group, I found top bankers, finance professionals, civil servants and even a few altruistic homemakers. There was one common trend – they seemed to be a very fertile group! This brings me to my second and last point: the importance of family in the discourse of nationhood. Marriage and family formation grow active stakeholders. In a letter to the Straits Times that was printed on 11th August, a Ms Cindy Tan wrote, and I quote: "Our attitude changed this year when I saw my son, aged 2 1/2, dressed in red and white overalls for his playschool's National Day party. In the past, I had regarded Singapore as my homeland, but I did not feel a sense of belonging because of the hectic pace of life. But, as a mother, I realised how stable and secure Singapore is: no riots, no chaos, no racial discrimination, no natural disasters, no corruption." And Ms Tan ends off with an affirmation of her strong commitment to Singapore. Parents have long-term goals as we try to proactively prepare the way for our children. Parents value stability. We tend to be less geographically mobile and, therefore, we grow roots where we are situated. We tend to see ourselves raising our children here and growing old here. The Prime Minister has been standing solidly behind the Singapore Family through his enhanced pro-family policies. Every time the Prime Minister mentions family, marriage and parenthood in his speeches, the family gains several notches in social prestige. Though one might naively think that these pro-family stances have a muted effect just by observing the Total Fertility Rate (TFR), I firmly believe that the state has a critical role in upholding social ideals.”
“I commend the efforts of MOE in raising the status of the teaching profession. As we move forward, in addition to equipping our teachers with the best skills for imparting knowledge, we must give teachers the time and space to be effective mentors. To facilitate this, may I posit that MOE considers reducing class sizes in secondary schools. Teens, in their formative years, will surely benefit from the mentorship they will receive in an environment with smaller staff-student ratio. As we reflect on our promise, to pledge ourselves as 'one united people', a key facilitator of this is in our social ties - to our family, to our friends and to our community. I attended my secondary school reunion last Saturday. It has been 30 years since I left CHIJ at Victoria Street. I came from a working class background and my parents never had the privilege of tertiary education. But I went to a truly great school. And there, in my formative years, under the guidance of awesome teachers, I learned to dream – the middle class dream. Conducive school environments are so important. I felt a strong attachment to my school community. I was not the top student, but back then, we were not so fixated on grades. Instead, I found a niche for myself in sports, and enjoyed the limelight there. I was not that good at sports either but, back then, it was not too difficult to get into the school team, and CCA was great fun. You did not have to be good to get into a CCA. You just had to like it. For our youth today, I hope we can continue to give them the space and time to grow social ties. To engage in school-based activities where competition and scoring well are not overly emphasised. My school mates from CHIJ – they are truly awesome women.”
“I strongly believe this younger generation really want to give of themselves to the state. They just do not know how. So we must ensure that there are effective mentors who can guide them along and sufficient channels that facilitate contributions from all levels. Moving ahead, we must be cognisant of two important factors: that in the quest to groom talent, we do not inevitably marginalise the masses, and that we must continue to broaden the platform on which young Singaporeans can raise their concerns to policy-makers. Here, the schools have an important role to play, and the teachers are instrumental. If I may share an observation I made at my sons’ school. Fairfield has the traditional annual prize giving ceremony which honours top students who achieved academically. But one year, when Miss Elaine Lim was Principal, we were invited to a second awards ceremony, one that recognised CCA achievements. At that ceremony, students who excelled in their CCAs were given awards. Miss Elaine Lim had broadened the definition of "excellence" to include achievements at various levels. Each time she named a group, she invited the students involved to stand. By the time she was done, almost the entire student body was on their feet. And the applause was thunderous. I recall her telling her students that they must be so proud of themselves because each of those standing had contributed significantly to Fairfield’s achievements. As we reflect on our own strong ties to our home Singapore, I suspect in every one of our life stories, there will be credit attributed to a special teacher who believed in us, taught us to dream big and gave us the courage to reach for the stars. The role of the teacher-mentor is critical in the nurture of Singapore’s youth.”
“They all have important and irreplaceable roles. Of these, I would like to highlight the concerns of our youth. We train our eyes on the youth as they are the future of Singapore. The youth of contemporary Singapore are quite different from their predecessors. They are more educated, they grew up in an era marked by peace and affluence. And as parents, we have freed them from concerns of the mundane, and encouraged them to dream. Are we able to meet their aspirations? While there are now more platforms for them to showcase and nurture their talent and passion, we must be cognisant that we do not set goals that are achievable only by a few and, in the process, inevitably marginalise and alienate the masses. It is undeniable that we are now more demanding of our children in the academic arena. As Singapore families capitalised on the tremendous achievements of the state in the past 50 years, we have levelled up in terms of social class standing. As a result, we now place a lot more emphasis on our children to achieve academically so that they too can enjoy upward social mobility. So much so that even participation in co-curricular activities (CCAs) in schools has taken on a keen competitive stance. Competition is healthy up to a certain level. But if the ultimate goal of competition is actualised in limited coveted accolades, I think we might stand to lose more than we gain. In terms of growing roots and nation building, it is hard to expect that our youth would be able to identify strongly with an entity if they perceive themselves to be on the fringe. Instead, we must actively engage them, and nurture them to be active citizens that we can rely on to lead this nation in the next lap.”
“That everyday life in contemporary Singapore runs so smoothly must surely be credited to the hard work of this Government and the solid foundation set by your predecessors. The social complexities that arise from housing so many diverse groups under one roof was discussed at length by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech. It takes a confident, strong and courageous leader to highlight the sensitivities involved in managing race relations and religious harmony. So Singapore is indeed blessed to have such a leader as our Prime Minister. Diversity is an extremely difficult state to manage, particularly so when the basic needs of the population have been met, and we now have to meet aspirations of a much higher level. We can think of it as fragmentation and thus, we can look at the uphill struggle as we strive to seal the joints. But I think to advance, we must think of this special diversity we enjoy in Singapore as an awesome strength. It is with the collective contributions from such diverse groups that makes Singapore unique, strong and stable. So the challenge ahead is on engaging these diverse groups to showcase their unique contributions to nation building, and yet at the same time, focus their heart on one nation. How can we do this? A one-size-fits-all message will not work – it attempts to address everyone's interest, but ends up with very few actually identifying with it. Instead, we must first recognise the different groups so that we can appreciate the concerns and constraints that may be unique to those groups. In addition to the demarcation by race and religious groupings, we must also be keenly aware of the demographic divides along age – the youth, the elderly and the big middle group.”
“Unless we find resonance with the ideals in our Pledge, we would not be able to identify with and champion the very ideals it holds. So I see in this motion an opportunity to affirm what our Government has done right – to build a strong and stable Singapore. It has taken us 50 short years to transform a sleepy fishing village into a first world cosmopolitan city state – but it was 50 short years and a lot of sacrifice by many who put love for country above all. For this strong foundation, we must thank the pioneer leaders of Singapore. I could have left Singapore and lived in the US when I married my husband, but I chose to come home. I chose to come home to grow my family. Why is that so? We have in place an awesome infrastructure that facilitates a standard of living that is envied by many around us. In yesterday’s debates and today's debates, we are reminded of the comprehensive social policies that have been designed to meet the needs of Singaporeans. But perhaps the most important ingredient in the recipe for successful nation building is the people. We "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion". This is perhaps the most significant tenet that we need to safeguard as we advance and mature as a nation. My esteemed colleague has urged us to address the issue of rootedness and commitment to the nation, especially among younger Singaporeans. This evening, I would like to speak on two key points as we debate on challenges we face in our quest to strengthen commitment to nation building. The first is on how we can encourage diversity as we strive forward as one nation. And the second, how to grow active stakeholders among all groups.”
“I would also like to suggest that resources are put into two areas. One, a more prominent highlighting and showcase of our national treasures and artistic works, both locally and abroad, by our diplomatic missions and national institutions working jointly with the ground. This would demonstrate pride and belief in our own talent, and a real growth of talent and competencies that can be achieved and harnessed to create real 'soul food' for our people well into the future. Second, we need to resource our artists on the ground, so that our unique cultural make-up enjoys fuller expression and we can produce top quality local art which reaches out to the people. We should value art for its intrinsic value rather than solely for their efficacy in attracting economic investments to Singapore. Only then can we start to build a sense of self-worth in our own culture and in ourselves. We have come a long way towards building a national identity. When I was in school, I remember many debates about what is a Singaporean, what is our identity. Today, when I teach young people, they confidently and clearly identify themselves as Singaporeans. And I think that is an indication of progress. But what is next for Singapore? Another Member has mentioned self-actualisation, and I believe that is our next step in going beyond the economic needs which have been met to develop a sense of self-worth, pride and identity in our people. With that, I support the motion. Assoc. Prof. Paulin Tay Straughan (Nominated Member): Sir, this is perhaps the most difficult speech I have had to make because the audience is so tired! I rise in support of this motion because I love my country. If I had known what I was getting into, maybe I would not have opted to speak. Minister Ng is right.”
“It is not enough just to build more parks, integrated resorts, and palaces of entertainment – what about cultural pride? We can import the world’s top cultural and entertainment products, but without pride and respect for our own evolving local and indigenous cultures, the buildings and parks will be empty shells for an alienated people, unable to provide Singaporeans with a sense of rootedness and cultural identity. It is true that we cannot legislate cultural identity into being – it is something that evolves from the people. However, we can set in place the conditions for cultural identity to take root and flourish. In this respect, our cultural policy plays a significant role in building a Singapore of the future; and in considering our future development, I believe we should move beyond the assessment of arts and culture based solely on economic indicators, and pay more attention to the intangible aspects of culture, which in some ways are the nation-building aspects, and that involves the development of depth, quality and respect for our own cultural expressions, institutions, artists and artworks. Sir, I hope that we can develop better indicators for measuring the intangible but necessary qualities of arts and culture. We could more accurately measure our cultural capital. Our cultural institutions, including smaller organisations 'on the ground' as well as individual artists, need to be properly resourced. Our artistic institutions need to be continually strengthened and staffed by visionary and innovative leadership who are unafraid to take risks, in the same way as our economic institutions are. The grooming of future leadership for our national institutions must be a priority.”
“This brings me to my final point – the happiness quotient. We have achieved progress and prosperity, but have we achieved happiness? As has been suggested, the number of Singaporeans who are migrating or thinking of leaving suggest otherwise. We know that around 1,000 Singaporeans give up their citizenships each year. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong recently expressed concern over our brain drain. He asked, "how do you convince Singaporeans that their lives will get better?" We have all the economic fundamentals in place. We have a roof over our heads, we have jobs, people are enjoying a good life. Will the glowing picture of Singapore in the future painted by Prime Minister Lee in the National Day Rally make us happier? Will that be sufficient to provide a decent quality of life for all? In development economics, it is recognised that human development – the social and cultural aspects that provide fulfillment for human beings – is as important as economic progress. It is crucial for us to continue to pay attention to the human, social and cultural impact of our policies, and it is here that empathy plays a part too, so that we strive to ensure that all Singaporeans have a place in society – in fact, to ensure that all Singaporeans feel that they have a place in society, ie, to equipping us all with a sense of self-worth – as an example, the integration of lower-wage workers into the future economy. We talk about redesigning their jobs, we talk about adding value. But we should also look at how we can boost the social value of these jobs, so that the workers feel valued, respected, have pride in their work, and their sense of self-worth is enhanced. And what about our national sense of worth with respect to our own culture?”
“Yet, although we celebrate our 50th year of self-Government, we see very few either high artistic work or public cultural works that discuss this. Perhaps this indicates a lack of historical awareness among our young generation; perhaps we do not have access to all the stories and tales as elucidated by Minister Mentor just now. And perhaps we simply need to look at how we are teaching History within our education system. Some artworks and art forms actually have their own aesthetic mechanisms that accommodate difference; for example, they allow different interpretations of the same subject, or juxtapose two contrasting points of view. With these considerations, perhaps we should be less afraid of alternative or non-mainstream views being expressed in the arts. Driving alternative points of view underground might be non-productive in the long run, could foster resentment, and sidelines some of our most creative talents who might leave our country. But more importantly, it might stop Singaporeans from truly understanding how to live with difference, how to live alongside those who hold different beliefs from themselves – it impedes our progression as "one united people". United not in terms of being homogenous, but because we understand what it takes to live among and within diversity. More importantly, good art presents us with an experience of empathy: the ability to see through another person’s eyes or to feel for someone other than ourselves, and by so doing, we begin to arrive at an understanding of why and how people are different from us, even though our core beliefs and values can remain unchanged. Empathy is at the core of the process of enabling mutual understanding, and perhaps this is something that our people can also learn to develop.”
“I feel a sense of fully experiencing Singapore's cultural diversity, which is a privilege and which, I know, has been hard won. The intermingling of our diverse cultures is also continually fascinating to many of my other colleagues in the arts. In the 2000 Renaissance City report published by Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), the arts was recognised for its potential to foster what was then called "the Singapore heartbeat". This aim of our cultural policy seems to have fallen off the radar a little bit since. Now, I am not talking about producing propagandistic art to elucidate National Education, or going back to the "Instant Asia" cultural shows of the 1970s, even though preservation of our heritage and the traditional arts is important. I am talking about the contemporary plays, drama, dances, literary works, that are being forged by Singaporeans out of our many races and many languages – not in a deliberate or conscious manner but simply because these artistes have grown up and lived in this multi-cultural, progressive society. They express our dreams, thoughts and hopes, and the public who sees their work shares in these emotions, memories and aspirations. This builds deeper ties of understanding among the people. The arts can be a medium for fostering a deeper cultural understanding for our people, and a conduit for the transmission of historical information and memories. Mr Zainudin has mentioned the racial riots of 1960s and how we must say "never again". In order to say "never again", we have to remember what happened. Revisiting the past, helping to develop understanding of history is something the arts can do.”
“I think it is a much more sophisticated issue than that. At the core, I believe we need to go beyond just tolerance of each other; we need to aim for mutual respect, understanding, and accommodation of core ideological differences. The second nation building tenet I would like to talk about is "Regardless of race, language and religion". The Prime Minister elucidated four basic rules for maintaining religious harmony in the National Day Rally. I would like to make a suggestion in relation to the fourth rule: to maintain the common space that all Singaporeans share. The two common spaces identified by the Prime Minister were schools and workplaces. I would like to suggest that the arts and culture is also a common space for all Singaporeans. The enjoyment of many forms of art – music, painting, dance, for instance – is not tied to the knowledge of a particular language. Participants from different cultural, ethnic backgrounds often can collaborate successfully artistically or watch the same performances. With technology, non-English-language plays also come with subtitles. The problem is we actually do not take full advantage of these ethnic diversity and opportunities in our artistic work. It is still rare to see a non-Chinese at a Chinese play, for instance; a non-Malay at a Malay play, and so on. It is similar to how national television has split into language-specific channels; but this, I think, is an opportunity to develop cultural understanding. Personally, I have benefited very much from working alongside artistes from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. I have learnt a great deal about different traditions, customs, histories, folk stories, legends and cultural icons.”
“All I have said actually now begs some very, very practical questions: How well can we manage the plurality and differences in our society, now and in the future, so that we will remain "one united people"? Do we need to consider any fresh strategies in managing our diversity in a changing world? And in a world that will continue to change? As I said, it was heartening to see that our senior Ministers – Minister Mentor and Prime Minister Lee – making public statements about the importance of religious harmony. As I have said, this showed how far we have come and how much we have matured. In the long run, we will need more than verbal pronouncements from our respected politicians. We need to institutionalise as well as internalise a reflex to be one united people, and it will not be easy to come up with just specific strategies to achieve this. We have already talked about how a lot of Singaporeans have decided to migrate and how more than 50% of young people in the survey said they would leave the country if they could. We cannot legislate a value system to take root in people, but perhaps we can think more carefully about how to manage our differences. The immediate key questions: do we have all the requisite political and social mechanisms to manage the diversity of voices in public and private space? If not, can we evolve this mechanism, and how? Do we need to equip institutions, civil groups, even individuals with the tools to develop such a mechanism that will allow for the different views to be expressed and yet for differences to be mediated? Do we need a more sophisticated press and media? And how can we achieve that? That does not necessarily need to be achieved by having more newspapers or more newspapers with different points of view.”
“So that is why there is a perception that the playing field is not level. That is just one example. But moving on, I would like to draw attention to another point which Mr Viswa also made: That we should make a distinction between being "pro-Singapore" and being "anti-government". A patriotic citizen can be moved to comment if he or she perceives an injustice or something amiss, be it at the level of policy or anything else. And also he/she will comment if he/she perceives our policy-makers to be falling short of our national ideals. This is just hypothetically speaking. I am not saying that we are. Electorates do this because they assess the very people that they have voted for. This is how they make decisions when it comes to the next election. But I would like to note that citizens who criticise do not necessarily have any intention to act against national interest, or to discredit anyone, and they should be treated no differently from other voices, as long as they act within the law. Criticism can be underpinned by a love of our nation and a desire to see a better and more just Singapore, such as a desire to see better treatment of those in society who are most powerless and most in need of protection – the underprivileged, migrant workers, workers in low-skilled jobs, and so on. The majority of Singaporeans, who include a lot of the critical voices, appreciate and respect how far we have come in 44 years of nation building, and they understand how the Government has given Singaporeans a better life in these 44 short years. We do have certain fundamentals in place as a nation, as a society; and this is what I would like to talk about next. One of the fundamentals is of faith and commitment to a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country.”
“So my question is why are there then still criticisms and calls from the ground for more transparency and accountability? I do not have a ready answer for this, but my observation is that there seems to be a gap in perception between both sides, and I believe we should not take this lightly. Of course, efforts have been made by the Government to reach out to more Singaporeans engaging with new media, with new technology and listening to a wide range of opinions and views; for instance, through the online portal REACH. But unfortunately, online feedback portals are still limited and they are unable to facilitate reasoned and thorough public debates on sensitive matters, and much less accomplish a mediation of difference. Just take one example of the gap in perception: yesterday’s debate on this motion when Mr Viswa commented on the "climate of fear" that still persists here which holds some citizens back from expressing their honest views to Government, although he also noted that the younger generation are less constrained in expressing themselves today. This view of the climate of fear was clearly not shared by many other Members of the House, although Mr Viswa was probably reflecting the views of other Singaporeans. With regard to the "climate of fear", I would say that it is not so much that it is gone completely. I think there is still some sense of constraint and I think that sense of constraint has taken on a different shape as our society and our political system have evolved. There is no longer a fear of reprisals, but there are still some obstacles. This is based on some anecdotal evidence suggesting that some critical voices still are disadvantaged when it comes to putting out their views or championing what they believe in public.”
“To many, "equality" and "justice" also mean the right of each citizen to have his or her voice heard in a public forum, to promote or defend his or her position, as well as the right to challenge those who contest it. This, of course, presents us with the new challenge of how to manage our nation’s growing plurality and the increasingly visible differences in opinions and ideological convictions among our citizens. That has led to the perception that there are emerging ‘fault lines’ among Singaporeans, which our Prime Minister has addressed in the National Day Rally; religion being just one of the potential flashpoints. We are also seeing passionate debate among people who hold different social values – the so-called 'progressives', the so-called 'conservatives' on opposite ends of the spectrum. These contesting voices which are most often expressed online do not demonstrate only how net-savvy Singaporeans are. I believe they are also expression of a desire to live out democracy in action, in the belief that there is a place for all of them in our society – that our society allows room for different opinions and, in particular, for minority views to be aired, at the same time the Government is accountable to those who elected them into power. Now, because of these convictions, especially among our younger generation, I believe that that is the reason why there are also more calls for more accountability and transparency when it comes to Government decision making and policy decisions although the Government has always made clear that it is accountable and is constantly convincing everyone that it is doing the right thing by all the citizens.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this motion. First of all, I would like to thank fellow Members, my fellow Nominated Member Mr Viswa Sadasivan for moving the motion and Mr Michael Palmer for seconding the motion. It is a very timely motion as we celebrate our 44th year of independence. Sitting here over two days and listening to the debates and the points put forward by all Members, I feel very appreciative of the fact that we can talk about race, religion, equality, debate notions on justice in this House in a very civilised manner. I think it shows that we have achieved something in nation building. We have moved quite far along the road towards being a strong nation. I would like to address three points related to the nation building tenets in the National Pledge – tenets which have been eloquently elucidated by Mr Viswa and by fellow Members. The first is with respect to the call in our Pledge to abide by the ideals of "justice and equality" as we strive to build a "democratic society". We have discussed the idea of democracy at length, so I will not attempt to define that again, but I believe the basic values of democracy are to achieve a certain level of justice for all its citizens. There is equality before the law for all citizens, equality of opportunity and equal rights. Those are some of the core values. What I believe has happened in Singapore is that as our society matures, our citizens' understanding of what is meant by the words "justice" and "equality" has also matured and changed and their interpretations of these terms are more nuanced, with slight shades of difference depending occasionally on which end of the political spectrum they stand on.”
“Supplementary question, Sir. With regard to the various schemes from MDA for investment in film and television production in Singapore, does MDA conduct regular periodic reviews of all these schemes? Would these reviews be available to the public or to the industry with information such as the specific projects that were funded, how much was the investment and what were the returns?”