Chia Yong Yong
Singapore
“Although there is much scope for policy to promote learning which meets the needs of an advanced economy like ours, the ultimate motivating factor for effective learning is still a love for it.”
“Sir, I seek two clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, in relation to the financial protection of vulnerable adults, the Minister mentioned that he is considering certain steps to be taken. So, I would like to understand a little more about what steps will be taken.”
“Thank you, Sir. As such, I would propose the amendments that I have suggested, and I would also like to ask that the Minister consider other amendments; consider provision of facilities to cater to the needs of vulnerable adults. I also ask that we not be shy to exercise and to apply for powers of exclusion of the abusers.”
“Section 7(1) provides that the Director is not required to exercise any power under section 6 if consent is refused by the vulnerable adult with mental capacity. Making the application to Court becomes discretionary. In other words, the Director may also choose not to make an application to Court.”
“Moving on to my questions, Sir, what efforts have been undertaken by the Public Service to understand ground sentiments, address misapprehensions and implement policies in line with declared intent conveyed through Ministerial speeches?”
“Thank you, Sir. In conclusion, in order for Budget 2018 to succeed, we must begin to think differently – a quest, a thirst, with something bigger and better, a mind unafraid to dream, a heart unafraid to fail.”
The complete record
Every one of 219 lines we hold for Chia Yong Yong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Although there is much scope for policy to promote learning which meets the needs of an advanced economy like ours, the ultimate motivating factor for effective learning is still a love for it. That is why it is important to ensure that policies are an enabler, helping learners to persist in their natural inclination to pursue lifelong learning. In closing, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to give you my response to the two questions you asked. In my opinion, the most important school is the School of Life and that is why I think the most important type of learning is lifelong learning. My most important teachers have been all of my teachers. In closing, Sir, I would like to take this opportunity to also thank MOE for its tireless efforts in bringing us to this point of our nation-building journey. Sir, I support the Motion. 5.00 pm”
“Our education system must meet the needs of lifelong learners and skills upgraders with the same rigour that it has cemented the basic educational foundation of early learners. The system of skills training and upgrading should be built upon a firm foundation imbued in young learners from an early age that learning itself must always be a lifelong pursuit. The importance of learning takes on added prominence during the current industry transformation drive. And the sense of uncertainty pervades not just the adult training landscape but also affects the sense of direction of young learners, many of whom are often confused about how they should embark upon seemingly irrevocable decisions about lifelong careers at an early age. Sir, we should be careful to realise that just as sailors who navigate choppy waters need to seek safe harbour to replenish their strength and supplies, it is important for our basic education system to provide anchorage to learners that will stand them in good stead when they embark upon their lifelong learning endeavour. The last thing we want is for everyone to discard the strong foundations currently offered by our education system. Learning is age-dependent and young learners benefit from the security of a rigorous grounding in the basics. Having a solid foundation in the basics also prepares them for self-directed learning throughout the rest of their lifelong journey as a learner. Hence, while we seek to continually upgrade and keep our education system relevant, we must also seek to retain those fundamental pillars of strength which continue to have a timeless relevance for any learner.”
“A year and a half after that, during the debate on the President's Address, the Minister of State for Trade and Industry at that time, Mr Lee Yi Shyan, in pushing for a re-examination of the skills upgrading policy then, had pointed out that "half of what you learn in four years in polytechnics and universities can become obsolete in two years, and they get halved every two years". Much more recently, just this year, during the debate on the Annual Budget Statement, our hon colleague Mr Patrick Tay drew our attention to the issue of skills being at risk. Mr Tay’s emphasis and those of the other hon Members I had cited above should lead us to realise that the shelf life of skills and learning has always been short and is possibly getting even shorter in some fields. Because this shelf life is not much longer than the education and training which had led to their acquisition in the first place, an important objective of a sound education system should be to lay the foundations for a continuous process of learning. There is already good appreciation about the importance of continuous learning. And there is also widespread acknowledgement that such continuous learning, regardless of whether we speak of lifelong educational pursuits, retraining at work or continuous upgrading of skills, is thrust upon us by the advance of technology and the resulting decline in the shelf life of knowledge and skills. The imperative for continuing education and lifelong learning to be relevant to the needs of the economy is at least as urgent as it is for early basic education. Adult learners have to juggle different roles and the immediacy of their roles in the workforce means that their skills must be responsive to current employer needs.”
“From 2007 to 2017, the median gross monthly starting salary of graduates in full-time permanent employment grew at a compound annual growth rate of 2.1%. The corresponding figure for post-NS polytechnic graduates is almost the same at 2.2%. For post-NS graduates from ITE, however, the growth was nearly twice this during that period, at 4.1%. Nonetheless, compelling as they are, starting salaries represent only part of the picture about how well any system of education performs. It is important to also consider how well an educational foundation serves its graduates over the span of their careers. The major challenge posed by the rapid advance of technology is the accelerating pace at which knowledge and skills become obsolete. The need to make up for the natural depletion of knowledge is not a concept that is foreign to this House. Members of this House, at various points in the last few years, have shown a keen understanding of this connection. During the Committee of Supply (COS) debate for the Ministry of Trade and Industry in 1994, for instance, Assoc Prof Koo Tsai Kee, then-Member for Tanjong Pagar, had argued that there was a link between the fact that "the shelf life of knowledge is becoming shorter and shorter" and the need to treat education and training as "continuous lifelong processes". Again, in 2005, during the COS debate for MOE, then-nominated Member of Parliament, Dr Loo Choon Yong, had warned that "even medical knowledge has a half-life of seven years only".”
“One of the most prominent empirical economic findings in the last few decades has been the determination that the estimated impact that additional years of schooling have on tangible labour market outcomes, especially earnings, is a significant measurable magnitude. In anticipation of this payoff, there has been a change in behaviour and that is the reason why we have witnessed huge individual and societal investments in educational pursuits. The education system must ensure that all segments of society have access that enables them to gain from these payoffs in a manner that at least matches their efforts. The data on the employment outcomes of graduates from tertiary institutions in Singapore confirm these points. Nothing emphasises the importance of educational attainment more than the fact that university graduates, generally speaking, earn more than their polytechnic counterparts. The pattern is repeated when you compare polytechnic graduates and their Institute of Technical Education (ITE) counterparts. However, both ratios have dipped from 2007 to 2017, indicating that disparity between the different levels of tertiary institution graduates has actually narrowed. This shows that even as further education bestows clear advantages in the labour market, the benefits are not confined to further education at the university level alone. A solid grounding at any level counts. This is particularly important for social mobility, for it demonstrates the availability of intermediate levels of upgrading which do not prevent those with limited means – financial or otherwise – from attaining the same educational goals as those who are better endowed or better resourced.”
“Both should be seen as alternate perspectives of the enrichment of human capital for the individual. For a small country like Singapore whose dependence on workforce performance is now being brought into sharp relief with the simultaneous onslaught of demographic shifts, skills challenges and productivity concerns, ensuring the human capital security of future generations of workers should be of paramount concern to policymakers. By ensuring we maximise the human capital potential of our small workforce, we can continue to overcome the natural disadvantages of being a small nation competing at the frontiers of technology. The education system we have has been holding out the best hope for expanding opportunities for the disadvantaged and one of the main challenges we face is to ensure this continues to remain so in the face of the disruptive forces that unsettle both our economy and our society. Since Independence, Singapore’s education system has enabled widespread participation with its strong emphasis on ensuring universal access to basic education. This approach has brought tangible benefits to large segments of society. In particular, members of the lower-income groups have been able to take advantage of significant opportunities for social mobility. Sir, in recent years, with the general elevation of income levels, the challenges have become more complex. Hence, the relevance of this Motion to the lower income is especially important. This should bring us back to the fundamental basis of the early success of our system. This is a recognition of the fact that should the opportunities to this group narrow, the overall outcomes to society will worsen.”
“And I want to say this: that mainstream education, Sir, what I went through is what I think is an opportunity we should give to every child. I urge all Members to do and to work together for every child because every child matters. Sir, I support the Motion. [Applause.] 4.49 pm Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Sir, first, I would like to declare my interest as an employee of SUSS, which is an institution dedicated to lifelong learning. Sir, I agree with the statement of the Motion. Our education strategy must continue to be founded on the basis of a love for learning. I believe, however, that we should also not neglect the role that economic priorities have had in shaping the choices that we have made in this area both as a society as well as individuals. It is important to recognise that the ultimate satisfaction that individuals derive from learning is often based as much on the fulfilment of practical objectives as it is on philomathean impulses. In an age of intensifying global and regional economic competition, there is almost no doubt that the economic imperatives determining what we learn, how we learn and where we learn will only continue to grow in dominance. We should see the education journey of our nation in the light of the challenges we have faced in building our nation. Sir, in that sense, our education system must build on its strengths and anticipate these challenges with future-ready policies that match or exceed the effectiveness of those that other advanced economies have deployed. There are many of these, most notably those in OECD. Supporting individuals in their pursuit of a love of learning cannot be allowed to become identified with a denial of the importance of pursuing practical economic value in the learning process.”
“It depends on the version that you want to read. But we learn that the differences arise from different perspectives. In the Country of the Blind, who is the person with a disability? Who is the misfit? Who is the one who needs accommodation? We can all work together and turn differences and different perspectives into positive effect, only if we hear each other and are prepared to push frontiers unfamiliar to us. Sir, I stand before the House as an example of a person with a disability who has benefited from mainstream education. You asked two important questions just now. The first: who is the most important teacher in our lives, and which is the most important school? I am blessed to say that I have had many teachers who made that difference because they did not treat me as inferior to a child without disability. They accommodated my disability but they treated me the same. So, when I did not do my homework, I was punished. When I talked too much, I was punished. But I was like any other child. It was not always easy; there were times when I felt like a burden. I am sure there were many times my friends felt like I was a nuisance. But you know what, we grew up together. We did not think we had a choice, we stuck together and we grew up together. It got easier when I went to university. So primary school, secondary school, PLMGS. My principal was here yesterday, she was one of those who accommodated me.”
“But consistent with these findings, the findings on mainstream primary school enrolment are that half of the parents of children with special needs consider it a success if their children can get into a mainstream primary school. Inclusive education requires members of the public to accept people with disabilities and children with disabilities. Based on survey findings, whilst 64% of Singaporeans are willing to share public spaces with people with disabilities, they are not willing to interact with them. All these mindsets will filter down to the young souls of our children. Unless we change, our children cannot be any better. So, I ask that we all work together. And parents of children with disabilities, I ask that you do not give up. Do not give up on your children. Your struggles may be phenomenal, but you do not have to walk alone because there are many Singaporeans who will walk with you. In my concluding remarks, Sir, I want to say again that it is difficult to be different from the majority. Our disabilities and special needs make us different from the majority. And the differences are accentuated when we are placed in environments that are suited to the majority. In a short story written by HG Wells, "The Country of the Blind", a fully sighted mountaineer named Nuñez loses his way and finds himself in the "Country of the Blind". It is an unusual village with windowless houses and a network of paths, all bordered by kerbs. He thinks, that in the "Country of the Blind", the One-Eyed Man is King. He thinks he can rule them. The villagers cannot, however, understand the concept of sight because they live in darkness. In due course, he falls in love with his employer's daughter but he is not allowed to marry her, unless his eyes are removed. How does the story end?”
“In class, differentiating curriculum or alternative curricula, application of universal design, use of information technologies and individual education plans are applied for students. Closer to home, Mayflower Primary School enrolled six deaf students this year and it undertook systemic and infrastructural changes to accommodate them. In addition, the cultural change in the school shows that it takes a whole school to make the students with disabilities feel welcome and accepted. The final sub-principle: acceptance. Inclusive education turns very much on acceptance by Singaporeans of persons with disabilities and special needs. Inclusive education requires parents of children without disabilities and special needs to agree and encourage their children to make friends with children with disabilities, to allow children with disabilities and special needs to attend school with them. Based on the survey results of the Lien Foundation Inclusive Attitudes Survey in 2016 and the findings from a series of surveys in 2016 by the National Council of Social Service, although seven out of 10 Singaporeans support inclusive education, only half of the parents surveyed are comfortable to let their children sit next to a child with disabilities. It also requires educators and policymakers to be bold, affirming that education goes beyond the acquisition of knowledge to the inculcation of values, the most basic of which is the respect for the dignity and potential of another human being and, by so affirming, to walk the talk. Based on the same survey findings, half of the children with special needs had difficulty enrolling in mainstream preschools because of their special needs. I understand MSF is taking action to resource preschools and I applaud that.”
“We may facilitate learning in three ways: through the adoption of UDL in which teachers and educators are guided in the development of flexible learning curriculum which caters to the individual learning differences of students, whether with or without disabilities or special needs. For example, instead of delivering an essay, students may be assessed on a video produced by them. And the UDL framework accommodates students, regardless of needs, right from the start. Next, to be open to the development of bespoke curriculum that caters to the abilities of the children, taking into consideration their disabilities or special needs. So, we base the curriculum on the national curriculum, but modify that according to the abilities or disabilities of a child. And we issue the certifications for the completion of the courses accordingly. Next, we could work on the better adoption of technology through the use of real-time, interactive, direct-to-classroom virtual learning. We could also use mainstream voice-to-text or text-to-voice technology for a child who is unable to type or not able to see or not able to hear. This technology can empower them to do their homework, to hear a book, even to do their examinations. These are a few examples. If you would like to know more, please visit Tech Able. Sub-principle three: involving the whole school. Inclusive education requires a whole-of-school approach. In Australia, school-level good practices include adjustments to cultures, policies and practices, development of support structures, regimes of funding support and the provision of and access to equitable learning opportunities.”
“In addition, the dependency on teachers and classmates could result in the child being perceived as a source of nuisance, annoyance or disruption. If we drop a pen, we can pick it up rather easily. So, it is understandable that we may be annoyed if we have to repeatedly pick up a pen for a student or a classmate. The difficulties in engaging in school activities are intimidating, but not insurmountable. The use of assistive technology, environmental modification, application of principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and life/social skills development can overcome or ameliorate the difficulties. However, expertise in these areas lies outside that of our teachers. It is not reasonable to expect teachers to be occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech therapists, IT experts, social workers and counsellors, all at once. And, yet, the current support system for students in these respects is limited by structural and funding constraints. So, we have limited access to occupational therapists because it is on an ad hoc and time-limited basis. Organisations like SAOT and SPD that provide a suite of relevant professional services to support schools are not often called upon. To increase the level of independence of students with disabilities or special needs, the suite of professional support services, on whatever basis, should be accessible to students on a continuing, sustained and sustainable basis. I, therefore, propose that the Ministry of Health (MOH), MOE and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) collaboratively review the support and funding structures accordingly. Secondly, facilitating learning. Sir, each of us learns differently, regardless of whether we have special needs or not.”
“The provision of accessible infrastructure, where children are brought together in common physical spaces creates opportunities for shared experiences and the sharing of diverse experiences, just like in National Service, and that, in turn, creates a common bonding. Sir, the following could be considered: the co-location of SPED schools with mainstream schools. I know we are working on that. The setting of special classes in mainstream schools allows students with special needs to spend some of their lessons in special education classes appropriate to them and also in other classes together with their non-special education peers. Thirdly, of course, which is also what is happening now, the inclusion of students with disabilities or special needs in mainstream schools. Perhaps, the Ministry of Education (MOE) can also consider a concept of enhancing a common identity through the wearing of the same uniform. So, when schools co-locate or where they have sharing of classes, perhaps the students could wear the same uniform. That way, they will feel like they are one and the same, together in the environment that they will grow together in. The third principle, removing what keeps students apart. The first sub-principle is to increase their independence. When we broadly categorise school activities into learning, self-care and school-leisure, it becomes apparent that children with handwriting difficulties, cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, social and emotional issues and so on, will find difficulties engaging in these school activities. Such difficulties will create dependency on teachers and classmates and will impede the performance to the full potential of the child.”
“Disabilities and special needs make us different from the majority – the way we look, the way we walk, the way we talk, the way we think. All these make us different in different aspects and it is difficult for us. Inclusive education is, therefore, necessary because of differences and can only succeed by design. Sir, as we implement inclusive education, I would propose a few fundamental principles to be observed. First, we must be careful not to place the interest of one group of students above the other. The interests of both groups are equally important. Secondly, we must create opportunities for both groups of children to play, learn and grow together. We should, to the extent practicable, remove barriers against children accepting one another. In respect of the first principle, studies show that children undergoing inclusive education achieve greater progress in reading, Mathematics and general academic performance. They are also given the opportunity to develop meaningful friendships, understand, appreciate and respect individual differences and prepare for engagement in diversity. Therefore, inclusive education, if prudently implemented, benefits children with and without disabilities. From the broader and long-term perspective, inclusive education forges a common identity and bonding between our young ones, with and without disabilities or special needs, and inculcates in them important values, all of which will, in turn, build their resilience and that of our country. Sir, a common identity and bonding between students with and without disabilities and in special needs are, therefore, important to Singapore, important to these young ones and can be achieved in various ways. Firstly, the sharing of common physical spaces.”
“Thank you, Sir. I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and board member of SG Enable. For this speech, I acknowledge SPD, Singapore Association of Occupational Therapists (SAOT) and Dr May Lim Sok Mui of the Singapore Institute of Technology (SIT) for their professional inputs. Any unpalatable views, however, are entirely my own. Sir, I support the Motion and I ask for all our children, including children with disabilities and special needs, to be given equal opportunities to education and the necessary support to develop their potential, to thrive in the same environment as their peers, with or without disabilities, and to participate effectively as members of our society. Singapore's accession to the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is testament to our country’s commitment to provide an inclusive education for all children and youth, including those with disabilities and special needs. This commitment is shown in the Government's resourcing of special education (SPED) schools and mainstream schools to support students with special needs and disabilities and the implementation of compulsory education for children with disabilities and special needs with effect from 2019. Sir, inclusive education is the right of every child, whether with or without disabilities or special needs. We are naturally drawn to and congregate with people who, overall, are like us and who possess qualities that we aspire to have. It is, therefore, not natural for us to embrace people who are different or who face challenges or difficulties that we do not want for ourselves. It is difficult to be different from the majority.”
“Sir, I want to thank the Minister for listening to my speech. I just wanted to also raise a number of other points perhaps that the Minister has not quite answered. I think what we want to be very clear about is what is meant by severe disability. I know we often talk about the inability to perform the three ADLs, and that is always in the context of making a claim. But we have used severe disability in the context of excluding people from CareShield. I think we need to be very clear – are we talking about also three ADLs or something else? In relation to the eligibility for other assistance schemes, I also raised the point about whether we could streamline the application process. Again, I know that Senior Minister of State Amy Khor mentioned about one single assessment but that is for claiming, not in relation to financial assistance across other schemes. Also, the other point would be on the entity that will oversee, whether there will be overlays or gaps. Again, I know Senior of State Chee Hong Tat mentioned that it would be administered by AIC in collaboration with CPF Board. However, these two entities are administrators. So, I would like to know which entities would be having the overall oversight. Will it be MOH, the Ministry of Finance or is this going to be with MSF, a collaborative inter-Ministry oversight? These would be my main points.”
“Sir, I just wanted to check if the Minister was going to reply to my questions. I think I have raised quite a number of questions and I do not really recall them being specifically answered.”
“But I am wondering if, for transparency, the Government will consider the following, such as statutory mechanisms to adjust premiums in future, statutory principles to be applied in the adjustments of payouts, what happens when we need to freeze or lower payouts in the event of a squeeze on the scheme. And at the very least, as suggested by Dr Jeremy Lim in his article “Why Singapore needs the new CareShield Life” published by Today Online on 5 June 2018, could we have raw data and assumptions in actuarial computations being made available to the industry and academics so that the transparency of the computations can be clear to all? And a few final questions to the Minister for clarification. I understand that CareShield is an important part of this big piece of puzzle that we are trying to build. But other than putting pieces together, can there be synergies to be built among the assistance schemes of ElderShield, CareShield, MediShield, MediFund, rather than just taking a defensive approach – a stopping-the-gap approach? Are there positive synergies that can be achieved out of that? Second question: who ultimately has oversight of the overlays, or potential gaps, among the schemes and the toll that they may take on Singaporeans’ CPF monies? The final question is probably the easiest, which is on the administration of the scheme. Can the Minister clarify how the Government has acquired the necessary expertise and resources to manage the insurance scheme? Subject to my clarifications, Sir, I support the Motion.”
“Therefore, they are, I submit, the agents of the state. That being so, the premiums that they collect – the excess premiums they collect – does the state have a claim? How should we deal with those? I am prepared to concede that the profits that they make out of those premiums should be retained by them, but perhaps the Minister can clarify how the excess premiums will be treated when CareShield is launched. I have raised what basically relates to actuarial consideration applicable under ElderShield, and I believe that this will also carry through to the considerations under CareShield Life as well. So, for example, when ElderShield payouts were increased, were ElderShield premiums also increased? And when we compare the premiums of $3.3 billion collected with the payout of $133 million in claims, whether the Government conducted an independent actuarial verification to justify the premiums that continued to be collected for ElderShield, and whether those considerations guided the Government in the calculation of the premiums for CareShield. Can the Minister perhaps further clarify also actuarial considerations for the exclusion of persons with pre-existing conditions for conversion from ElderShield to CareShield, and for the exclusion of persons with pre-existing medical conditions who were born before 1980? I know we are all excluded, but could it be argued that there could be an element of discrimination? Perhaps the Minister may wish to consider from that perspective. And in light of the Committee’s recommendation that premiums should be actuarially priced and adjusted regularly to take into account changes in payout quantum and claims experience, we accept that proper premium quantum may be difficult to assess in light of significant uncertainties.”
“In respect of the Government schemes that the Minister has raised which will be used to support those who are not covered under either ElderShield or CareShield Life, I would like to know whether there would be a single set of eligibility criteria. Will there also be simplified applications and administration in those schemes to facilitate access to the assistance? From the administrator's perspectives, each would have their accountability for the administration of a scheme, but from the users' perspectives, we are all only seeking one single route of assistance. Also, ultimately, for clarity, could the Ministry clarify which groups of Singaporeans will have no protection under ElderShield, CareShield and no assistance under Government schemes? I think it is important for us to know who we are and what we can do for them. So, it is very good that we understand who qualifies; it is important for us to know who does not. Also, with respect to the conversion of protection from ElderShield to CareShield, I have noted that premiums paid under ElderShield will be taken into account for the payment of premiums under CareShield, as the Minister has said. But I wonder if the Ministry can also give more clarifications and examples of how such consideration would be applied. In relation to excess premiums collected under ElderShield, since Eldershield is an opt-out scheme that came into operation by the compulsion of the state, I would submit that although insurance policies are issued separately by insurers to the insured, actually there is really no direct contractual relationship between the insured and the insurance company. Why do I say so? Because this is a compulsory scheme – we either opt out, or we are in; we have no way to negotiate; we cannot even choose our insurers.”
“Sir, I welcome the report of the Committee. I thank the Committee for the hard work that they have put in and for the many prudent recommendations given. The report of the committee was dated 25 May 2018, on the same day the Minister signified the Government's acceptance and, in two days, the acceptance was announced in the press. That has caused some of us to wonder about whether the Government had sufficient time to deliberate on the report. And I thought, as a preliminary point, the Minister may wish to clarify that. I am also, therefore, glad that Minister has moved this debate to allow Members to seek clarifications for which I have also many. Sir, I support CareShield in principle and whilst I welcome the Government’s measures to provide universal and basic long-term care and support for designated cohorts of Singaporeans, I am disconcerted that such universal coverage is not extended to all Singaporeans. It is, nonetheless, in many ways, an improvement over ElderShield. The Minister has explained the rationale for the exclusion of certain Singaporeans, but I hope that we can continue to consider the ways in which we can provide assistance in a more equitable and comforting manner. Sir, we noted that those who opted out of ElderShield and have severe disabilities will not be eligible for protection under CareShield. I would like to know the definition of severe disabilities and how do we treat persons who have disabilities but perhaps not sufficiently severe? And what is the treatment for persons who have medical conditions but no disability?”
“Sir, I seek two clarifications from the Minister. Firstly, in relation to the financial protection of vulnerable adults, the Minister mentioned that he is considering certain steps to be taken. So, I would like to understand a little more about what steps will be taken. Will the Government also be prepared to look into amendments and steps to overturn even established principles of law, such as presumption of advancement and so on, for the protection of vulnerable elderly persons? My second clarification relates again to the definitions which I had earlier submitted were far too narrow. The Minister clarified that by scoping the definitions, there is greater clarity for the exercise of the powers by the Director. On the other hand, the scoping of the definitions also means that the Director may be less able to exercise discretion. So, I would like to know how the Director would be able to balance considerations of protection and also in relation to applications for expedited orders.”
“Thank you, Sir. As such, I would propose the amendments that I have suggested, and I would also like to ask that the Minister consider other amendments; consider provision of facilities to cater to the needs of vulnerable adults. I also ask that we not be shy to exercise and to apply for powers of exclusion of the abusers. If I may also add, the role of the community cannot be underestimated. The case of Annie Ee and other unfortunate cases tell us that there will be many out there in the community who would have fallen through the gaps. Neighbours play an important role. They have, in some cases, played a critical role in saving someone. So, I urge neighbours, it is better to report to save a life or even a family, than to report to retrieve a body. I support the Bill.”
“Section 7(1) provides that the Director is not required to exercise any power under section 6 if consent is refused by the vulnerable adult with mental capacity. Making the application to Court becomes discretionary. In other words, the Director may also choose not to make an application to Court.”
“In fact, they could be more vulnerable simply because they have the capacity to consent. And should they give consent or should they in any way intimate fear or convey simply a need for protection, they are more likely to be held to account by their abusers, caregivers and family members. The abuse or neglect may intensify. The family alienation may deepen. The fear of the vulnerable adult is thereby accentuated. I have noted that the Bill provides for the Director to make an application to the Court for the vulnerable adult to be removed, whether for an assessment under section 6, or for removal under section 10. I submit that the Director should be given broader powers than to be constrained in this manner. My reasons follow from my analysis as to how a Court order may be obtained for the assessment of an individual or a vulnerable adult. In a Court application, first, the Director must make the application to the Court. Second, the Director must (a) satisfy the Court that, on a balance of probabilities, the individual or vulnerable adult has experienced, or is experiencing or is at risk of, abuse, neglect or self-neglect; and (b) persuade the Court that such an order for assessment is necessary for the safety and protection of the individual or vulnerable adult. If the Director is able to satisfy both requirements, should he not be empowered, in the first instance, to remove the vulnerable adult for the protection of the vulnerable adult? Any concern as to whether the Director may be acting too intrusively may be addressed by amending section 11(1)(b) as well as related provisions accordingly. If I may, I would also like to share an additional concern in relation to the removal of the vulnerable adult for assessment.”
“Unfortunately, it also requires an order of Court where a vulnerable adult, notwithstanding possessing mental capacity, refuses to give consent for his or her removal. Two important considerations from the basis of my submissions on the inadequacies of section 6 and section 10. One, where the individual or vulnerable adult does not give consent, but is also not acting freely, for example, where he or she refuses consent for fear of reprisals from or unhappiness of caregivers or of family members. Secondly, there is also a spectrum of abilities in reasoning and judgement. Under the Bill, mental capacity is used in the same sense as under the Mental Capacity Act. This leaves a large group of persons who may have inadequate reasoning faculties, but who may not lack mental capacity under the Mental Capacity Act, for example, those with low intelligence or suffering from certain spectrum of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), or in the early stages of dementia. In both groups, the lack of financial independence, lack of social support network, and emotional attachment to familiar people, the Stockholm syndrome, may increase their dependency on their family members or increase their fear in reporting. We know that it is common for caregivers who refuse medical assessment. This is a problem that we need to address. We cannot assume that these two groups of people do not require protection simply because they have refused to give consent. I support the provisions, in fact, that the Director may, without the consent of the relevant donee or deputy, assess a vulnerable adult without mental capacity, recognising that some donees or deputies are themselves abusers. But, here, the two groups of persons whom I referred to above are no less vulnerable than those who lack mental capacity.”
“The deletion of the word "grossly" will also remove ambiguity as to whether “grossly” qualifies only "unsanitary" or qualifies "hazardous" as well. Sir, as I said earlier, definitions are important. The narrower the definitions, the narrower the scope of protection. I urge the Minister and this House to consider my proposals. I now move on to three aspects of the protection. Firstly, the removal of the vulnerable adult from his place of residence for "assessment". This is provided for under section 6. However, again, the definition of "assessment" seems somewhat limited to me. It is not clear as to whether psychological assessments are included. I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify. If, indeed, "assessment" does not include psychological assessments, then I urge the Minister to consider amending the definition to include the same. Notwithstanding that there may be many non-legal triggers for the protection of a vulnerable adult, assessment itself is an important trigger. Beyond re-examining the definition of "assessment", we should also re-examine the requirement for a Court order where a vulnerable adult, notwithstanding his or her mental capacity, refuses, under coercion, to give consent for his or her removal for such assessment. Sir, given that I have similar considerations and arguments in relation to section 6 and section 10, I would like to make my submissions on both sections together. For the ease of recollection by Members, section 10 empowers the Director to remove a vulnerable adult from the place where the vulnerable adult is residing or staying if the Director is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the vulnerable adult has experienced, or is experiencing or is at risk of, abuse, neglect or self-neglect.”
“Also, it means the failure of an individual to perform essential tasks of daily living to care for himself, resulting in the individual suffering certain prescribed consequences or conditions. At this point, I would like to propose that the Minister consider amending the three definitions by replacing "means" with the word "includes". This amendment broadens the scope of protection and empowers the Director with clarity, confidence and courage in the exercise of his powers to protect vulnerable adults. With reference to the definition of "self-neglect", there are also other limitations. In order for the requirement of "self-neglect" to be fulfilled, the failure of the individual to care for himself or herself must result in the individual: (a) living in grossly unsanitary or hazardous conditions; (b) suffering from malnutrition or dehydration; or (c) suffering from an untreated physical or mental illness or injury. The three consequences are extreme. At least one of the three must occur before the Director can intervene. In other words, the Director cannot intervene to protect the individual until something extremely terrible has happened. That should not and cannot be the intention of the Minister. Certainly, it should not be condoned or be the intention of this House. The Director should have the power to intervene if the failure to care for oneself could reasonably be expected to cause any of those three consequences. In addition, I would also propose that the word "grossly" be deleted from (i) of the definition. It is bad enough to live in unsanitary or hazardous conditions. We should not require such living conditions to be gross in order to justify intervention.”
“Let me, first, address the scope of protection but I will address the first two issues together – the issue of the definitions and the empowerment of the Director and the protectors. Both issues relate to the scope of protection, and I will share my views as to what I think the limitations in certain definitions are and state my proposals for amendments. In the interest of time, however, I will not repeat the definitions word for word, and I seek the indulgence of hon Members to refer to the Bill as I speak. Sir, "abuse" has been defined to mean: (a) physical abuse; (b) emotional or psychological abuse; (c) conduct or behaviour by A that in any other way controls or dominates B and causes B to fear for his or her safety or well-being; or (d) conduct or behaviour by A that unreasonably deprives, or threatens to unreasonably deprive, B of B's liberty of movement or well-being. Sir, "emotional or psychological abuse" is further defined. But I have to admit I am not comfortable with the word "mean" or "means" in that definition. It limits the definition as opposed to the word "includes". When I read the definition of "emotional or psychological abuse", together with the illustrations, I believe, Sir, that the question is left open as to whether non-action, such as indifference or just complete inaction in treatment constitutes emotional or psychological abuse. I hope the Minister can clarify. I move on to the definition of "Neglect". It means the lack of provision to the individual of essential care, to the extent of causing or being reasonably likely to cause personal injury or physical pain to, or injury to the mental or physical health of, the individual. Again, the word "means", is very limiting, as opposed to "include". Next, "self-neglect".”
“Nobody in our right mind or heart will ask, "what right have you to protect the vulnerable adults?" But we should not, indeed, be surprised that family members will demand, "what right have you to interfere in my family matters?" And that is, in fact, a fair question, and that is a question that must be answered by this House now, unequivocally. We must answer this question clearly and unequivocally by, firstly, setting out clearly the scope of the protection for vulnerable adults. Anyone whose circumstances do not fall within the scope of production, will not be able to claim such protection. So, I think it has got to be clear in our minds that we must have a Bill that is broad enough to protect. The protection must be sufficiently significant to an adult. Secondly, we must empower the Director, protector and others to act boldly and courageously to protect vulnerable adults without fear of complaints, fear of having to put out so many reports to explain their decisions. Despite section 34, clarity on the scope of protection and a strong adherence to the principles set out in section 4, will empower the Director and such other persons to act boldly and courageously to protect the vulnerable person. And thirdly, persuading the community that each person has a role to play in the protection of vulnerable adults. These three questions we must answer unequivocally today. Sir, a vulnerable adult is defined as an individual who is 18 years of age or older, and is, by reason of mental or physical infirmity, disability or incapacity, incapable of protecting himself or herself from abuse, neglect or self-neglect.”
“If I may share that this may well be a difference in perspectives. A few years ago, someone shared with me from the social service sector that in the earlier years, when there were voices calling for transport concessions, there were people in the social service sector serving people with disabilities who opposed those voices. In their view, it was the dignity of people with disabilities that mattered more, that, by virtue of upholding that dignity, we should not concede and ask for transport concessions. Strangely, the person then shared that when the Government announced these policies, and they consulted people with disabilities, the people with disabilities said they wanted it. So, it just could be a matter of perspective. Is it not? We could be professionals and we could be very well-meaning and say we want to preserve your dignity. But if I am a vulnerable person, maybe, I want more to be protected. By this, I suppose a balance and an assessment that the Government and the professionals have to assess, have to make. But again, I urge it must be struck in favour of protecting the vulnerable. Let me now come back to the issue of sensitive family spaces. When a "stranger" enters into any family space, he or she will be confronted with the question: "who are you?" What it really means, in our context, is: "what right have you to interfere in my family matters?" What right do you have? Currently, not much right. Hence, social workers, support service providers and Government offices, while actively engaged on the ground to assist and support vulnerable adults and their families, are hampered in their attempts to protect such adults – not much right. It is not much that can be done and, hence, we welcome this Bill. Take another step back.”
“Sir, may I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD), and board member of SG Enable, both serving vulnerable persons. The Vulnerable Adults Bill seeks to safeguard vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect or self-neglect. Everyone has the right to live in safety, free from neglect, abuse, free from fear and coercion. This is so, whether the person is powerful or vulnerable, or has or does not have mental capacity. This Bill has been a long time coming, and I am glad it has finally come. It is a good start, but I am sure the Minister will agree with me that there will be more to be done to protect vulnerable adults. This Bill has been a long time coming because it touches on sensitive matters – a person's right to live where he chooses; a person's right to be cared for; a family's right to care for a vulnerable adult. But when we enter into sensitive family spaces, we can expect to deal with deep-seated family tensions and grievances, strong and overwhelming family dynamics, family reputation; strong ties of love, loyalty, kinship and obligation, feelings of guilt, resentment, contempt, financial challenges, emotional and relational dysfunction, misguided action or inaction. And, very often, many, if not all, in one set of relationships. So, understandably, the Government does not want to be interventionist. And, understandably, my hon colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, also cautioned quite wisely against a judicious exercise of power. And yet, we need to strike a balance -- a balance against the right of another person to act, as opposed to the need to protect the vulnerable. And this balance must be prudent and yet bold, and it must be struck in favour of protecting the vulnerable.”
“We are proud of our sons and daughters, regardless of their achievements. We nurture them. We empower our workers, employers, persons with disabilities. We celebrate successes of Singaporeans together. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their sons suffer mishaps during and in the service of the nation. We grieve with fellow Singaporeans when their family members suffer mishaps whether in Singapore or overseas. We call on the Government to protect Singaporeans who are vulnerable. We stand together against crime. We stand together against terrorism. Do we want to throw that away? We have too much at stake. Even in situations of terror where our own people act or attempt to act against our country, we will stand with all Singaporeans, regardless of language, race or religion. We will be united against evil and terror. As our forefathers and founding fathers protected Singapore for us, we will protect Singapore for our children. Why is trust so important? Without that, our society falls apart. No trust in the Government, no trust in each other. We are Singaporean. We will determine our own destiny. We will listen to the views of others about Singapore, we will discern. We will improve, but we will not bow to criticisms by persons who have no stake in our country. Whatever their motives, however noble their motives, we are the ones who determine our destiny. And this, we must be clear. We must not allow others to influence our destiny. Will we take charge? Will we? And we should. We are Singaporean. Whether we live or die, wherever we live or die, we are Singaporean. And if we die in a foreign land, there will be that corner of a foreign field that will forever be Singapore. Majullah Singapura! 3.01 pm”
“Mr Speaker, many hon Members and Ministers have reminded us of our differences and that we are not yet equal. As such, the same differences that have strengthened and enriched Singapore can potentially tear us apart. But we must not let that happen. Consciously, we must use our differences to strengthen our society. When I have ability, I uphold and I lift the person without the ability, the person with the disability. When I have resources, I share my resources to level the playing ground. If I am weak, I look to someone who is strong to support me. If I am strong, I share my strength with my brother. Let us not allow anyone to attempt to fracture our society. Let us not coalesce according to socio-economic status, race, culture or religion. And we must never, never, never allow distrust to engender along these differences. There is so much that we have to do together as a people. It is not just the work of certain agencies or certain companies but it is the work of every person, so much that we need to do, no time to fight. We must put aside prejudices, we must put aside snide remarks and insinuations. So much to do, can we construct and not destruct? After all, we have a precious common history and we do, we must, we will have a precious and common destiny. We have gone through thick and thin together. The Japanese war, riots, acts and attempted acts of terror, financial crises, SARS. We fought together, cried together, worked together, grew together. Will we throw that away? Will we throw that away at insinuations from people who may not even have any stake in our country? Would we throw that away just by listening to others and being persuaded without much thinking. We are proud to be Singaporean and we should be.”
“As a citizen, I will trust leaders who defend our Constitution and the sovereignty of Singapore, putting at all times the interests of Singapore above all. I trust leaders who exercise righteousness, dispense justice and equity, uphold the rule of law. I trust leaders who protect the people, who remember the poor and vulnerable, who grow the country economically, socially for all. Who lead us and who are above corruption. In my sharing of my aspirations of leaders, I have steered clear of what policies and schemes we should have. These have already been greatly discussed and I leave them to better minds than mine. But for me, the element of trust, if you cannot build that, you have lost us. The President also speaks about trust between the people. This is the second premise of the partnership: between people and people. If we do have trust, we cannot be united. If we cannot be united as one people, we do not require another enemy. We are our own enemy. Deliberate Government policies, such as universal education, National Service, mixed housing and meritocracy have resulted in significant socio-economic progress and social mobility for Singaporeans. We have done well compared to many countries. But, notwithstanding, Singaporeans have not become homogeneous. But why should we be? In the midst of our progress, we continue to carry with us differences in background, abilities, ideologies, culture, race and religion. Justifiably so. These are part of our identity as individuals, a part of our heritage. We are, indeed, different from each other, but we must not be afraid that we are different. We recognise that our differences have enriched the Singaporean fabric. Our differences have made us more accepting, broadened our perspectives, made us better, made us stronger.”
“We should not fear to speak and debate openly and frankly. We should speak and debate with cold logic, but with a flaming passion for Singapore. Neither Government nor citizen should fear criticism. It is healthy but it must be done responsibly. Let us be open with each other and only then will our enemies have one tool less against us. The way ahead would be difficult. There is no doubt. In tackling our challenges and building our future, the element of trust is important. There will be differing views, strong views, strong voices, loud voices. From this tumult, our leaders must discern what is in the long-term interests of Singapore, while looking after the immediate and medium-term interests of Singapore. So, you have said to us that you will demonstrate leadership and resolve. You will stand firm on principles and ideals while seeking practical solutions. You will listen to the people, you will not fear to mobilise public opinion in the long-term interests of Singapore. And, indeed, as a citizen, I expect no less of Singapore’s leaders and the Public Service. To do that which is right by Singapore, boldly but humbly. Never fearing those who speak the loudest, or those wield the most power, making difficult decisions in the long-term interests of Singapore. But how will you communicate with us? How will you know that I believe in you? How will you know that when you make that decision, that difficult decision, which I disagree with, that you will have me on your bandwagon? It is for you to reach out to me and it is for me to open my mind to what you have to say to me. Besides courage and principle, I and many I know will throw in our lot with leaders who uphold universal values of compassion, integrity and loyalty.”
“It is all about words and actions. We weigh the actions of the leaders against their words. We weigh their words against their actions. The words that precede their action, the words that accompany the action and the words subsequent to the action. The nuances, the shades. We watch their other actions, hear their other words. The totality will be the basis upon which we make our assessment. I will do the same for Opposition politicians and the Public Service. I want to know if you mean what you say and you say what you mean. The 4G leaders and the new leaders of the Workers' Party are not strangers to Singaporeans. But compared to their predecessors, they have had a relatively short time up to now to prove themselves. They have clearly proven themselves within their parties. It is now time to prove themselves to Singaporeans. And this is not going to be easy. You have heard different, discordant noises on the ground. Some may be justified and some not. But all must be taken seriously because all emanate from hearts either of anguish or of passion for Singapore. So, the issue of earning trust is fundamental. And I believe that is why the 4G leaders say they got to earn that trust. Because if I trust my leaders, no matter how vehemently we disagree, I will cast my lot with them. I will pay the price, together with my fellow Singaporeans and leaders, to pave the way for Singapore. But if I do not trust my leaders, they have lost me in the journey. Building trust, however, is not a one-way effort. It requires one party to reach out and another to engage. It will be a long and difficult process. Especially if impressions have been formed, assessments have already been made, rightly or wrongly. So, we will need a lot of empathy and open-mindedness from both parties.”
“Such vulnerability is easily exploited and can be exacerbated by circumstances, such as we are in now: shifts in alliances between countries, changes in the domestic landscape, disruption in the global economy, security threats. So, understandably, citizens, like myself, are concerned as to where and how the 4G leaders will lead us, how the leading Opposition party will play its role as a check and balance vis-à-vis the Government. As Singaporeans, we have a stake in Singapore’s future. Visions, plans and policies are important but, just as important, if not more, is whether and how the leaders actualise them. Checks and balances vis-à-vis the Government are important, but just as important if not more important is whether the checks and balances are executed in a constructive and pro-Singapore manner. In other words, whether you are the Ruling Party or the Opposition party, we, the citizens will watch how responsible you are to Singapore. The 4G leaders clearly acknowledged in the President’s speech that they must earn the trust of the people, forge their own bonds afresh with the people, earn the right to lead. I believe this applies to all leaders, even those who have been leaders for a long time. The mandate of the people is given only once at every general election. That mandate, in my view, entitles the winning party to form the Government. But it does not give the winning party the right to lead. That right must be earned, no matter how long you have been in Parliament and it must continue to be earned. So, I am encouraged by the acknowledgement of the 4G leaders that they must earn the trust of the people and forge their own bonds afresh with the people and earn the right to lead. They, having thus spoken, the citizens will wait and see.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion of thanks to the President for her inspirational and aspirational message for the Second session of the 13th Parliament. In her Address, the President calls for Singaporeans to walk alongside the fourth generation (4G) leaders in partnership to achieve an exceptional Singapore. The concept of partnership means that there is more than one person in this journey. Partners bring to the table their contributions, their strengths, their capital, they have different roles and responsibilities. They have a single commitment but they also bear risks together. That is a concept of a partnership and that is what we need to bear in mind when we build our country. The premise of partnership is trust and, in this debate, in my speech, I would want to focus on the issue of trust. The debate is important because the President's speech is not only for the Second Session of the 13th Parliament. It is a call to Singaporeans to take Singapore forward beyond the 13th Parliament and way into the future. This debate is important because it takes place at a significant juncture in the political history of Singapore. Both the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party are undergoing leadership transition. The issue of trust is critical to all of us. We are blessed to be in a country where the Ruling Party and the leading Opposition party transit leadership in a managed process. And that is not to be taken for granted. But however well-managed, there will be concerns, uncertainties and fears on the ground. Leadership transitions can reasonably be expected to be a time of vulnerability.”
“In addition, there should be also greater duties on the part of institutions receiving grants to cooperate with the Government by furnishing information and by giving data, so that we are able to build the necessary landscaping. Translation of R&D Efforts”
“30 pm The Korean government has also been working directly with 30 universities and public research institutes to assess commercial applications of their patents and there are more than 3,000 in all. This has resulted in approximately 50 inventions that are transferred to relevant industries, generating a total of US$3.8 million in royalties. There is much that Singapore can do in learning from different countries. There are many proactive efforts going on, so I would like to ask for clarification from the Government in a few areas. How does the Government categorise the different areas of R&D and what are these categories? In respect of each category, what are the indicators used to track our returns on R&D investments? What are the commercialisation rates of our technology transfer offices? What is the total spending on R&D in the last decade? What are the productivity improvement rates in relevant industries benefiting from such R&D over the last decade? Excluding researchers, what are the employment numbers that have been generated in Singapore, for Singapore industries, as a result of R&D outcomes over the last decade for what we have spent? How has Singaporean researchers progressed and benefited from collaborations with external researchers, again, over the last decade? What is the social economic impact that has been achieved by R&D investments and, specifically, in which industries, sectors and for which groups of persons? What are the practices in place to ensure better economic outcomes from our R&D investments? From my questions, I am sure it is clear that I am driving at not just economic but also socioeconomic impact. I hope that when the Government sets out key performance indicators (KPIs) as well as measurables, we would take those into consideration.”
“Some of the useful practices in other countries include the use of patent analytics and landscaping which are aimed at informing policy discussions, strategic research planning and technology transfer. For example, if you take a look at what Taiwan has done, they have the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) and it actively developed strategic mapping of IP and patent analytics. It institutionalised IP mapping along its R&D process where researchers are required to do IP mapping or landscape mapping before they embark on an R&D project. The benefits of that are obvious. We need to know what is already there and do not reinvent the wheel. Also, the institute conforms new inventions to the industry's needs through IP mapping, along with patent review procedures to strengthen quality and practicability. ITRI has won awards at R&D 100 Award each year since 2005 and they have built a sizeable portfolio of more than 20,000 patents, the quality of which could be evidenced in their successful patent lawsuits against Samsung in 2009 and out-licensing deals to major companies like Mitsui. I believe that, in Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is also building up its capability for patent landscaping and investigations. In China, researchers are able to work for companies that buy their research for up to three years while maintaining their positions at the institute where they did the research. This is to incentivise researchers to conduct R&D with a view to commercial application instead of merely academic application. Hopefully, this will also, if we adopt it here, allow us to have a more market-driven and more market-sensitive research. 5.”
“Sir, we thank the Government for the measures in pushing research and development (R&D) in Singapore. We all recognise the importance. And as in any investment, there should be proper returns. I have previously spoken on the need for us to track our R&D outcomes, monitor the impact, as well as to think of better ways in which we can improve. So, this cut, Sir, will focus on a few issues. Firstly, the need to better track R&D outcomes. Governments around the world have found ways to do so. For example, the US maintains the Interagency Edison (iEdison), which is a unified electronic data system used by more than 30 US federal funding agencies. iEdison receives, stores, tracks, sorts, monitors and generates reports of inventions and patents that have resulted from awards, extramural grant or contract funding. Germany applies an internal rule that innovation programmes with a total budget exceeding €50 million have to be evaluated shortly after the end of a programme or, at latest, every five years, and that will be ex-post evaluation. For newly designed programmes, or in the case of a prolongation of an existing programme, an ex-ante evaluation will assess the rationale of public intervention, formulate a range of objectives and suitable instruments, and assess the impact of Government-owned intervention. Evaluations are carried out solely by external organisations that are selected through a call for tenders. And elsewhere in other places like the United Kingdom (UK), Hong Kong and so on, third parties have been commissioned to undertake evaluation of R&D investments. In addition, we need to have more upstream measures to better R&D decisions and downstream measures to facilitate tech transfer and IP commercialisation.”
“Moving on to my questions, Sir, what efforts have been undertaken by the Public Service to understand ground sentiments, address misapprehensions and implement policies in line with declared intent conveyed through Ministerial speeches? What are the agencies that have recognised within the last five years the necessity to change their operating mindsets and models? How did the recognition come about and how have such changes been implemented? What are the results of such changes and what is the public perception? How does the Government achieve buy-in from civil servants on the ground in the shaping and implementation of policies initiated from top management and Ministers? I ask these questions because I think it is important that if there are changes and there are good effective changes, these should be effectively and properly communicated to the citizenry. An Innovative Public Service”
“Sir, I have spoken previously on my respect for the Public Service and I have recently spoken again with foreigner friends who have also spoken about how clean, efficient and effective our Public Service is. Of course, at the same time, they have also talked about how they tend to be aloof and clinical. Ground sentiments are slightly different. They understand that there is a lot of work that the Public Service has to do but they cannot understand why the Public Service cannot understand them. So, I think there is a disconnect, and it is this disconnect that we need to address. Also, as our society evolves and the needs and demands become more complex, the voices become louder and people are more sophisticated. So, the Public Service has to keep up. As the world changes and we enter into Industry 4.0 with innovation and change, we need to keep up, we need to know what is happening and we need to be ahead. But the concern has always been whether our Public Service is afraid to change because we have been so successful, and whether or not, if we change, the success formulae might be tweaked to our own detriment. Hence, I filed this cut to ask a few questions. The ruling party aside, our continued growth and bonding and success as a country continue to depend on this machinery frequently referred to as the "zheng hu" (in Hokkien) which is, in effect, the Public Service. So, while I understand also, before I go into that, Sir, the need for a rotation, it breaks the continuity of management and responses to issues. It may also inhibit a vigorous review of a predecessor's initiative or the work of a team under that predecessor.”
“Thank you. My understanding of "equality" is that everyone gets the same treatment. When we talk about equitable treatment, people may not get the same treatment, but it is desired to achieve the same outcome. So, perhaps you could be thinking of requesting for more equitable treatment rather than equal treatment. Because when people come from different backgrounds, giving equal treatment will result in a larger gap.”
“Yes. The point I wanted to make was that there is a difference between an inequity and equality. Nobody is equal and I do not think it is ever possible to make everyone equal. So, perhaps, the Member could be referring to inequity rather than inequality. Would that be correct?”
“Thank you, Sir. If I may ask the hon Member, Ms Kuik, and if I recall correctly, also Ms Sylvia Lim, I think there had been much discourse on inequality in our community. I am wondering whether the hon Members were thinking of inequality or inequity. Are they thinking about the Government or the society not having taken enough measures to make sure that everyone is equal or are they talking about not taking enough measures to equip and level up each child to their potential?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You would not want to know my economics grade! But I do have a clarification. I do not know whether, on a Point of Order, it is proper for me to ask. I do not direct it to any particular Member, but to various Members who spoke largely about equality or inequality within our community. Am I permitted to seek the clarification?”
“Thank you, Sir. In conclusion, in order for Budget 2018 to succeed, we must begin to think differently – a quest, a thirst, with something bigger and better, a mind unafraid to dream, a heart unafraid to fail. An aim around us, hearts big enough to accept someone who has failed, minds broad enough to see alternatives, rather than failure. No one can change us, only ourselves. The Government may pave the way for us, but how we take that road and where we find our destination are up to us. Let us take this journey together as Singaporeans. We will support one another. We must. We will celebrate and sorrow together. We will fall, but we will lift one another up. Our forefathers succeeded against all odds. So will we. We will succeed in honour of their memory, we would succeed for ourselves, and we would succeed for our children. Because with the Singapore spirit, we will triumph. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Budget. [Applause.]”