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 2 of 5.
“And to our migrant worker friends, you are our guests. Please respect our culture, our rules and even our accent. Whether you eat or drink, cross the road or cycle, please respect our culture, please respect our rules. There are many among us who have carried themselves honourably and they are our shining examples. They are our good friends. And we are confident that with mutual respect, together, we can achieve a win-win for all. 3.50 pm”
“I urge the Government to consider implementing a systematic, targeted, evaluated system to transfer knowledge and skills to Singaporean businesses and workers. Key performance indicators (KPIs) of officers should, therefore, not be how many partnerships have been forged, but how the terms of such partnerships have been negotiated to achieve win-win for both parties, as well as the impact of implementation of such terms. We could consider a progressive model of ensuring that the right to the grant of privileges or to continue to enjoy such privileges is reciprocated by an increase in the transfer of knowledge and skills to employees and local enterprises. We could require vigilance in systematic and structured training and transfer of such skills to local employees and enterprises. Measurables could include an increase in local hires for higher positions, an increase in the number of local employees trained and promoted from year zero, and year-on-year. Next, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, a few short words about migrant workers. Migrant workers could range from Work Permit holders to senior executives. Singapore has benefited from open doors. We have never been xenophobic, and despite vociferous noises from certain quarters, we must never be. Our forefathers came from their homelands. Singapore’s shores welcomed them. Some of our friends returned to their homelands, but our forefathers stayed on. We are the children of migrant workers. Today, our children and loved ones work and live overseas as migrant workers. We hope for them, our children and loved ones, to be cared for and respected in those communities, and we hope for them to do well. Let us then be hospitable to migrant workers in our midst and hope that they, too, will do well.”
“We should also re-examine scholarship criteria used in Government, commercial and IHL scholarships. What criteria qualities do we want in our future leaders? Academic and extracurricular performance? Responsibility, courage, risk-taking, the ability to fall and stand again? How would we view? Are we prepared to grant a scholarship to a student with a B-score, in place of one with straight As? If the first student had scored his Bs because he had to overcome an illness, or because he had to work to supplement his family income, or because he had to care for a sickly parent or a sibling, are we prepared to have scholarships for students on the basis of courage and risk-taking? Unless we review our scholarship criteria, I submit we may not have, and we would be hard put to find leaders that we will need in the age to come. Sir, let me now move on to developing the Singaporean Core. I welcome the measures in Budget 2018 and, in particular, await more information regarding the Capability Transfer Programme. I would like to know how we will measure the transfer of skills and knowledge to local workers. In addition to the Capability Transfer Programme, perhaps whether the Government also consider that Employment and S Pass holders may be required to train those under their reporting lines. In relation to the forging of strong partnerships, can I request that we take a long hard look at how we now attract foreign companies to Singapore? Despite our success in the five decades, it could be timely for us to review our policies so that foreign companies which set up businesses in Singapore to take advantage of the various financial privileges and incentives, will leave an enduring legacy and enduring positive impact when they cease to operate in Singapore?”
“As long as this situation persists, we run the risk of not harnessing the potential of all our young people. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, every school is a good school. But not every home is equal. The current system has been abused such that inequity continues to be perpetuated and deepened. A full-day school can be a good tool to eliminate a part of that inequity. We have children study together, grow together, spend time together ‒ greater opportunity to level up, greater opportunity to bond. When they go home, parents should be encouraged to reduce reliance on external contractors in providing additional teaching and hothousing and use the time for family bonding. All this requires a mindset change. We require a change in the way we define success and failure. The Chinese have a saying,行行出状元, meaning there are top scholars from every trade. I had previously used this to encourage those who did not perform academically. I do not anymore. To my mind, it connotes that one is only valued if one is at the top of one’s trade. I disagree. Everyone is important, not just those at the top. I am not encouraging sloppy or irresponsible performance. But I am saying that everyone is to be valued, regardless of whether you are at the top or at the bottom. Each time we get into the car, we put our lives in the hands of the last mechanic who serviced it. Most of us do not need a mechanic who is top of his trade. We just need one who is competent and responsible. We should also value "failure" as an alternative outcome. Penicillin may not have been discovered but for a messed-up experience on something else. Of course, Dr Fleming was not the only one to be credited. The rest of the team were hardly to be known as 状 元..”
“The environment in which children cram or are hothoused for better grades should be changed to a "push-frontier" environment, in which children challenge one another by creating problems and by devising solutions to those problems, an environment in which children are challenged with different risk permutations and are allowed to grapple with defective or inadequate responses, simulations of real-life scenarios in which they analyse, brainstorm, role play and make judgement calls. Instead of clearly defined experiments within each subject, students could be challenged to use a combination of their knowledge and skills across subjects to achieve certain outcomes. A push frontier environment will encourage creative thinking, the ability to conceptualise problems, create problems, solve problems, and live with problems. It will build confidence and the courage to be different. The courage to create will shape a different world view, a different view of success and failure. To be sustainable, this environment must be housed in the school. I note the already heavy commitment of students. May I suggest that schools convert to full-day schools, in which all the homework is done and completed within school hours. No outside school homework. With time and resources allocated for push frontier practicals, housing push frontier environment in school and converting schools to full-day sessions, have another advantage: it enables the levelling of the playing field among students. The Government has done much to try to level the playing field. But the fact remains that, all things being equal, children from more advantaged backgrounds will have access to more enrichment and tuition classes, and, when assessed on the current academic models, outperform their peers.”
“Think of our children facing AI in their lives, careers and challenges. We communicate with human beings in human languages; our children will need to communicate with machines in their languages. We need doctors when our bodily functions are compromised; we need machine physicians to intervene and fix machines when functions have been compromised. We apply human psychology in interactions with one another; our children will need to understand the psychology of machines. Our children facing AI. Language, physiology, psychology – I use words hitherto applied to human beings. Could it be that, in the world to come, there may be little differentiation? Human intelligence versus AI. Human psychology versus the psychology of machines. How can we, our young people, live, thrive and harness AI in such a world which is no longer science fiction? Schools, ITEs and IHLs should, therefore, ensure that every student knows some machine basics, with differentiated routes for deeper learning. In addition, courses, in general, may be restructured to allow differentiated exits into other courses, just as we currently allow differentiated entries into schools, institutions of learning and courses. This could potentially broaden the skillsets and perspectives of our students. With industrial 4.0, we need more than academic competencies. We need to nurture from young the appetite for risk, the comfort level for problems, the courage to fall and to stand again. In line with curriculum change, therefore, we must effect environmental change.”
“The Government schemes will be tapped upon for expenditure, but we will not achieve our aim of fostering pervasive innovation throughout our economy. Sir, this mindset change must happen at every level in every age group and every segment of our community. But we can also catalyse such change upstream, through education. MOE has done good work. It has continued to review its curriculum and pedagogy to prepare future-ready leaders. Hence, I have a few suggestions which I hope MOE will consider. Despite living in Industrial 4.0, our schools continue to certify competencies relevant to models of earlier industrial economies. While basic subjects remain important, I submit we should review our curriculum and make structural changes to our education landscape. Before I go further, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to talk about Deepmind's AlphaGo. AlphaGo is not just a computer game of Go. It is a programme that defeated the reigning three-time European champion, Mr Fan Hui, in October 2015 in a 5-0 win and, just last year, it defeated the legendary grandmaster Mr Lee Sedol, winner of 18 world titles and widely considered to be the greatest player of the past decade. It was a 4-1 victory. AlphaGo earns a ninth-Dan professional ranking that is the highest certification ever for a Go player, a computer programme getting a ranking over a human being. Now, there is AlphaGo Zero. Unlike AlphaGo, AlphaGo Zero did not learn to play Go using human amateur and professional games. It learnt to play Go simply by playing games against itself, starting from completely random play. It is now arguably the strongest player of all time. Just a game of Go – really? It gives us a glimpse into what world we are living in, what world our children will live in.”
“We need to change the way we do things. In the face of disruption, we must be prepared to disrupt the way we do things, disrupt our own comfort zones. Let me refer to the three key enablers referred to by the Minister for Finance as laying the foundation for all ITMs: pervasive innovation, deep capabilities and strong partnerships. These are terminologies not alien to us, having been frequently spoken of and discoursed. Unfortunately, familiarity sometimes has a way of immunising us against the true import of the terms. When we talk about innovation, we frequently think in terms of acquisition and effective, efficient use of technology. But innovation is more than that. I use my mobile phone without a clue as to what happens inside in cyberspace and, where applicable, even in the virtual world. My purchase of a mobile phone, and any proficiency – which I do not claim I have – in using the phone and the downloaded apps, do not make me innovative. Embracing change, such as upgrading to the latest version, does not make me innovative. Now, if I can tweak my mobile phone and change it into a loudhailer, that might be innovation, but it might also explode in my face. So, what is innovation? It is when I embark on a quest for the better, for the best, when I say nothing is impossible, when I dare to dream, when I dare to fail, then I might – I might – innovate. And yet, I might not, for I might fail. It is imperative that we develop this psyche. If we cannot, whether as businesses or individuals, we will have neither the courage nor the drive to innovate. We will be nothing more than buyers and users of technology, machines and skills. We will be nothing more than persons attending training courses.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, at this juncture, I wish to refer to the speech made by my hon colleague, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, in yesterday's debate, wherein he drew the attention of the House to the amount and increases in the Budget on social development spending. From the perspective of the social service sector, such social development spending is overdue. It is welcomed. In the days of nation-building and consolidation, social development spending was way below that of other Ministries. But this has changed. The Government has recognised the importance of building up the vulnerable and weak segments within our society. Hence, the increased spending. We are still playing catch up. Money is still not enough. But having said that, I agree with the hon Member that we need to be prudent in our spending. The money has to come from somewhere. Hence, I again advocate for the need for the social service sector to be sustainable, to generate their own revenue without compromising their mission to serve the disadvantaged and the vulnerable, to reduce their reliance on public funding. So, I still request for resources, but not to be invested into a black hole. I request for resources to invest in capability-building to achieve sustainability in the long term. It remains my dream that, one day, charities will not depend on charity. Mr Deputy Speaker, nation-building is both a privilege and a responsibility of all stakeholders. The same set of challenges facing us, as the Minister for Finance says, can be turned into opportunities for us. But it seems to me that the four strategies laid out in the Budget will not work if we are only implementing the schemes, if we are only encouraging take-up by individuals and organisations. We need to radically change our mindsets and world views.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Budget 2018 is about building for the next decade without limiting our planning for the future. It is, therefore, apt that Budget 2018 is also an inclusive Budget and, perhaps more than any other, I will remember this Budget as one in which the Minister for Finance named VWOs as one of the stakeholders, alongside workers, businesses, the Government and citizens, to build a better Singapore for everyone. I thank the Minister of Finance for his recognition of the role of VWOs in nation-building, not just as recipients of charity and public funds. Here, I declare my interest as the President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and a Board Member of SgEnable. So, how do I see the role of VWOs in nation-building? It lies in social cohesion. I liken this to a family, where one parent looks after the welfare of the family and keeps the house in order, while the other parent brings home the dough. VWOs, by virtue of their being on the ground, are best placed to increase and strengthen intra-community networks and bonding. We must, therefore, strategically develop this role, collaborate with grassroots organisations. We can, and we should, build the kampung spirit, the neighbourhood care network. It is part of civil defence. How tragic it would be if a person were to perish in a natural disaster because the neighbours did not know he had existed. I do not need to say any more. Is this the kind of neighbourhood that we live in? It has been a few years since we popularised the term "kampung spirit". Let us step up to the plate and just do it.”
“Prof Walter Woon, from his speech during the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill in 1994, said: “The Bill is not aimed at the majority of Singaporeans who know their duty, who know where morals point and who support and love their parents without having to be told. The Bill is aimed at that recalcitrant small minority that cannot be counted on to do what is right, and therefore it will not affect the vast majority of Singaporeans.” So, Mr Deputy Speaker, my proposals are “aimed at that recalcitrant small minority that cannot be counted on to do what is right”. Currently, other Singaporeans have to pay for that failure. It becomes an additional expenditure of public funds which could have been diverted to support those who are truly without family, and for other national purposes. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Not just a matter of public funds expenditure, such cruel and reprehensible behaviour, if left unaddressed, will immunise our people against basic human values. It will immunise our children and set the tone for what our children, and society, will become. It will immunise us against responsibility, suffering, justice and equity. What is now unacceptable will soon be common landscape, the way life is. What is now reprehensible becomes our lifestyle, the way we are. The family unit will be threatened, our social fabric will tear. We have to do something. We have to do it now. We need to set our moral and legal principles right. Otherwise, we fail miserably as a Government and society. Let us do right by our people. On that note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Motion.”
“In addition, the Government could consider a compulsory savings scheme whereby a part of the CPF contribution is channeled into a new sub-account designated for the purchase of annuities for the maintenance of the member’s parents. I do note that there are areas of overlap and potential conflicts between the above measures that I have suggested. We should not be deterred. We can and should rationalise and implement the measures holistically to form a robust framework to support seniors and reduce familial strain attributable to money matters. I am also well aware that enforcement will be difficult since we are dealing with family relationships. But we put the cart before the horse if we say enforcement must be achievable before we can set up a framework. Tell that to an elderly person: I will not give you the right to take back your property because you may not be able to take it back anyway. Can we say that to an elderly person? It is as good as a doctor telling his patient "I will not give you any option for a particular treatment unless I am sure it will work 100%". I do not think doctors will say that and I do not think that this House should be swayed by any argument that we should not have a framework unless we can ensure enforcement. We need to set our moral and legal principles right and the rest will follow. I wish to emphasise that I do not advocate that we legislate filial piety or, worse still, replace it. Fundamentally, the responsibility, the privilege, remains with the family. If I may quote Prof Walter Woon in response to any concern that my proposals could be too interventionist. Are we being too interventionist?”
“So, I urge the Government to consider reviewing the law to supplement the MPA and to seriously consider the following. First, abolish the presumption of advancement in circumstances where an elderly parent transfers property to an adult son or daughter. The law is anachronistic. We have got to change that now. We are faced with vulnerable seniors, mostly with only one HDB flat, not landed gentry. These are vulnerable people who give their property to their children, children who then neglect, abuse or abandon them. Second, we should legislate conditions under which a trust in favour of a parent can arise or must arise by operation of law, such as where an elderly parent transfers a substantial portion of his or her property to an adult son or daughter so that such son or daughter will hold property in trust for the parent. Thirdly, we should provide for transfers of property to be voidable, at the option of the parent, in the event that the child fails to provide basic amenities or basic physical needs to the parent after the transfer. We should legislate to place the evidentiary burden on the receiving party to show that he or she had not defrauded, coerced or exerted undue influence on his or her parent, that market consideration had been paid to the parent, and that such money had not been routed back to him or her. We should provide that the statutory obligation to maintain one’s parents arises immediately upon the transfer of the property from parent to child, by operation of law. This could apply when the transfer cannot be faulted. Sixthly, we can amend our penal laws to provide harsher sanctions against those who prey on the financially vulnerable, of which the seniors should, by default, form a category.”
“Some of them may not even be eligible under the MPA. But all of us can see the injustice and inequity in such situations. The children have taken their parents’ property and left them bereft. It is irresponsible, cruel, unthinkable, but it happens, and often, too. The law as it now stands is against the parent. I speak with particular reference to cases where property is transferred or given by a parent to his or her child. The current situation is that parents do not have much of a recourse. We do not understand as laymen. When we think that we give a property to our children for them to look after us, we think we can have it back. But the legal position is that once we transfer the property, we cannot take it back, especially if we are a parent transferring the property to a son or a daughter. The law presumes that it is meant as a gift and this is known as the presumption of advancement. The burden falls on the parent to rebut the presumption. Of course, there are exceptions, such as trust, fraud, undue influence. But it is hard to prove. In each case, the evidentiary burden on parents is extremely high. In addition, adducing evidence may involve other family members and widen the family dispute, which is not at all to be encouraged. The law as it stands also does not take into consideration changes in circumstances, such as where a child has a change of heart towards his or her parent after receiving the property. So, they are left to suffer in silence. But ultimately, someone has to look after them, right? And here is where the state steps in. But that is not right. We can all see the unjustness in the situation. It is not right. And we cannot encourage such reprehensible behaviour.”
“Here, I may add that, in my view, the Vulnerable Adults Bill in the form presented to this House at its First Reading is inadequate in that it fails to legislate financial protection for vulnerable adults, including the elderly. I hope to hear more from the Minister on this issue. At this point, allow me to share a couple of stories which I constructed from incidents made known to me. Mr Tan was a manual worker. He and his wife had three children, whom they provided for and raised. Before Mr Tan passed away, he added the name of his eldest son as a joint owner of the flat, expecting that his son would care for his mother, Mr Tan’s wife. After he passed away, Mrs Tan continues to stay in the flat with her son and family, but is treated as non-existent by her son and family as far as they are concerned. She sleeps in the living room and cooks porridge for herself, whilst her son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren enjoy sumptuous meals. The other two children meanwhile are estranged from Mrs Tan due to the "unfairness" of the flat having been favoured to their eldest brother. The second story: Mr and Mrs Lee worked hard to bring up their only daughter. When she was about to be married, they sold their HDB flat, gave the proceeds to their daughter so that she might buy her own flat. The understanding was that they would move in to stay with her. Things did not work out as planned and they are now left homeless. Stories, such as the above, abound and we may simply change surnames, number of children and permutations. But the result is the same: parents part with their properties, their sale proceeds, their savings, only to be left with nothing, not even provision from their children. Many of these parents may not wish to initiate any proceedings under the MPA.”
“(In English): Secondly, I would like to propose a bolder use of the existing legislation, namely, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA). The MPA empowers the Commissioner to make an application on behalf of seniors or parents and represent them in proceedings or appeal under the Act. This is an important power, considering that family relations could be further aggravated where applications are made by parents against their children. Where the Commissioner has sufficient evidence at hand, the Commissioner should make the application, notwithstanding that the parent may not be willing to adduce any evidence against their children. Could the Minister for Family and Social Development confirm the number of such MPA applications by the Commissioner from 2010 to date? When an order for maintenance is made and not complied with, the Act provides a further mechanism in which securities can be made and ordered out of existing properties. This is also extremely useful and assists the seniors without having to make another round or commence another round of legal proceedings. Can the Minister for Family and Social Development also share the number of such orders that have been made out of section 6 of the MPA? I would also urge the Government to make express provisions under the MPA to allow attachment orders to be made against the salaries of children, which leads me to my third point: supplementary legislation. Whilst we are not in any position to legislate filial piety, and we should not, as Prof Walter Woon pointed out in his speech during the Second Reading of the Maintenance of Parents Bill in 1994, we can provide a safety net if filial piety fails. And we should.”
“By using the Will, the senior retains to a large extent the control over his or her assets and finances, and financial independence. Of course, some children may not be happy to wait so long. If the parent-child relationship deteriorates because the parent had decided to take control of his or her own finances, then all the more the parent would have made the correct decision. Deputy Speaker, in Mandarin, please. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Generally speaking, parents will express their love for their children by bestowing things to them. As a result, many seniors transfer their properties to their children. Only after they do so, do they come to realise that their children are not filial, and they are even mistreated, abused, neglected or even abandoned. Even if it does not go to such an extreme extent, parent-child relationship often deteriorates as a result of financial or money issues. In order to avoid conflicts, seniors should be urged to reduce their financial dependence on their children. In their lifetime, they should not transfer or give away their financial assets to their children. They should keep their assets to themselves. They should be encouraged to make a will to allocate their inheritance. Seniors can take up the reverse mortgage through HDB. Not only will they avoid paying the instalments, but also, they will receive monthly payouts. They should make a will in order to allocate their remaining inheritance. There is another benefit of making a will. The will can be amended at any time. The filial children can receive more inheritance, whereas the unfilial children can be written out of the will. If the children are unhappy with such arrangements, it proves even more that your decision is correct.”
“And obligation, even if there is no love. As a community, therefore, we must continue to emphasise the value of filial piety. It should be taught at home. Parents should set the example, and it should be taught in schools and religious institutions. We should also recognise that with or without filial piety, financial dependence on children can strain and has frequently strained parent-child relationships. So, let us empower seniors to take control of their financial assets in order to reduce financial dependence on their children. Whilst it is understandable that seniors would like to give properties to their children, the gifts can be made after they have passed on. In principle, they can reduce their financial dependence on the children and still leave legacies to them using two legal instruments: the reverse mortgage and the Will. First, the reverse mortgage. We should intensify and expand our ground efforts to inform seniors of the advantages of the reverse mortgage to HDB and other financial institutions and encourage a higher greater take-up rate. The payouts from the reverse mortgage will enable the seniors to reduce their dependence on public assistance or their children. The remaining value of the flat can still be gifted to their children after they have passed on. Second, the Will. We should encourage seniors to maintain themselves out of their own properties. They should not make gifts to their children in their lifetime. By making a Will, the senior can continue to own and enjoy their property and leave the remainder, after they have passed on, to their children. A Will can be changed at any time by the senior. This means that an unfilial child can be written out of the Will at any time.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare my interest as a lawyer in private practice. I join my colleagues in this hon House in support of the Motion and echo their proposition to recognise that seniors are a gift to us. Indeed, seniors should be respected, even if they cannot contribute anymore. Sir, the social compact in Singapore is evolving. The success, stability and economic benefits enjoyed by us today have been built upon the sacrifices, sweat and tears of our seniors. They suffered loss so that we might gain. As a country, we owe it to our seniors to enjoy their golden years in dignity. More fundamentally, as individuals, we owe it to our parents to enjoy their golden years in dignity. Regrettably, it appears there are some among us who do not agree with that statement. We have all seen many, too many, cases of neglect or abuse of seniors by their adult or even middle-aged children. Yes, there might be bad blood between a senior and his or her children. Notwithstanding that, few among us will condone neglect or abuse of such seniors by their adult children. Accordingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst I firmly believe that filial piety cannot be legislated, I submit that Singapore needs a more robust and coordinated framework towards ensuring that our seniors will be well taken care of. The hon Member Mr Henry Kwek proposed three policy changes. I propose three complementary actions: education; bolder use of existing legislation, namely, the Maintenance of Parents Act (MPA); and supplementary legislation. Firstly, education. Caring for a person is not about how lovable a person is, or how fragrant the person is, or how affordable or convenient it is to care for the person. Particularly in the context of a parent and child, it is about love and obligation.”
“Thank you, Sir. In relation to my speech during the Second Reading of the Charities (Amendment) Bill yesterday, I awaited to declare my interest. For the record, I declare that I am the President of SPD and the Director of SG Enable, both of which are charities regulated under the Charities Act.”
“Yes. Thank you, Sir. I have a question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. In any application for accreditation by a potential service provider or trainers, are the applicants required to declare any association or relations to other service providers who may have been under investigation or who may have been penalised for any improper conduct? And such association might include relationships to shareholders, directors and managers of errant or suspected errant trainers.”
“From a relational perspective, "charity" or "welfare" connotes the dispensation of help from one to the other. It creates a difference in status and widens the social gap. It accentuates the chasm in mobility, socially, physically, economically and politically. It underscores the vulnerability of the person. It is liable to create a sense of low self-worth and helplessness in the other party. The term "voluntary" masks the need for professionalism in service delivery and in the sector. There is, indeed, growing sentiment on the ground to do away with the "VWO" label. This conversation brought to fore by NCSS in 2016 should continue. What we call ourselves shape what we think of ourselves and shapes our aspirations. A new name, a new future. In conclusion, Sir, the winds of change are upon us. It is not enough to trim our sails. It is time to change our vessels. I request the Government, our stakeholders and sponsors and members of the public to support us.”
“Such a model could be seeded by donations or social impact bonds. We can consider social impact bonds. It is new to us but we can work on that. But it is not a model that must be sustained only by donations. Sir, we must not run this model like a conventional social enterprise. If we do not operate more profits, we are doomed to fail. I am arguing, submitting for the need to build a model that is financially sustainable to take us into the future. A model that requires us to rethink and re-examine the requirement for charities to be not-for-profit. Sixth, ownership of our destinies. It is difficult for us to live with little. Compound that difficulty with little or no education, a disability or more, illnesses, failing marriages, single parenthood, difficult children, ailing parents, estranged relations, difficult employment situations and difficult community situations. Is it surprising that many of us spiral downwards, physically, emotionally, spiritually and financially? We need help. The Government and the charities, rightly, must step in to help. Intervention must be timely and decisive. The support must be relevant, effective and empowering. Such intervention and support can, at best, only solve an immediate problem. We must, in the long run, empower and encourage our people to take ownership of their lives so that they can break out of the vicious charity cycle and, in turn, reach out to support others. Instead of scurrying for additional resources to support an increasing number of people, we build a strong network within this community to support each other, more than what money can buy. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is timely to consider renaming ourselves.”
“If we fall into an unsustainable deficit, only two things can happen: a bailout because we cannot afford to fail; and that would entail funds from the public, more likely through Government rescue, or a shutdown resulting in a displacement of clients, loss of employment and disruption in the sector. How much of a risk can we stomach? Here, I submit it is time to change the charities model. Whilst Government funding and donations remain desirable, they should no longer be relied upon to form a significant portion of our receipts. I have a vision of a VWO that is firmly rooted to its vision, committed to serve all clients, regardless of status and wealth but it also engages in revenue generation with revenue generated being used to execute our mission and our vision. It practices price cross subsidies. Not a new concept, but it is using fees from those who can afford to subsidise fees of those who cannot. The means testing criteria and methodology is updated to align with this key model, leveraging on its competencies. It runs additional programmes for profit generation. It goes regional, it exercises prudence in undertaking appropriate risk management assessment, takes actions to hedge against reasonably anticipated risks. All throughout, it remains true to its commitment to serve its clients. This is my vision for a future VWO. If we succeed, we reduce our reliance on public funds. If we fail, we go back to reliance on public funds. But we need the support and understanding of the public that profits are generated for charitable purposes. We need the support of the Government not to remove our IPC status or compromise our charitable status on that count. I trust we can work out a feasible model with sufficient safeguards and sufficient latitude for enterprise.”
“They trust us to make the change for them. Our employees deserve no less. There is pride and dignity in their work. We insult them if we expect less of them than we do non-charity employers. They deserve challenges, opportunities and support to grow, to flourish, to accomplish and to serve. Lower tolerance for lower service standards. Our funders and sponsors deserve no less. They have shared their resources with us. They have believed in our cause. They are walking the journey with our clients and us. Imposing high standards on ourselves is our way of showing our respect to them. Singapore deserves no less. The community and the Government have rallied around those who need support. We, the charities, should be another pillar of support. We must not continue to be a sector dependent on support. This brings me to my fifth point: the sustainability of VWOs. I wish to emphasise that this point is limited to the context of VWOs. By a conventional approach, we continue to look within ourselves to streamline work processes, better deploy our personnel, increase productivity and, hopefully, reduce reliance on donations. This conventional approach, while necessary, is not sufficient to see us into the future. Charities are defined as not-for-profit organisations. Must it always be so? The current charities model relies heavily on Government funding and donations. A very small proportion of the revenue is derived from very low fees or very low revenue from sheltered enterprises, and most sheltered enterprises are loss-making. The increase in Government funding and donations over the years cannot and will not be able to match the growing rate of needs. Think on this – even the best managed organisation can potentially fall into unsustainable deficit. Can we take that risk?”
“They are the ones who started our charities. They are still with us today. They bring with them passion, compassion and skills to the organisation that they serve. Let us be innovative and creative in the way we work with our volunteers. They can supplement our manpower without an increase in our Expenditure on Manpower (EOM). They can provide expertise outside that of our organisation's own professionals. They can inspire our professionals. Give volunteers opportunities to contribute meaningfully, give them a sense of pride as they serve. Thirdly, collaboration within the sector. According to the 2016 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Charities, there were 2,247 registered charities in 2016, of which only 653 are IPCs. In 2015, 46.2% of the registered charities had annual receipts of less than $250,000. So, almost half of all charities are small charities. Setting up charities, however small, must continue to be encouraged. This is a good reflection of a healthy, spontaneously caring society, one that is willing to give. A small charity is cosy, warm, agile and more responsive to the needs of its clients. Understandably, however, small charities may have limited resources. Looking at the numbers, I cannot help but wonder if we could collaborate and what greater impact could be achieved if we collaborated for the benefit of their clients. Collaboration requires us to be vulnerable, for we share our strengths with others. But it will strengthen us as a whole. Collaborate we must, for our clients and, indeed, for the sake of our own organisation. Let us work together towards cohesion in the midst of our diversity. Fourthly, adopt low tolerance towards low standards. Our clients deserve no less. They and their loved ones have put their well-being in our hands.”
“It is easy to relate this statement immediately to the frontline professionals providing direct services to the clients, such as therapists, social workers, counsellors, teachers, job coaches, medical and allied health workers, and so on. The truth is, behind them are quiet troops working to ensure that the organisation functions efficiently, meets compliance requirements and governance standards. Quiet troops cleaning the premises, raising funds, conducting public education, engaging community partners and supporting the frontline professionals. Our back-end supporters, they are a critical part of the team, without whom services to our clients will suffer to the ultimate detriment of our clients. It is in the interests of our clients that we attract, retain and develop our professionals and our employees. To do so, we must treat them fairly, and I refer specifically to remuneration. This is an issue also recognised by the Government and the National Council of Social Services (NCSS). But this is a difficult issue for some members of the public. Those who work in the charity sector, they too have families, they too have aspirations to provide for their families. Please consider their equity in this matter. It is not reasonable or fair to expect those who serve in the charities sector to take a pay cut relative to their peers. To the public, I request that before we next argue that every cent of all donations must go to the beneficiaries, take a look at our own little child, and ask if Mommy or Daddy should take a pay cut for no reason other than that Mommy or Daddy works in the charities sector. We need good people in the sector and we need to pay them well. Secondly, we need to tap on the readiness, expertise and skills of our volunteers.”
“The socioeconomic landscape of Singapore today is beyond what our parents and grandparents envisaged when Singapore became independent, and the future landscape will be beyond what our current charity models can hold. A rapidly greying population, additional touchpoints and enhanced medical expertise in early intervention, diagnosis and treatment, lifestyle challenges, increased stress points in familial and communal relationships, greater financial uncertainties – there will be an increasing number of people requiring support with more complex needs and more interwoven issues. The demands will be real and, in some cases, loud. The challenges facing us today are daunting: more clients to be served, more complex needs, more complex issues, more compliance requirements, higher public expectations, higher operating costs, limited revenue, limited technology capabilities, limited manpower and limited funds. In four simple words: more needs, less resources. I surmise that our future challenges would, in essence, be similar but accentuated and, possibly, with a different complexion. How shall we overcome these challenges? We need to innovate. We need to change our charity mindset. We need to change our charity models before it is too late. Whilst I do not have the solution, I have a few suggestions. First and foremost, we need to professionalise the sector. Although the role of volunteers remains integral to the social service sector, the Singaporean society has developed beyond the early days when charities could be run solely by volunteers. The journey of "professionalisation" will be different for every organisation but it must, in every case, begin and it must never end. Competent, compassionate and committed professionals are key to the welfare of our clients.”
“A second clarification sought in relation to section 25 is: whether the Government had considered broadening the scope of section 25 subsection 12 beyond subsection (2)(iv), (v) and (vi), to include compliance with other orders of the Commissioner? In relation to section 25A, in respect of which I note there is no proposal for amendment, can the Minister clarify the basis for the subsection, which provides that it does not apply to an exempt charity? The application of subsection 5 results in an anomaly in which a key officer who has been removed as such from a registered charity may also be removed as a member of the charity, but a key officer who has been removed as such from an exempt charity may remain as a member of the charity. Considering that exempt charities are universities, educational institutions, hospitals or religious bodies and so on, we would expect that exempt charities be held to equal, if not more stringent requirements. In relation to suspension, removal or disqualification orders, would the Minister consider making express provision prohibiting acting by proxy and making it an offence for persons to act by proxies? Finally, in relation to the proposed section 43(7), would the Minister consider providing for service under this subsection to be effected only upon the person's prior written consent? Sir, having stated my support for the Bill, it is my hope that the next review of the Charities Act will be more comprehensive, more visionary, bolder, catalysing greater vibrancy in the charities sector, for the winds of change are upon us. Our current charities model will not hold.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, first, I would like to record my thanks to the Minister and the Commissioner, as well as the Ministry for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY) for moving the amendments. The amendments to the Act are timely. The amendments underscore the importance of upholding the integrity of charities, inter alia, management, reporting and fundraising. Sir, integrity is more than an honest intention and more than a good heart. It entails a robust set of procedures to ensure compliance, a discipline within the organisation to comply with the procedures, a conviction ingrained in management, staff and board that we are accountable to our funders, our sponsors, our employees and, above all, our clients and their families. Therefore, I support the Bill, particularly in the broadening of the powers of the Commissioner to protect charities and the enhancement of penalties for certain types of non-compliance. Notwithstanding, I seek a few clarifications from the Minister. Whilst I support the amendment to section 16, I seek clarification as to why subsections 2 and 3 are sought to be amended to apply to "a registered charity or an exempt charity", as opposed to the other sections, such as sections 12 and 13, which simply apply to "charity". In principle, I also support the proposed amendments to section 25. However, would the Minister consider making provisions for the extension of the suspension period between 24 months in complex cases, whether exercisable at the discretion of the Commissioner or upon application to court by the Commissioner?”
“It is a scrupulous adherence to the integrity of regulations and a conscientious adherence to the welfare of our people that will make our Public Service honest and effective – human. Let our Public Service continue to serve our people with conviction, commitment, courage, professionalism and empathy. Always fearless to do that which is right and good, yet exercising humility, empathy and kindness. Then and only then are we a public sector, a Government, able to meet the highest accountability standards to our people. I support the Bill.”
“This is an important piece of legislation. It can potentially revolutionise the delivery of public sector services and shape the public sector to come. I would submit that it should at least enshrine two cardinal principles of public service. Firstly, that the Singapore public sector exists to serve the Singapore public. Secondly, the Singapore public sector must, beyond strengthening its systemic integrity, be comprised of individuals with uncompromising integrity, a dedication to his/her calling, an unshakeable commitment to the good of Singapore. The first cardinal principle, that is, the public service exists to serve the public, that principle must set the tone and context for the subsidiary legislation, policies, instruction manuals and the implementation to follow. This cardinal principle will be a constant reminder to public servants of a higher duty of accountability to the Singapore public, not just to Ministers and the Government. The second cardinal principle is what gives humanity to our public sector. It is that which gives us hope for the future. It is that which assures us that our public sector will do that which is right and good for Singapore, regardless of political masters, regardless of vociferous demands from the public. The means and the end are different. Without the means, the end fails. Form and spirit are different. Without the spirit, the form kills. One cannot replace the other. Each is essential to the other. Without the spirit of public service, we will be an AI administration − clean, efficient, clinical. But we know that compliance with a set of rules does not make an honest or effective public service agency. Efficiency alone will not, in every case, serve our people well.”
“One would have thought that in times like these, given the complexity of the issues facing Singapore, given that it is no longer possible for a single Ministry or a single public agency to adequately address such issues, the Government might wish to enshrine the principle of a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services to the Singapore public within the same piece of legislation. This would have set a very clear context for the legislation and the implementation to follow. Somewhat disappointingly, also, this piece of legislation appears to embody the form but not the spirit of public service. It sets out a framework that is forward-looking and relevant to the complexity of issues faced by our country. It shows a clear legislative will to hold the public sector to high standards of governance and accountability, and I applaud and commend the Government and the public service sector for initiating and putting the proposed legislation before Parliament. But this is not sufficient. Public service is not about a set of regulations. It is about the people within the public service sector, and the people for whom the public sector exists. Developing and implementing a consistent system of governance and accountability, meeting high standards of accountability are worthy aspirations, soon to be legislated. They are fundamental and integral to an effective and impactful Public Service, and they are integral to public trust. But they are not our end goals. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public. Likewise, developing and implementing a whole-of-Government approach in the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector is integral to an effective and impactful Public Service. But it is not our end goal. Our end goal is to serve the Singapore public.”
“Having sought the clarifications, Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to now make some general comments. The long title of the Bill reads, "An Act to provide for a consistent governance framework across public bodies in Singapore and to support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector, and to make consequential and related amendments to certain other Acts." I am curious why the reference to a consistent governance framework in the long title refers only to public bodies and not to Singapore public service agencies as a whole. I also note that in section 3 of the Bill, the purposes of the Bill are stated as follows: (a) to establish a consistent system of governance and accountability across public bodies in Singapore that meets high standards of accountability; (b) to clarify the accountability relationship between public bodies, the members, the responsible Ministers and the Government; and (c) to require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services in the Singapore public sector. This is an important piece of legislation. I support it. It can potentially change the landscape of Public Service agencies in Singapore, creating Public Service agencies more effective and competent than many others in other countries. But if this piece of legislation is inadequately understood or executed, it will fall to be another set of compliance burden. It is noted that the Bill does not require and support a whole-of-Government approach to the delivery of services by the public sector to the public.”
“I have noted the impracticalities of obtaining consent. Would the Minister clarify if there could be circumstances under which informed consent or opting out may be provided for? In terms of transparency and accountability, these would also be a big concern. How would the Government propose to inform members of the public about the sharing, analysis, use of and access to their personal data? For example, some may be afraid of unlawful surveillance. I hope the Minister would address these concerns. In determining guidelines for data-sharing, perhaps we could also have reference to the Caldicott principles. These are principles in the Caldicott Committee’s Report on the Review of Patient-Identifiable Information. It is a United Kingdom committee and the report may serve as a reference for us. A few of the principles are as follows: the proposed access to, sharing of or use of the information should be justified and only allowed if it is necessary; the amount of identifiable information to be shared should be kept as minimal as possible. As noted in the earlier portion of my speech, greater clarity is requested and we hope to hear more from the Minister. In relation to Part 4 of the Bill, given that non-disclosure of a conflict of interest is a serious matter, what is the position of the Government in this respect, and is there a particular reason why there is no specific provision to penalise non-disclosure? In relation to section 40, I noted the Minister's comments earlier that he would be seeking an amendment at the Committee stage. I am not sure if the amendments would include section 40. If not, I would request for clarification as to the exemption of PA from the requirements of that provision.”
“We do not realise that the giving of such important pieces of information for not so critical functions or purposes can do a lot of harm to us. I also wish to seek a few clarifications concerning privacy and confidentiality, security, non–discrimination, consent, transparency and accountability. First, privacy and confidentiality. I would like to request the PMO to clarify (a) the scope of data that could be covered by data-sharing provisions. I understand it is not possible to enumerate but it would be helpful if we could have some indications; (b) when disclosure could be authorised; (c) when the use of information would be considered proper; (d) the consequences of failing to ensure end-to-end encryption or failing to ensure anonymisation of data that should have been anonymised; (e) the consequences of re-identification of anonymised information by a former "relevant public official". The current provisions, as drafted, cover only abuse by current relevant public officials; and (f) the consequences of unauthorised access to data. The current provisions, as drafted, cover only unauthorised disclosure or use. Next, security. Members of the public, some of us would be concerned with security breaches, including hacking. Would PMO address this concern? Could the Minister also address obligations to report security breaches to the appropriate Minister as well as the requirement to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation as soon as practicable? A third consideration would be non-discrimination. Would we consider a provision regulating the manner in which shared data would be used to address concerns of possible discrimination? Anonymised shared data should be used in a manner that is not discriminatory or stigmatising to persons to whom the data relate. Consent.”
“Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. Much good can come out of it, if we use it wisely, for example, the directions on data sharing. Although the PDPA does not apply to Government agencies, I understand that there have been constraints in the sharing of personal data between public bodies due to the Government’s own data policies. From a social service perspective, data sharing has advantages. From the perspective of a client, data sharing enables multiple public bodies serving the same client to construct a holistic profile for more timely and relevant intervention and support. Data sharing equips public bodies to anticipate the onboarding of a client, prepare the relevant support, and monitor the progress of a client or a former client. This will enable public agencies to provide further intervention and further support. It also saves the client time and effort in having to produce the same information to different public bodies at different times. These are some of the advantages from an individual's perspective. For public bodies, data sharing enables public bodies to develop more holistic profiles of the clients and their needs, thereby informing policymaking in the planning of services and their delivery, through analytics and research. It enables public bodies to better understand the trajectory of the clients, which would improve the planning of the respective downstream and upstream services and interventions. From that perspective, I support it. There are, however, a number of concerns, one of which being how members of the public do not fear the sharing of personal data. We are very happy to give our identity card number for lucky draws.”
“I would like to ask the Minister for his clarification on the Ministry's definition of "bullying". At which point in time does the child's mischievous prank become bullying, and the kind of support that are given to students who have been thus identified, and, of course, how they are identified?”
“The doctrine of Parliamentary privilege allows Parliamentarians to speak without fear or favour, to call to question the decisions and actions of the Government, and to require the Executive to account to the people. As Singaporeans engaged in more robust debates on the ground, there will be higher and more unstinting expectations for more robust debates in Parliament. Singapore will be well served if Parliamentarians debate on issues vigorously, fearlessly, and I have no doubt, Sir, that you will maintain the dignity of the proceedings and that, with your fairness and your even-handedness, you will see to it that issues are properly debated. I am confident, Sir, that you will rise to the occasion. I know that you will do your best, do right by Singaporeans, and you will continue to make a difference to Singapore. For that, Sir, I look forward to your leadership. Thank you. [Applause]”
“No office can limit the talent to make an impact, and any office can be one for exemplary service. But I have to admit, as I said earlier, that it came as a surprise. In fact, many of my colleagues in the social service sector and I were taken aback at the announcement of, Sir, your departure from the Cabinet, not simply because you were not going to be a Minister anymore but because you were our Minister. You went beyond discharging your portfolio, you cared for those who were struggling in the Singaporean community. You cared for those who were serving in the social service sector. You understood that it was a long and hard journey for all of us on both sides in the sector. You knew we struggled with limited resources, you supported us and you encouraged us to think out of the box, to relook our limited resources and use them for the greater benefit of our clients. You encouraged voluntarism at the community and corporate levels, and you encouraged us to take responsibility for ourselves. You were a Minister we could go to, to share our troubles and aspirations, and you were our Minister. And for that, if I could depart from technical correctness for that, I want to say, thank you, Minister. So, have we lost an advocate? I do not think so. Thankfully, I think we have now gained another in Minister Desmond Lee, whilst Mr Tan continues his good work, serving the vulnerable and the disadvantaged, we have one more person to serve the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. Will your appointment, Sir, as Speaker of Parliament, limit your service and contribution to Singapore? I do not think so. I think you can do more. As Speaker of Parliament, I have no doubt that you will rule the proceedings with a fair and even hand.”
“Sir, today marks a new beginning. The well-respected and well-loved Speaker of Parliament had resigned for a Presidential bid to do good together with the citizenry. Stepping into her shoes would be a well-loved and well-respected Minister. I want to say a few words here because I first want to thank you for what you did for us. But before I thank you, I want to clarify that I actually have a lot to thank Madam Halimah for, but I am not in a position to say very much because I am one of her campaign team members. I do not think that it will be appropriate for me to say too much in Parliament. Sir, the past week has seen public speculation whether or not Mr Tan Chuan-Jin had been demoted. I have to admit that that was, indeed, one of the first thoughts that came to my mind. And then I begin to think otherwise. So, I have to say I now beg to differ with those views. Singaporeans have long talked about having a different definition of success. And now, when we have a Minister becoming a Speaker, we say he has been demoted, all because his roles are now more circumscribed because he will be taking a pay cut. Is that how we want to value each other by how much we earn, by the position that we hold? I do not think it is right for us to do that, and I think it is time for us to also revalue ourselves, relook at how we value one another and how we value our public servants for what they have done and what they will continue to do for Singapore regardless of the office they hold. How can we say that only Cabinet Members can steer Singapore better? What about backbenchers? What about Opposition party members? We all serve because we want to serve the public and no office can limit the passion to serve.”
“So, my question then is: if that were the case, then would it not be no difference whether the Prime Minister received one or two copies?”
“Thank you. So, it, therefore, makes no difference. Am I correct to say that, in this case, there is no practical difference in whether he received one copy or two copies?”
“So, my follow-up point would be that, if in this case, a copy of the Deed of Gift was given to the Prime Minister in his official capacity and then assuming that he took no action on that but he wrote in again, in his personal capacity, as a beneficiary to ask for a copy and he got the same copy of the Deed of Gift, then he could have acted on the second copy, albeit that they are the same.”
“I seek clarification from the Minister for National Development on a related issue. Am I correct to recall that if a beneficiary were to write in to NHB for a copy of the Deed of Gift, the beneficiary will be entitled to a copy? Is that the position?”
“Mdm Speaker, a clarification for Minister. The Minister mentioned that NHB viewed Mrs Lee Suet Fun as a mediator, possibly to assist in the negotiations. Her relationship with the executors would have been a conflict red flag. Why was it not flagged out earlier that there could be a potential conflict of interest in involving her? Were there processes which were inadequate? Or was it a case of human lapses? And how do we prevent, moving forward, instances of civil servants being influenced by persons to allow their involvement?”
“I simply hope that when we step out of this House and end this debate today, we will go out remembering that we are not here just to talk about the institutions, our Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or his Ministers, but we are here debating and deciding on the future of Singapore − a Singapore that was not built by one man, not founded by the sacrifice of one man, but by the sacrifices of generations of Singaporeans. And, for that, I hope that we will not, never, allow that sacrifice to be in vain. So, I say again, let us destroy the divide. [Applause.]”
“Indeed, I do not think it can. But what I hope we can do today is that we can see for ourselves more clearly that there are certain issues that are none of our business, and certain issues that we need to clear the air. And I hope that by the end of this debate, Prime Minister, you and your Government will give to us the assurance that we can always rely on this Government to uphold and to maintain the rule of law in Singapore because, without that, there is no way we can have the confidence that we would be able to look after our people. I feel deeply disappointed that, at a time like this, we are not focusing on national issues that matter so much to our people. In as much as we worry about what people think of us, we also need to realise that we ourselves must band together. If people are looking at Singapore and laughing at us, this is the time for us to be together as a people because this is the time for us to show to others that we are not a people to be easily shaken, easily bullied. I say that this is a time for us to embark on destruction. Let us be one people to destroy − to destroy the divide that splits us as a people; destroy the suspicion that we have towards one another; destroy the memories of unhappiness, of hatred; destroy even partisan differences. This is the time for us to band together and exercise grace and forgiveness; to remember tender moments, happy moments and to remember that that is what our founding fathers would have wanted for us. I do not know what people a few generations later will think about this debate.”
“I said there were three factors that were critical: political will, Civil Service buy-in and mutual trust between the public, people and private sectors. Undergirding those three things are, in my view, at least three important co-dependent factors: the rule of law, political stability and economic progress. Without any of the three, it could not have been possible for us to look after our people or nurture them. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would degenerate into political and civil infighting. Were we not to uphold the rule of law, we would not see economic progress to support our social progress. Were we to divert our efforts and our attention to political infighting, we could not have spared resources or attention to care for the underprivileged in our community, to care for our people. So much at stake and what are we doing today? We are here in Parliament debating serious allegations. We have had so much to deal with − an economy undergoing disruption in Singapore, globally. We have just finished our Committee on the Future Economy (CFE) consultations. There are so many proposals to be implemented. At the national level, we have just finished our Third Enabling Masterplan. So much to be done, so many people to look after − the health of the Pioneers, the health of our children − all these things. How do we educate our young, how do we bring them up with the right values? So much to be done. On the personal level, we worry for our jobs, our own health, our children's future. We worry about safety, we worry about terrorism. So much at stake, so much to be done, and we are here talking about whether certain allegations against the highest officers in the land are valid or not. I doubt very much that a debate could resolve this issue.”
“Indeed, we must give due weight to Mr Lee's wishes and, for that, I see that there is a justification for a Ministerial Committee, but it is also just for us to understand his reasons as to why he made certain wishes known. My own thinking is that it would not be right for us to demolish the house solely because he wished it. It would not have been right. The Mr Lee that I grew up knowing and respecting would not put his personal interests above the interests of his country. There must be due process, we must consider the interests of the country as opposed to the wishes of a family. We cannot compromise the rule of law. I cannot over-emphasise this. If I could just share a little personal experience. In June 2015, when I was part of the Singapore delegation to the United Nations Convention for Rights of Persons with Disabilities in New York, I was one of the speakers for a Singapore side event on "Urbanisation and Disabilities". I shared the Singapore story of transformation: from attap houses without proper sanitation facilities to high standard public housing with accessible features and universal designs; the transformation of our transportation infrastructure into an inclusive and accessible system, now the envy of many other countries; transformation of our underprivileged being provided education, opportunity, professional and social mobility. I shared the transformation of our journey towards acceptance and inclusion. There were about 120 people in that room. They were from many different countries. They were surprised at what we achieved, and they were inspired that we did it in 50 years. They asked what our formula was. And I shared my personal view.”