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 3 of 5.
“I repeat, "and I say it without the slightest remorse, that we would not be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened in very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use". If I may add, do I get my house demolished or not? Do I get buried where I choose to be buried? Do we keep the Sungei Road Hawker Zone? We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think. Why do I begin with these quotes? Because it is my conviction that in all deliberations, whether now or in the future, whether we are referring to 38 Oxley Road or whether we are referring to Sungei Road Hawker Zone, we must remember that under all circumstances, the rule of law and due process must prevail. I cannot imagine Mr Lee banging tables and insisting on the demolition of his house. As one who upheld communitarian laws over the interests of individuals, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that his individual interest must prevail over communitarian interests. As one who defended his Government's land acquisition laws, I cannot imagine Mr Lee insisting that the Government cannot acquire his own property. If in life he submitted himself to the rule of law, I cannot imagine him overruling it in death. It remains to be seen as to why the demolition was drafted as a wish rather than a directive or a condition under his will. I do not know. But it remains to be seen. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting his will to prevail over that of the communal good. I cannot imagine Mr Lee wanting to be treated above how other citizens are treated. Perhaps, only those closest to him would know the answer.”
“Mdm Speaker, please allow me to begin first with a quote from a 17th century writer Thomas Fuller: "Be you ever so high, the law is above you". Let me share a second quote attributed to Mr Lee Hsien Yang: "Let us not mince words. Singapore's social compact under Lee Kuan Yew was − civil liberties may be curtailed, but in return your government will respect the rule of law and be utterly beyond reproach." And, indeed, Mr Lee Kuan Yew himself had also spoken many times on the rule of law in Singapore, and on how our laws reflect the traditional Asian value system which places the interests of the community over and above that of the individual. In particular, when he spoke at the Opening of the Singapore Academy of Law in 1990, he stated in the context of land acquisition that his Government puts communitarian interests over those of the individual. He added, "These were contrary to the rights of the individual upheld in English jurisprudence. But because our people shared our values, they supported and abided by our legislation. If the Government had failed to establish the basis for political stability and social cohesion, the rule of law would have become an empty slogan in a broken-back Singapore. But we have succeeded, and the rule of law today in Singapore is no cliche." I quote Mr Lee again, "I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes. If I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn't be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters − who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think." The rule of law in Singapore.”
“A question for the Senior Minister of State on the charting of a future-ready nursing workforce. Does the Ministry believe that to do better, we need a mindset change and, therefore, not limit the roles of nurses to nursing care? Are we prepared to take reference from countries like the US, for example, which have nurse practitioners in specialist areas who can provide consultation, manage simpler cases and, even in some cases, issuing prescriptions? In order to broaden the supply or value, beyond quality nursing services, will MOH consider creating a track for nurse practitioners to complement doctors in the anticipated, more complex healthcare management requirement? The final question, will the nurse practitioner then be considered an integral part of our future-ready healthcare landscape, given that it can, in turn, encourage the return of Singaporean specialist nurse practitioners and, by reason of the greater empowerment and progression opportunity, thereby occasion and encourage an increased take-up of the nursing and basic care professions?”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Government for the Budget measures in making provision for persons with disabilities and strengthening community bonds. However, given the limited resources and the limited expertise of VWOs in applying for grants and engaging competent service providers. I would like to know if the Government would be streamlining and simplifying the criteria for the application process for Government grants, whether the Government could provide consultancy services to help VWOs to put up their proposals, and whether also the Government could recommend suitable consultants and service providers that could help improve the services as well as the operations of VWOs. Mobilising Community Efforts”
“We are shocked and saddened when a person ends his or her life. But it is even sadder when it is a parent who ends his or her life, as well as the life of a disabled child. But for every life ended, hundreds and thousands of people, caregivers and parents plough on. Suicides do not happen overnight. Pressure builds until it becomes unbearable and then enough is enough. But by then, it is too late. And, so, before it is too late, caregivers must be cared for. They live difficult lives, painful lives, for love. They rarely live for themselves. And while I think that support groups are important, I doubt that caregivers will want to spend their free time revolving around support groups. I suggest that caregivers would want to spend "me" time and have the confidence that, as they spend "me" time, the disabled child, sibling or parent will be well looked after − to have "me" time without the guilt, without the worry; to plan their time off, without guilt, without worry. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on my question as filed. I look forward to the Disability Caregiver Support Centre playing a differentiated role from what it is already offered by VWOs − a role that is insightful, impactful and empathetic in strengthening and powering caregivers.”
“Thank you, Sir. I declare my interest as President of the Society for the Physically Disabled (SPD) and Board Member of SG Enable. Last year, I requested that the Ministry consider specifically approaching training providers for more efficiency and greater efficacy in outcomes. Can I know if the Ministry has paid consideration to the same? As more mainstream schools embrace students with disabilities and certain special needs, I request that the Ministry consider a panel of prequalified educators, allied as well as teachers, so that such students can be appropriately cared for and effectively nurtured. The equipping of educators is too important to be left to individual schools to select training providers, as is the case now. Schools, despite their expertise, may not be best equipped to choose appropriate training providers. On the other hand, the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA) has developed a structured training programme in which preschool teachers trained in assisting children with special needs and disabilities and, together with VWOs, Government agencies, like the Workforce Development Agency (WDA) and ECDA, have developed accredited training programmes for preschool teachers. These teachers who require training and then register to attend courses will be appointed training providers. Perhaps, MOE could consider taking some reference from ECDA's model? Inclusiveness Campaign Sir, with increasing efforts to provide inclusive environment in mainstream schools, will the Government consider "introducing disability awareness into the mainstream curriculum, such as making disability information and resources available through the schools learning platforms, including e-learning platforms? School Buses for Special Needs Schools”
“I hope to be enlightened as to whether Singapore has crafted an overarching national innovation vision to steer our innovation policies to support national and institutional innovation programmes and projects and to provide the framework by which we would assess our performance against what we intend to achieve under our national innovation vision and how they compare with others globally. I hope we will move away from an "ownself clap ownself" assessment approach. I understand there will be structural reforms, I would like to know what the structural reforms are and will entail. Finally, allow me to share what I once heard. It was a conversation between two ladies, when one contemptuously told the other that a certain Mrs X had yet undergone another facelift. When she was asked how she knew, the first-mentioned lady said: "Why, it is as clear as the nose on her forehead!" The point I would like to make, Mr Chairman, is that the devil is in the details and the mindset. If we make only cosmetic changes or, if we do not execute structural changes rightly, we may end up with a nose on our forehead.”
“In a competitive environment, we learn from one another. Very often, competitors copy one another. Very often they become better. The more successful one is, the more one is liable to be copied. The same is true for companies, the same is true for countries. The easiest competencies for competitors to imitate tend to be those that are tangible, such as infrastructures. Changi Airport may be visible, such as the Singapore Girl and transactable. On the other hand, intangible resources, such as intellectual capital, are harder to imitate. Intellectual capital comprises human capital, intellectual assets and intellectual property. For intellectual capital to be effective as our competitive edge and advantage, it must be directed, managed, developed, applied and protected holistically and strategically. Put simplistically, the durability of our competitive advantage is a function of the speed at which we can be imitated. In the world that we now live in, it is not just about staying ahead. It is about staying alive. I am heartened that at the highest level of our leadership, innovation and the prudent management of intellectual property and capital are seen as critical to our survival. I hope that the agencies designing and implementing the schemes to support innovation will also see that it is a matter of survival for our country. I am heartened that, at the policy level, we could be seeing moves away from expenditure as a key performance indicator (KPI). But even so, I hope that we will see a true mindset change in the relevant agencies, and not just cosmetic changes.”
“In the meantime, MAS is studying ways to help individuals locate their inactive accounts, with a view to reducing such unclaimed funds.”
“The Companies Act sets out fundamental requirements for directors to act honestly and use reasonable diligence in discharging their duties. The Code of Corporate Governance sets out corporate governance best practices and applies to listed companies on a comply-or-explain basis. The comply-or-explain regime recognises the need for flexibility and allows listed companies to adopt alternative ways to achieving good governance, as long as deviations from the Corporate Governance Code are accompanied by meaningful explanations. To ensure that our corporate governance regime remains progressive and relevant, MAS has formed a Corporate Governance Council to review the Corporate Governance Code and practices. The Council members are drawn from various stakeholder groups, including small medium enterprises (SMEs), to provide broad and diverse perspectives on Corporate Governance issues. The Council will review how the comply-or-explain regime can be made more effective. It will consult widely to ensure that business considerations, investor feedback, as well as international developments, are taken into account. Ultimately, the review seeks to ensure that the Corporate Governance Code continues to support sustained corporate performance, business growth and innovation and maintain investor confidence in our capital markets. Ms Chia Yong Yong asked if there is any legislation that empowers the Singapore Government to expropriate unclaimed funds held by non-Government entities, such as banks and other professional or commercial entities. There is, currently, no such legislation. Owners retain their legal right of claim even when their accounts have been inactive. MAS has been studying the need for a formalised framework to deal with such unclaimed funds.”
“Our courts have fined and, in some cases, imprisoned individuals who were complicit. And this has included senior management in some of these banks. We believe the message has gone out loud and clear − Singapore will not tolerate the criminal abuse of our financial system. Mr Louis Ng asked if MAS will encourage local financiers to adhere to the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) industry guidelines on responsible financing. In short, we do. MAS has been working closely with the financial industry on this. Since the launch of ABS' Responsible Financing Guidelines in 2015, ABS member banks are expected to factor into their lending and investment policies sustainability issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, resource efficiency, labour standards and corporate integrity. The local banks have established internal task forces on environment, social and governance issues to help integrate the ABS Guidelines into their lending and business practices. Banks have implemented environmental risk weightings as part of their loans assessment criteria. Loan decisions relating to companies which are assessed to have high environmental risks will be escalated to the banks' senior management. ABS has also recently introduced specific guidelines for banks on dealing with haze-related risks, such as no open burning on plantations, and build capacity on fire prevention with local communities. Mr Henry Kwek has raised a concern on increasing complexity in regulation and the rising cost of compliance, specifically in the area of corporate governance. As an international financial centre, we must ensure that our system remains sound and effective, and stays abreast of international norms. On corporate governance, ours is a tiered approach.”
“These flows were channelled through multiple jurisdictions, including the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Barbados and through many parties and entities, of which many were shell companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Seychelles. We have taken many steps and a robust approach to addressing these risks, because trust and rule of law underpin our international reputation. It is a moving game, and our approaches and methods have to keep evolving. Our approach is multi-faceted. First, we put in place a strong regulatory regime against money laundering, complemented by close supervision, unstinting enforcement where there are offences in Singapore and active international co-operation. Because of the severity and complexity of 1MBD, in fact, we started the Supervisory Examinations two years ago on banks that were suspected of being involved. The Financial Action Task Force, endearingly known as FATF, has independently assessed our system last year and re-affirmed Singapore's strong regulatory framework, alert supervision of the financial sector. Second, we have effective use of financial intelligence by the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office. And also, we share intelligence with our counterparts all over the world. But as the 1MDB example shows, even with strong rules, we cannot eliminate financial crime. This is why we need deterrent enforcement, and that is our third step. In the case of the 1MDB-related transactions, we were the first jurisdiction in the world to take enforcement actions. 5.00 pm We shut down two banks mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim – BSI and Falcon Bank – and imposed financial penalties on several other financial institutions.”
“Bona vacantia properties and estates accrue to the Government, but there is a category of monies that may not be bona vacantia. Rather, they could just simply be unclaimed by the owners and, these properties, monies, could be held in private or public institutions. Is there legislation for the Government to expropriate such monies? The Minister for Education (Higher Education and Skills) and Second Minister for Defence (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mdm Chairman, let me start by addressing Ms Sylvia Lim's question on TDSR. We understand the underlying concerns. Retirees, who have fully paid up their properties, may want to take up a mortgage to support their children's education, pay medical fees, support retirement expenses and, maybe, start new companies. But some of them are unable to do so today under the TDSR rules. I do remember Ms Sylvia Lim asking this question last year. It is the same question, but I will give the same answer, which is, that MAS has been receiving similar feedback. We understand the concerns. We are studying the matter. Ms Sylvia Lim also asked about our anti-money laundering (AML) regime and the efficacy of related agencies and what steps we will take. Maybe some perspectives here. Singapore is a global business and financial centre. It sees substantial financial flows daily, in many forms. Every such global centre carries risks relating to money laundering and other financial crimes. Increasingly, criminals are developing complex, cross-border schemes to mask illicit flows or ill-gotten gains through financial centres around the world. Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned 1MDB-related flows. It is a clear example − it is, by far, one of the most complex, sophisticated and largest money laundering cases to date.”
“How do we reach out to increase the adoption of assistive technology in the whole living environment that we are in and, thereby, increase the independence of persons with disabilities? How do we break the barriers?”
“Madam, once again, I declare my interest as a Board Member of SDP and SG Enable which collaborate in setting up the Tech Able at the Enabling Village. Technology is exciting. Imagine me walking in. Imagine our glaucoma-stricken parents able to see. Imagine our parents with weak knees having the confidence that they will not fall down. Imagine our parents who are weak physically, having been at home alone and, if they suffer a cardiac arrest, there is early medical intervention. There is so much that we can do with technology, so much that we can do with enabling technology. That is what Smart Nation is about. The schemes are exciting − what they can do for our economy, what they can do for our people. But, ultimately, it goes down to what it does for an individual. That is what makes us excited about this Smart Nation, not just how good it is going to position us vis-Ã-vis other countries, but what it is going to do for each of us in our individual life. My questions are: what are our plans under the Smart Nation initiative to use technology in enabled living? How are we building it into our homes? I know there are pilot projects. Could we have an update on the effect of the pilot projects? How do we enable living, enable employment, enable community participation by persons who are elderly or persons who have disabilities and special needs? What plans do we have either for the Enabling Village or for other platforms to reach out to more schools and to train more professionals, and even ordinary persons, to be able to have some basic knowledge about assistive technology and, in some cases, even to provide advice on assistive technology? How do we reach out to more persons?”
“Madam, I declare my interests as the President of SPD and Board Member of SG Enable. Yesterday, I spoke on the need for a mindset change in the HR policies of the Public Service Division (PSD) in the employment of persons with disabilities. I also recognised that the final employment decisions are rightly left to the respective agencies but, nonetheless, observed that unless the human resource teams of PSD and the respective agencies share the same values and commitment as our political leaders and the Head of the Civil Service, we will see very little progress. It has been a year since the Government announced plans to employ persons with disabilities. On Sunday, I did a search on the website of PSD on the word "inclusive" just to see if I could find any progress. It returned 14 results, including one search result for "inclusive of GST". There are actually two close results. One was a speech by Deputy Prime Minister Teo in 2012 at the COS in which he spoke in the context of the re-employment in the Public Service for retiring officers. The next was Minister Tan Chuan-Jin giving his speech at the Singapore HR Awards in 2016 for the employment of persons with disabilities by public agencies. I want to know if employment is, indeed, inclusive. I want to ask and I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will give us the replies. At this time, I would like to acknowledge that it is not going to be easy but I also appeal to PSD on its second core value, which is − Please go the extra mile; please seek feedback and suggestions and also assistance from SG Enable and the other organisations and, in your hiring policies, please dare to change and to learn. Public Service Capabilities”
“Further clarification for the Minister for Finance. I apologise I did not make myself very clear just now. I was not referring to vehicles owned by VWOs but, rather, to the commercial operators because many VWOs are not able to or, for some reason, do not own their own vehicles. They rely on commercial operators to supply the services.”
“I seek two clarifications. The first is to the Minister for Finance in relation to the diesel tax − whether he would consider ameliorating the impact for vehicles that are serving the needs of VWOs, in order to also help the organisations save some costing. My second clarification is for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources − whether the Government will consider water rationing across the board for individual households as well as commercial entities, as also previously suggested by a former Nominated Member, Prof Tan Tai Yong.”
“In the same vein, I also would like to urge my fellow Singaporeans to take responsibility for our lives and our future. I think it is time for us to stop moaning that there is not enough assistance. I think there is time now for us to take our own future into our hands, take what the Government has given to us, but shape it with our own hands. The Government can only do so much. The Public Service is made up of imperfect human beings like ourselves. And if we want them to be bold, to experiment, grow and lead, then we have to allow them to fail. And when they fail, we must be ready to support them. What I want to say is that this is a Budget that gives us hope, but only if we decide that we want to move forward on our own two feet, with the Government supporting us. If we want to build a future for ourselves and our children, and we want to build a future for our Singaporeans and hold our heads high, then we must learn to stand on our own two feet, and we must learn to stand for one another. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Budget Statement. [Applause.]”
“We do not ask for a compromise of the principle of meritocracy. We do not ask for an accommodation of our inability. We ask only for accommodation of our disability. We were, therefore, encouraged when the Public Service Division (PSD) announced in 2016 its plans to recruit persons with disabilities. I met with Mr Peter Ong, Head of Civil Service, and his team. I was touched by Mr Ong's personal interest and commitment, as well as that of a couple of Permanent Secretaries whom I have interacted with over time, their commitment for the Civil Service to employ persons with disabilities. I do recognise, of course, that the final employment decisions rightly are left to the respective agencies. Nonetheless, my observations are that unless the human resource teams of PSD and the respective agencies share the same values and commitment as the Head of the Civil Service, we will not be able to progress. I will await the replies to my COS cuts, but I think from my understanding, ground-up, this is another area where a mindset change is required. We need to be afraid not to change, we need not be afraid to change. When the Government sets the example, it stands on stronger moral grounds to urge the private sector to employ able persons with disabled bodies. I speak at the risk of offending my good and dear friends in the Public Service, of offending those in the Public Service who have earned my respect. But I speak as a Singaporean, proud of our Public Service, and proud that our Public Service can be better. And I share this both with a heavy heart and with hope, that as we look at how people are reacting to the policies that we have, we will think about how we can improve.”
“As I said, I am not a protectionist, but I want to remind ourselves that companies will only stay in Singapore if there are benefits to them. We must ensure that when they leave Singapore, we continue to have the human capital that made them successful, and that the human capital will be our Singaporean Core. I want to touch on another subject that is also very close to my heart. At the last Budget, I spent half of my speech on that and, that is, on innovation. I understand that since then, there have been some changes. I have filed some cuts, so I hope to hear more. But I still hope that when our agencies are restructured, when our agencies reformulate the policies, we would be doing so in the context of what is good for our country. I hope that we would lift ourselves beyond our historical baggage within each agency and reach out to our community partners. I hope that when we negotiate licences and ownership and partnership agreements with industries and companies, we will be thinking about what is right and what is fair, and what will incentivise creativity and innovation. And we will not try to win a greater share of the rights just for the sake of that. I hope that when we deal with people who are partnering the Government agencies, we will think about our country and not our KPIs. In the area of employment, where again we need mindset changes, we have worked very, very hard to reach to private employers. We have also worked very hard to reach to the public sector. And we are encouraged that the Government continues to affirm its commitment to assist persons with disabilities to be trained for and find employment. There are many of us who have called on the Public Service, being the largest employer sector, to take the lead and to employ persons with disabilities.”
“If they believe in the schemes achieving what the schemes are meant to achieve, then the way they implement the schemes will be very different. It will not be just a question, I hope, of checking checklists, ticking the boxes or keeping an eye on key performance indicators (KPIs). But it will be with that knowledge and that consciousness that every decision we make in matching and in granting a grant to an organisation, we are making a difference to our country and to our companies. And I want to talk about developing the capabilities and employability of Singaporean workers because I believe in it. And quite frequently, when I talked about the Singaporean Core, well-meaning people would remind me, "Be careful, you could be misunderstood as xenophobic or protectionist". Let it be clear − I am neither. Companies will come and go. But the Singaporean Core will remain connected to Singapore and we need to develop the Singaporean Core. Schemes and measures are critical. How do we develop a Singaporean Core? Just through schemes and measures, if the employers are not committed? And how can employers be committed if they are not so persuaded by the persons who grant them the grants and make the schemes and measures available to them? I hope that all businesses, local or MNCs, will commit to developing the Singaporean Core. I want to say we welcome partners, but not raiders. I want to say that we must not be embarrassed to tell investors that we would like them to invest in Singaporean workers. This is because we also need to build our own industry movers and shakers. We should not be happy with big companies setting up facilities here only to build foot soldiers for us. We want them here because we want to develop our own people, and we must not forget that.”
“But if we change our mindsets, it can be turned into a powerful game changer for Singapore. So, what do I mean by mindsets? I have nothing to share, nothing to define the mindset with. All I know is that there is a fear that, over the years, the universal values of compassion, empathy, of the ethos of hard work, of caring for one another, of the duty to country, community, family, self, and the respect for one another may have eroded. We may need the change in mindset in each individual citizen for us to come back to where we should be. To know that we owe a duty to ourselves and to our country for the Budget to work. But we also need a change in the mindset of the Public Service and of the corporates. I say this with some consideration, not that I do not believe in the quality of the Public Service, but rather that I think, someone has to say some hard things. I am very heartened that the Budget continues to talk about developing capabilities and employability of Singaporean workers. And I say the Government, employers and Singaporean workers must believe in that. You say, "Is it not odd?" The Government is the one that says we must develop the capabilities. And why do I say the Government must believe in that? It is because of that "disconnect" that I talked about earlier. Whilst we hear in this House Ministerial speeches and Members' speeches about what we believe in, about the seriousness of the global situation and our dependence on other external factors, I fear that the seriousness of the message may not have filtered through to every level of the Public Service. I do not know. Perhaps, my comments are not fair. But I think that if people believe in what the Government wants, then the way they design their schemes will be very different.”
“And I have spoken with businesses, friends and associates and they complain about difficult times and I asked them, "Why not try and seek the Government grants?" They say, "It is no use. It is too difficult. They do not understand." And I wonder why. Why do we have a disconnect? We have heard it so many times. Is there anyone doing anything about it? Because if there is truly a disconnect, then whatever we are going to implement in our Budget is not really going to achieve what we want to achieve, because we are not going to be "one". We are not going to have that unity of vision and the unity of mind and the singleness of heart to move forward. I hear so much and I am concerned. I understand that there are structural shifts that have caused unemployment and redundancies. But I wonder, as some people have asked me, whether some redundancies could have been caused because the Government overlooked certain trends and certain sectors. Was it because there were emerging sectors or fledging sectors that we did not, despite industries' feedback, nurture and grow? I do not know, I do not have the answers. But I hope it is something that we can look into to address this disconnect that we now perceive on the ground. I am concerned because if we do not address the "disconnect", if we do not come across to our people as being willing to re-examine where we may have fallen short, that is very difficult to inspire confidence during difficult times. And now, I come back to the main point of this message which I am sharing today. I beg your pardon. On mindset changes. A mindset change is what we need, because if we do not change our mindsets, the Budget will just be a bag of schemes and measures.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the Budget is variously viewed. In some quarters, it is viewed as underwhelming. And there are some of us who question the timeliness of the imposition of tariffs. There are, of course, others who support the Budget and the Debate will just go on and on, even after the Committee of Supply (COS). But to me, this is a Budget of hope because it is a Budget that tells us that despite the challenges and difficulties that have caused many a good man to stay awake and to worry, that this is an opportunity for us to move ahead for many years to come. With that, it also brings a caution that it requires us to understand what these challenges are, what the difficulties are, what they will morph into and what new ones will appear on the horizon, and how we may convert them into our strengths. That alone is already daunting. But this is not surprising. We live in daunting times. So, we cannot live like we used to live. We cannot think like we used to think. I submit that the Budget would not achieve its objectives if we implemented and relied on the Budget measures without a mindset change. Without discarding all that we have learnt and built in our individual and collective memories and achievements, we must, nonetheless, recognise that our success yesterday and today could be our failure tomorrow. In other words, we must be prepared to say that something that has worked before may need to be changed before it is too late. There is a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". In times like this, I think we do not have the luxury of waiting for some things to break. But of course, unfortunately, something has already broken and this is something that bothers and troubles me a lot. We hear a lot about the disconnect between the Government and the people.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In considering the issue of accessibility and increasing the number of banking touchpoints, given the vulnerability of the elderly as well as persons with mobility needs, it is important that the Government should also consider enhanced security measures.”
“Madam, a supplementary question. I understand that students with special needs in ITEs particularly have lots of problems finding internship places. Would the Ministry be looking at how more resources can be placed to help students with special needs find internship places? Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: I thank the Member for the question. We will take on the Member's suggestion.”
“Madam, I would like to thank the Minister for his clarification. I would also like to say that I agree with his assertion of our country's sovereignty. I would like to seek the Minister's clarification on the last point in answer to the specific third question, which was whether or not we had communicated with China in relation to the seizure of the vehicles. I do understand the Minister's point. But in the light of the comments made by China after the reports of the seizure and particularly comments that we should respect the One China policy and that they have communicated with us and that they have also requested that we abide by Hong Kong's laws, what are the grounds that the Ministry has to assume that China has not influenced Hong Kong's decision to detain the vehicles or in the decision-making process? Could the Minister share that with us and also. If that is the case, then why does the Minister consider those assumptions to be reasonable?”
“Thank you, Madam, but my questions have been answered.”
“So I hope that as Chinese, we can understand the challenges, loneliness and aspirations of our minority fellow citizens; I hope that we can support our minority President; I hope that we will not use race and religion for our own self-interest to stir up problems; I hope that Singapore will always be one nation and one people; I hope we can always say that we are Singapore Citizens, regardless of race, language and religion, united as one. Only by doing this can Singapore survive and continue to be successful; only by doing this can our children enjoy a peaceful, prosperous and equal society, generation after generation.”
“I can only say that all are equal, but is it true? We can say that, but can we do it? We all have our own thoughts. The Government is now introducing this Constitutional amendment regarding minority candidates in the Elected Presidency for us to debate on. In the beginning, I did not wish to participate in the debate because I did not want to talk about racial issues. But having heard the debate for three days, I feel it is not right to remain silent. From the beginning of our nation-building, our Pioneers have worked together regardless of race and religion. We have experienced many racial and religious riots or disputes. True, for many years, we have enjoyed a peaceful society, but what we worry is that because there is no storm, we forget that the undercurrent is still there. Though we cannot see it, it has tremendous power. This is my illusion. I thought what is unseen does not exist. The Government announced that once the Constitutional amendment is passed, we will have an Elected President from the minorities from time to time. I support this amendment because I believe this can further strengthen our society, as well as the mutual respect and tolerance among the different races. In addition, among ourselves, we should also look after and understand one another. Everyone has been in a situation where he is a minority, sometimes in the workplace, sometimes it is when others are all good friends but we are alone without friends. We have all experienced that feeling – a not so nice feeling.”
“We look at how we relate to one another and we talk to one another and relate to one another as equals, with respect. I hope that Singaporeans will not politicise race and religion. We have too much at stake and, so, beyond the political debate within this House, let us be one people. Madam, this is my call to Singaporeans. I decided to speak because I could not take discussions, whether within or without this House, that attempt to turn race into stature, into anything that gives a person a better standing. Talking about race and religion hurts but we got to talk about it and we got to face it squarely and, if we do not have a better solution, let us do what we have with what we can now. Madam, I will speak in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I am a Singapore Citizen. My forefathers came from China to Singapore and the South Seas. We have sunk our roots here. My skin colour is yellow. I grew up in a kampong; I played with many friends, went to school with them, and went to work with them. I have never thought of their skin colours, because I never thought that we were from different races. I only thought that we were all Singaporeans. Very often, I would proudly tell everybody that we are all Singaporeans. I did not like to talk about race and religion. However, not wanting to talk about race and religion does not mean that problems do not exist. In this society, we have seen many problems but I always denied them. I am beginning to feel afraid; I am afraid that our society may not be as perfect as I thought; I am afraid that my thoughts have neglected other fellow citizens' challenges and the problems they face. Growing up in a multiracial society and being a Chinese, I could not appreciate my fellow citizens' difficulties.”
“I used to look at anything that we do that highlights differences in race as the institutionalisation of racial differences. For that, for many years, I had reservations and I could not in good conscience support a lot of initiatives. But I am coming to realise that when we talk about minority representation, it is a recognition of differences and when we institutionalise that in the Office of the President, we are respecting the differences. This is not new to have the rotation of different races in the Office of President. Switzerland has it. New Zealand has it. And I do not know why Singapore cannot have it. For the longest of time, I had prided myself as being colour blind. After all, I grew up in a kampong. I have Malay friends, Eurasian friends and Indian friends. We grew up together, played together, worked together, and I have always proudly said I was colour blind. I did not realise that my kind of colour blindness is blindness and that if we had enough people like me with this type of colour blindness, we will ultimately destroy our society. I did not like to talk about race; I did not like to talk about religion; and I always said we are all the same, and we are. But just because we do not talk about it does not mean that difficulties do not exist. And so, for years, I shied away from talking about race and religion. But just because talking about something hurts does not mean we do not talk about it. If it exists, it exists. If we got to do something about it, we do something about it and we do it before it is too late. So, I support the amendments to the Presidential Office and I say that, beyond that, we go beyond, we go beyond what we want to do today and to the people-level relations.”
“Madam, I am thankful for this opportunity to address the House. Before I go into the substance of my speech, I would like to seek a clarification. In the proposed amendment to the Constitution, I note that the intention is to enlarge the President's veto powers, with the President acting on the advice of the Council. If the President exercises his veto vote contrary to the Council's advice, the Government may trigger the overruling mechanism, presumably because the President must take the advice of the Council seriously. However, should the President assent despite the Council recommending a veto, the Bill still becomes law. Should not the same rationale apply and the Bill be then sent back to Parliament for further deliberation and debate? After all, the Bill is about empowering the President to exercise his veto powers. So, I hope that the Government will look into this clarification. Secondly, I now move to the substance of what I would like to say. Madam, I support the enhancement in the criteria for the selection of the President. However, I join a few of my hon Members in requesting that we look into other criteria as well, not just financial expertise but also other factors that show the heart of the President. Could we formalise the criterion to show community involvement so that our financial gurus also are persons with heart whom we can confidently vote into Parliament? I support the enhancement on the veto powers and I support the entrenchment of minority representation in this very important office of our land. There are two ways to look at minority representation in this office. Either we look at it as an institutionalisation of a racial divide or the respect for differences, regardless of race or religion.”
“I share my colleague's concern about the politicisation of the office of the President and I would seek a clarification on what measures the Members would propose to ensure that the election of the Senate will not be politicised and that we will not have eight persons in the Senate who may make a decision on a politicised basis.”
“Two supplementary questions for the Minister. Firstly, the Minister mentioned the simplification of procedures in the Family Courts. Can I know when the procedure simplification would take effect? From what we understand now, the application process remains very complex because judges are understandably, as the Minister noted also, very concerned about the applications. The second question is in relation to the forms. While we are trying to encourage people to apply and sign the LPA, are there ways to simplify the forms so that it is actually easier for them? A very simple example will be that currently, the form requires a legal seal to be affixed and anyone filling up the form at home would not have access to all those little red stickers. So, these are little oddities that should not even be present. Would the Ministry consider revising the form to make it more user-friendly?”
“Clarification, Madam. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider in-vehicle cameras to identify passengers which would also help protect taxi drivers.”
“And with that, Madam, I support the Motion. [Applause.]”
“In my letter to The Straits Times on 17 September 2008, I argued, and I reiterate now, that if we persist in having two different standards of treatment between athletes and para-athletes, we reinforce the erroneous perception that people with disabilities are not able and strengthen the barriers against building an inclusive society. We cannot build a gracious inclusive society if we continue to deny the achievements of those perceived to be different and less able than we. I am happy for the Motion that has been placed before the House today, but there is more to be done than just congratulating our Paralympians. So, what is my role? Fellow Singaporeans, what is our role? The best of Government schemes will not be good enough if we do not play our part to support our para-athletes. Yes, a great part of that has got to do with funds, more sponsorship, but how do we get sponsors if there are no spectators? Spectators draw advertisers, advertisers draw sponsors. Here is one opportunity for us to just be a spectator. By that, we cheer our athletes. We give them hope, we let them know that there are people behind them when times are tough. By that, we also tell the corporate entities that there is value in sponsoring our athletes. Get out of the living room. Get to the stadium, the swimming pools, wherever the events are held. Can we be, if nothing else, a spectator? It has been a long journey and it will continue to be. As Pin Xiu said to Theresa when the latter won her bronze medal at the Paralympics, "Nobody knows our journey like us, and I am so incredibly proud of you." And now, I say this, and I am sure my colleagues here in this House will join me in saying this: indeed, nobody knows your journey like you, but you know what? We are so incredibly proud of you.”
“He continued and he stuck to his regime of training three times a week to keep improving, to do his best for other upcoming competitions. And then he landed a surprise. He became a last-minute addition to the Singapore contingent. Jovin Tan, our para-sailor, said this, "Life is always about trying and not giving up. Even if you are the last boat, you should try to think of possible ways to climb one or two more positions up". Even if you are the last boat. Laurentia says, "Our glorious moments are not in never failing, but in rising every time we fall". Ultimately, it is not about giving up. It is about not giving up. It is about not allowing setbacks to set us back. And it is about doing our best no matter what. Unfortunately, that is not glamorous but that will outlast the shine on your medals. So, let Singapore be there for you. When Paralympians won medals, the public debated greater rewards for medallists, greater support for para-athletes. You rose above monetary rewards and you said you did not do it for the money. Indeed, I firmly believe that our athletes did not do it for the money. You did not train and compete for that. But the prize money is important: whether we like it or not, it is a reflection of how society values the contributions that you have made and the lessons that you are sharing with us. Aside from the reward, on a very practical basis, the prize money will help a para-athlete pay for transport, living expenses, the higher medical expenses, higher therapy fees, higher coaching fees, pay for your studies, pay for your other needs. More than cash payment, it is also about inclusion.”
“Your achievements made us sit up and realise that persons with disabilities, even from tiny Singapore, can make their mark in the sports world. By your medal wins, you gave Singaporeans a chance to be inspired; inspired by your grit to endure physical pain, by your intelligence, your determination to push the limits, to succeed. But even then, for all the interviews that you gave, for all the inspirational talks that you gave, we can never imagine all the pain, tears, frustrations and sacrifices that you had to make. We can never imagine the pain of the injuries, what sacrifices you made in your education, your career, your social activities, what sacrifices your parents made for you, what financial burdens you had to bear and what opportunities you lost. You have inspired us and you have made me very, very proud of you, not just because you won medals, but because all of you trained and sacrificed, and even if you never got to the Games, even if competed but you did not win, you never give up. I am proud of you because you are not afraid of your weak bodies. I am inspired by you because you have strong minds and stout hearts. And I am humbled by the lessons that I learn from you. Theresa says of her disabilities, "I'm fine with it. I wouldn't be swimming or where I am today if I weren't disabled." I believe you spoke not just for yourself, but for all your colleagues. Paralympians, you turned your disability into opportunity, and made your disability your success. I believe that as we salute you for your medals, many more would, like us, salute you for rising above all your failures. Muhammad Diroy – he also happens to be SPD's Youth Aspiration Award 2015 winner. He was initially not selected to represent Singapore at the Paralympics. But he did not despair.”
“We should be open to learn from other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, known to provide good support for their athletes with disabilities. It has taken us a long time to associate sports and disability, or should I say, sports and medical conditions. The SDSC was set up in 1973 by the then Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and eight organisations for persons with disabilities. In 1974, due to a shortage of funds, it selected only two para-athletes, Messrs Robert Tan and Frankie Thanapal, to represent Singapore at the Commonwealth Paraplegic Games in Dunedin, New Zealand. Frankie returned with a bronze medal and Robert did us proud in his placings. In 1975, the duo represented Singapore again and, this time, they won gold and bronze medals. Why am I sharing this? We did not just start winning sports medals on the international scene. Through the years, our para-athletes have been doing us proud. It is just that we did not know that much about them. And we are, slowly, gaining national consciousness on this issue, thanks to everyone who persevered – all of our para-athletes and their loved ones, and their officials. And to the younger ones in this Chamber today, our Paralympians – as you enjoy the recognition and the challenges that are ahead of you, remember all those who went before you, who gave of their best despite having a lot less. Remember that they paved the way for you as well. And as you remember those who went before you, we will also remember the lessons that we have learnt from you. You have brought us glory. You put us in the international limelight in the world of Paralympics – tiny Singapore.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to congratulate Team Singapore Paralympians. Much earlier, after Pin Xiu won the 2008 Paralympic Gold medal, you moved us when you said, "This is my favourite medal, because it is Singapore's first Paralympic gold medal and, with it, I did Singapore proud". You did Singapore proud, all of you did and we are all very, very proud of you. I also thank and congratulate the greater Team Singapore of caregivers, loved ones, officials, trainers, coaches, friends, teammates, sponsors and supporters. Thank you for believing in the Paralympians. Thank you for sharing your love, resources, expertise, to make our Paralympians who they are. Thank you for your sacrifices. We have come far since we first participated in the 1988 Summer Paralympics. We did not win medals then. But we continued to send our athletes to the Summer Paralympics. Twenty years later, at the 2008 Summer Paralympics, we sent six athletes and they brought home four medals. Twenty-eight years on, from our first participation, we now have nine Paralympic medals. But it has been a long road. Over the years, we have come to recognise the value of sports in achieving our national priorities in developing healthy and resilient people, forging strong united communities, retaining core values, sharing memories, strengthening friendships and building a dynamic society and a dynamic economy. We did not do enough for our athletes and para-athletes in our earlier years. It is my hope that with Vision 2030, with the Disability Sports Master Plan and the new National Outdoor Adventure Education Masterplan, sports will become more inclusive. And as we continue to conceptualise and implement, it must always be a work in progress.”
“Madam, may I request the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on the measures that are in place or should be in place to safeguard against proxy online gambling whereby persons who are not eligible gamble through accounts of those who are? Secondly, in relation to the gambling trends, I note that the Senior Minister of State has said the Government does monitor the macro-trends. Could we also consider or are we considering monitoring at a more focused level whereby we gather data from the gambling accounts and ascertain gambling patterns for earlier counselling intervention?”
“Madam, I will defer my question to the second PQ.”
“His passing is a great loss to us, but he leaves with us a legacy of courage, of intelligence, of love for his country and his people. Great is the man remembered for his legacy above his achievements. Greater is he, remembered for his goodness above his legacy. Mr Nathan was a good man. And Mr Nathan, we celebrate your life. Thank you, and rest in peace.”
“If we can help to reduce their pain, distress and burden, we would have made a difference and lived our lives in a meaningful way." Mr Nathan lived his life in more than a meaningful way. Unlike many, he did not just talk. He had been a man for the community from the start. He was a medical social worker and a Seaman's Welfare Officer. His career path led him to various organisations and positions as he rose through the ranks, but he was never far from working for the people, with the people. We, in the social service sector, should always remember his admonition to have the "heart and soul" for the sector as we serve those who are less advantaged. Indeed, Mr Nathan's heart remained with the people right through his Presidency, and I believe, after. The now iconic President's Challenge was his personal call to Singaporeans of all ages, from all walks of life to strengthen our philanthropic tradition and the spirit of community caring and volunteerism. He firmly believed, "That voluntary effort that people do, out of compassion, is much more important than all the money that we raised." The heart and soul of the social service sector for the people who are less advantaged. Mr Nathan had been indefatigable, resolute at rising above adverse circumstances, doing his utmost in serving others, in advancing the fledging nation and, subsequently reaching the country's highest office where still more he gave. Through it all, he never forgot us, he never forgot those who were vulnerable in our society. Will we have more of such sons of Singapore? We must, and we will. He has blazed the way for us and we will follow. We thank Mrs Nathan and the family for sharing Mr Nathan with Singapore.”
“Madam, great is the man remembered for his legacy, above his achievements. Greater is he remembered for his goodness, above his legacy. Mr Nathan was such a man. He said, "I've done the best I can. If it's good enough for some, fine. If it's not good enough for some people, and there will always be noise in the environment, you can't stop it. You don't do it because you want to leave a legacy. You do the best you can." And, so, he did. He showed us what it meant to do the best he could, to rise to the call of duty, indeed, to go beyond the call of duty. I remember when Mr Nathan was honoured by the Social Innovation Park (SIP) as an SIP Distinguished Fellow in 2014, he was asked again why he volunteered to be one of the hostages in the Laju hostage incident. Did he not fear for his safety? Did he not worry for his family with young children? How heroic! From his wheelchair, his reply was matter of fact, understated and brief. He said he was not a hero. There was no time to lose, the stakes were high, you had to do what you had to do. He showed us what it meant to be a son of Singapore. Mr Nathan's vision was of Singapore being a compassionate nation of Singaporeans conscious of those who were less fortunate around them and graciously helping fellow Singaporeans. Way before Singaporeans became familiar with terms like "inclusiveness" and understanding invisible "disabilities", Mr Nathan understood. He said back then, "As a society that is developing rapidly, we cannot ignore the plight of the less fortunate segment of our population. It is important for every Singaporean to be always mindful that there is someone, somewhere who needs our help.”
“Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State if there are plans for us to conduct public exercises to respond to emergencies.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have two clarifications, the first for the Minister and the second for the Parliamentary Secretary. Minister, I am heartened to know that assistance will be extended to vulnerable single unwed mothers. I would like to know if there would be also any differentiation between single unwed but not vulnerable, in other words those who could be supported by the father of the child, for example. Will there be a policy differentiation and whether that will be reflected in any ensuing legislative change? Second clarification, Sir, will be for the Parliamentary Secretary who mentioned the special needs savings scheme. I understand this scheme applies only to parents of children with disabilities. It does not apply to caregivers of charges with disabilities, so will that be extended? Secondly, in relation to the Special Needs Trust, it only provides for the provision of trust services. In my cut, I was referring to permanency planning which extends beyond financial provision to other caregiving options, so could the Ministry also be looking further into broadening the scope?”