Eunice Elizabeth Olsen
Singapore
“But if we are finding it so hard to find them, despite a more educated and diverse population, perhaps we need to allow for more diversity in Parliament and in our political system. One of the biggest challenges for Singapore will be to nurture a new generation of leaders.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarifications. I have two supplementary questions. We are seeing more retrenchment cases involving PMETs. I would like to ask where can this group seek redress if their company is neither paying a severance nor paying them on a period of time stipulated, or if a company winds up.”
“I like to thank the Senior Minister of State. As he said, the Prime Minister previously said we have to treat the Rohingyas humanely, so if they are caught trying to seek refuge in Singapore, will they be treated as all other illegal immigrants, which means that they will be brought to court and face caning?”
“Finally, I would like to ask MOM how repatriation companies are regulated. There have been reports, not just online, but in the media about how these companies forcibly take in workers in order to send them home on their companies' behest. How is this not wrongful confinement?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just want to clarify and ask whether he could address my question on whether or not the Ministry is adequately staffed, not only just to deal with but also to speed up the process to resolve the pending cases of the foreign workers because some of them have been known to stay in Singapore for…”
“I thank the Second Minister, and I understand that there have been 10 exceptions made in the past 10 years. I just want to ask the Minister whether he thinks with progress as a nation, for MINDEF to be more visible and flexible about deferments, and if the Minister thinks this can help affirm in the eyes of Singaporeans that administratio…”
The complete record
Every one of 236 lines we hold for Eunice Elizabeth Olsen, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“But if we are finding it so hard to find them, despite a more educated and diverse population, perhaps we need to allow for more diversity in Parliament and in our political system. One of the biggest challenges for Singapore will be to nurture a new generation of leaders. These future leaders have to ensure that an even more diverse Singapore will pull together, rather than pull apart, to ensure that no one is left behind and that all our talents are celebrated. If it means the ruling party has to give up a little bit of control to find these leaders, then I say that Singapore's interests would be served well. Sir, with that, I support the motion.”
“The tone of governance in Singapore has changed from one that insisted it was always right, to one that insists it will make the decisions, but after listening to the public who will then judge if those decisions were right. Nobody can insist on always being right and hope others will come onboard and pull together as one. This applies in all aspects of society. Now that we have reached 50 years of self- governance, perhaps eventually more decisions can be devolved from Government to a wider spectrum of society. On Monday, the hon. Member Sam Tan lamented how Singaporeans may be too mollycoddled and reliant on the Government. With due respect, perhaps Singaporeans would be less so if the political system were to be more devolved so that people are not just given a limited role to offer feedback, but instead be given a chance to actually exercise ownership and responsibility about their surroundings, their community and their country. One good start, for example, is the work being done by Senior Minister of State Grace Fu in estate rejuvenation. In the past, there tended to be a collective sentiment that the Government saw to everything, so the only thing left for Singaporeans to do was to complain. That is why there have only been two cows in Singapore – and I apologise to Mr Speaker and the Members before saying this – "kau beh, kau bu". But in all seriousness, as the President said, our politics and our political system has to evolve. With every passing year, we hear about the growing efforts needed to find fresh faces for political renewal. I am sure many capable, passionate, young people would like to serve their country.”
“In that sense, I believe the decision to bid for the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) was a very good one, as such an event and others like it can help bring Singaporeans together. I only wish that Singapore sports could be more inclusive of people with disabilities. I did not see any mention by MCYS about developing sports for the disabled as part of its plans and agenda in the years ahead. It is great that a buzz is building for the YOG and the Asian Youth Games. But what about the Special Olympics being held here next month, from 5th to 8th June? There are about 700 athletes taking part in nine sports such as football, badminton and swimming. They are the intellectually disabled, between the ages of eight and 40 or 50, and they come from Malaysia, Timor Leste, Indonesia, Myanmar, Brunei as well as Singapore. But there hardly has been any public support for our team and the event. We should be cheering them on. Singaporeans and the Government can strengthen national identity if we are able to better celebrate Singapore talent, such as the Singapore Women's Everest Team. I am sure everyone is proud of them and cheers their achievement. We should never underestimate the importance of such personal tales and triumphs because the more there are, the stronger the Singapore narrative grows. One reason why we should always strive not to make policy too impersonal or rigid. For example, I had previously asked in this House about the express stream entrance criteria for the School of the Arts. I believe we will be able to nurture and celebrate a wider variety of artistic talent with a broader and more enlightened education policy. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is significant that we are celebrating 50 years of self-governance this year.”
“Those are our roots and because those kind of roots were strong, we are where we are today. On Monday, some hon. Members of this House asked for some jobs to be reserved for locals. I believe in putting Singaporeans first, but I do not think you need to do it by being protectionist. Rather than "reserve" some jobs, employers could put Singaporeans first by only hiring a foreigner after they have proven that they could not find a local for the job. This way, they are not artificially barred from hiring foreigners, even if no one here is suitable for the job. I believe the hon. Member Dr Amy Khor suggested this a few years ago in this House, but the idea was rebuffed. Perhaps it is time to look at it again? I believe it is also time that the Government carves out a space in our financial landscape for a micro-finance institution. There is angst about foreign workers because many Singaporeans have no or very little alternative, but to compete with cheaper foreign workers for the same type of jobs. But if we give them the opportunity to set up start-ups, we are expanding the available opportunities in Singapore. These are not going to be the kind of SMEs that hope to become big brand names overseas, but small businesses that will provide a dignified and decent source of living. Their beneficiaries are not likely to be your entrepreneurial university graduates, but Singaporeans who would not normally get credit approval with the usual banks even if they have a useful skill such as baking. A micro-finance institution would certainly be useful. Mr Speaker, Sir, as we grapple with the recession and even after the economy recovers, we must, with every policy, consider how we are adding value to citizenship and by extension, strengthening national identity.”
“But we are no United States, with its 300 million population spread across a huge landmass – a country which can drive forward regardless of the kind of interaction among the different groups in society. Singapore can be more diverse, more complex and have more voices, but we need to reach out to each other and not work against each other when we disagree. We need to pull together, not pull apart when we want to move a debate forward in our small country. And we need to remember some of the fundamentals that have brought Singapore success. In particular, one of the cornerstones of our social cohesion has been meritocracy, which means that we advance based on merit and that Singaporeans are not denied opportunities because of certain attributes – race, language or religion as in the Singapore pledge, or essentially, who you are, where you come from, how much money you have or whether you are different. We should pull together to strengthen meritocracy and, hence, social cohesion, not weaken it. Otherwise, we are moving backward, not forward. Our progress is not just due solely to the efforts of Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. Foreign workers have worked together with us to build this country. But lately, it almost seems as if the only way foreign workers can work with us is if they do not work here at all because otherwise, they are working against us by competing for jobs. I sincerely hope that Singaporeans and foreign workers have not lost that ability to work together. Even if we no longer occupy the social stratum of foreign workers – which is one of immigrants striving for a better future – we should not forget that is where our parents and grandparents' generation came from.”
“I am also heartened by MOE's announcement about the $68 million leg-up in Edusave and school-based financial assistance schemes. I encourage the Government to continue to facilitate opportunities, for example, exchange and immersion programmes for the less privileged. I would like to see these students continue to be given all the support they need whenever they chase their passions and pursue excellence. I also hope we do not shy away from helping adult Singaporeans in need. While there will always be a very small group of people who will have a crutch mentality, for example, by returning time and again to the Meet-the-People Sessions, I hope this does not adversely impact those who need a simple helping hand when globalisation knocks them off kilter, as would be the case in the current recession. After all, since the Government has decided to go with the ebb and flow of globalisation, it must know that some people can get caught when the tides change suddenly. Do we not throw them a lifeline on account of the behaviour of a small group of others? A recent survey by the Institute of Policy Studies showed that Singaporeans are self-reliant for the most part and are eager to remain so. But if we do not pull to safety those truly in need, then we are pulling ourselves apart. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have touched on the people we must keep together by our side. Now I would like to touch on the principles that we must hold on to closely as a nation, especially since Singapore is becoming more diverse, as a Straits Times commentary recently pointed out in the wake of recent events at AWARE. Yes, we are becoming a more complex society, one with more voices being heard.”
“But if a barrier-free environment is truly a priority of the Ministry of National Development (MND), I would like to see greater involvement by the Ministry, if only to ensure that an area of priority for the nation is implemented correctly. It takes more than just ramps and lifts; seamless access is the only way Singapore can be transformed physically into a home for everyone. I would like to see this attitude permeate at all levels of society. One way to ensure this becomes a reality is for MND to audit the Town Councils to see if they are carrying out the national mandate to be inclusive. If I may draw a parallel, the Ministry of Education (MOE) recently stepped in to tighten control and accountability in the engagement of external agencies for sex education, even though it had previously given autonomy to schools. Likewise, I would like to see MND raise the level of accountability of Town Councils. I remember the President's Address in 2005 said that how Singapore treats and takes care of people with disabilities reflects the kind of society we want to be. This must continue to hold true. As we strive to get through this recession, we should remember that greater mobility for all will help us to pull together even better. I would also like to seek reassurance from MOE, which did not mention special needs students in its addendum last week, that their future remains a priority for the Government. The final group that I would like to mention is the underprivileged and, especially during these times, those at the margins. I am heartened that the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) will exercise more flexibility for this group. I hope to hear more about what is being done.”
“Second, I would like to suggest that Singapore's Workforce Development Agency adapt a previous idea by NTUC, which not too long ago suggested that companies make public the age profile of their workforce. WDA should do the same for all its SPUR programmes. Given how important training and skills upgrading is currently and will continue to be, and the amount of money being spent on these efforts, greater transparency in this area can only be good and welcomed by the public. It would also give the reassurance that re-skilling is not only for those in their 30s and 40s. Mr Speaker, Sir, we need to pull together with our older workers during these times. We also need to pull together with fellow citizens with disabilities. Every person can contribute to Singapore, and as our Paralympians showed last year, their contributions can be truly invaluable. Singapore must be as much a home for them as it is for able-bodied citizens. So, I am very encouraged that the Ministerial Committee on Ageing has reaffirmed that all HDB housing estates will be barrier-free by 2011 and that a $60 million programme to do the same for pedestrian walkways, access to MRT stations, taxi and bus shelters and public roads will be completed by next year. This goes hand-in-hand with the Ministry of Transport's move to improve accessibility and inclusiveness of the transport system. It is important that these resources are spent well, and not wasted on the wrong implementation of barrier-free access. We were told that HDB is working closely with the Town Councils for the Barrier-Free Accessibility Programme. The Town Councils are acting as the managing agent, presumably as they would have a much better feel of the ground and the solutions best suited for their residents.”
“And there has been some positive feedback. But we must always be mindful of those who are more at risk of falling behind, namely, older workers and the differently-abled. We know it is more difficult for older workers to find employment. The Government and the labour movement have consistently cajoled employers to hire older workers, even as we consistently hear anecdotes by older workers who have been passed over for a job. Re-employment legislation is in the works, but in the meantime, the recession could cost many workers in their 50s their jobs. I would like to make two suggestions which build on current schemes and initiatives. First, can the Government enhance the Jobs Credit Scheme for older workers by giving employers more credit for each worker above the age of 50 in their payroll? This will incentivise the employers to give due consideration to hire and retain older workers. The need for incentive when it comes to employment of older workers is a reality in Singapore. For some years now, the Government has lowered the cost of employing older workers by reducing the CPF contribution rate for employers. Re-employment legislation will also work on the norm that older workers can expect a smaller pay packet after the age of 62. Since Jobs Credit already acts as an incentive for companies to retain Singaporean workers, can we tweak it so that we do not end up with an unduly high number of older workers bearing the brunt of the recession? After all, the Prime Minister announced on May Day a new scheme for fresh graduates to get internships, attachments and jobs – which is excellent. More can also be done for older workers.”
“If we take a long-term view, what is needed is to encourage younger Singaporeans to contribute as well, because if the young get hooked on giving, it will become second nature to them in time. So it does not matter if their donations start small. Every little bit counts, and the bits should grow bigger over the years. For its part, MCYS has said that Family Service Centres (FSCs) will receive more resources to improve their service delivery. I hope I can get an answer from the Ministry on how it will distribute these resources – based on need or equally across-the-board – and what sort of resources these are. During the Budget debate, I had asked about the additional $15 million to be given to Government-funded VWOs and what the money would be used for. I did not get a reply then. I hope MCYS can give an update on this VWO contingency fund – how much has been disbursed, to whom and for what purpose? Mr Speaker, Sir, the stormy weather from this financial crisis calls for volunteerism in Singapore to grow stronger. The crisis also calls for help in the form of shelter by the Government. The effects of the recession are starting to trickle down to all sections of society. Last month, I was at Serangoon Junior College, and during a question-and-answer session with the students, one of them asked me if I could do something about the economic crisis before I finish my term in Parliament because, and I quote, "We are all having a hard time". I promised him I would do what I could. While I still have not found the solution to the recession, I thought the most important thing I could do is to remind this House that the shelter we build must have place for every Singaporean. The Government has come up with a broad-based package to mitigate the downturn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak. This year's debate is taking place in such contrasting circumstances to when I first heard the President's Address in the House in 2005. The rains have come, and it is pouring so hard we have had to dip into our reserves. If only our economy could be like the weather recently – hot like the Devil's Curry my grandmother used to make. It will take a while before we get clear blue skies, but I do think we can still hope for a little sunshine through the clouds. What is needed is for Singaporeans and the Government to all pull together. And one of the best ways to build a more cohesive society is through volunteerism. I said this when I gave my maiden speech in Parliament and, now, more than ever I believe it holds true. For example, I see it in this project called "Bag O' Sunshine", started by the Kebun Baru Youth Executive Committee, where I am a member. Every few months, we work with Ang Mo Kio Family Service Centre to take dis- advantaged residents out on excursions. At every outing, we invite volunteers to help out. And at every outing, I see how bonds are built at all levels of society – volunteers from different walks of life, young and old, rich and poor, corporate partners and social workers. I hope the Singapore Cares programme, to be implemented by MCYS, will build more of such bonds across the country. In these difficult times, Singapore also needs more help from those who can afford to give more. VWOs will have more work on their plate, and they will have to find innovative ways to raise funds. When they do, I hope Singaporeans respond warmly.”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the clarifications. I have two supplementary questions. We are seeing more retrenchment cases involving PMETs. I would like to ask where can this group seek redress if their company is neither paying a severance nor paying them on a period of time stipulated, or if a company winds up. I know of a case where the employer only paid up when the employee threatened legal action. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford legal fees, so where can this group of people seek redress? Also, will the Ministry consider including a maximum time period as to when a company has to pay severance to former employees in the Tripartite Guidelines on Managing Excess Manpower?”
“I like to thank the Senior Minister of State. As he said, the Prime Minister previously said we have to treat the Rohingyas humanely, so if they are caught trying to seek refuge in Singapore, will they be treated as all other illegal immigrants, which means that they will be brought to court and face caning?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. I just want to clarify and ask whether he could address my question on whether or not the Ministry is adequately staffed, not only just to deal with but also to speed up the process to resolve the pending cases of the foreign workers because some of them have been known to stay in Singapore for up to a year, or more.”
“Finally, I would like to ask MOM how repatriation companies are regulated. There have been reports, not just online, but in the media about how these companies forcibly take in workers in order to send them home on their companies' behest. How is this not wrongful confinement? How is this not an easy way for companies to keep a lid on issues about salary arrears and non-payment of wages when they can easily call in these repatriation companies to send workers home? In some cases, the workers are said to have been beaten. The system should change so that all workers need to be interviewed by MOM before they return home. Sir, foreign workers have been in the news as of late and their problems are growing. While it is true that only a fraction eventually encounter any incident, the Minister has said that the number embroiled in salary spats is expected to rise. It is time to do more for this group. Welfare of Foreign Workers”
“Before the downturn gets worse and more companies may be tempted to cut corners, we should increase the penalties to nip this in the bud. However, some workers will still fall through the cracks. If we expect the numbers to increase this year, how is MOM gearing up to cope with more foreign workers with no money because their salary is being owed, no place to stay because their employers chased them out of their quarters and possibly no contingency job during this downturn? How does MOM propose to tackle the situation? I can appreciate that MOM officers will be even busier if the number of such cases rise as expected. Since so many public sector agencies have stepped up their hiring plans, would MOM be doing the same? Or is the Ministry suitably staffed and therefore well-positioned to resolve all these cases speedily? Staffing concerns aside, what is needed more is greater transparency by the Ministry. Last month, the Minister said that on average 85% of cases in the last six months were successfully conciliated within three weeks but he did not elaborate on the various outcomes. Some NGOs have said that the current approach to mediation is for partial compensation. In some cases, workers are asked to pay for half of their airfare home as a result of MOM mediation. Could the Minister please clarify? Under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, employers have the responsibility to pay for the entire fare. This is what the Government requires of the employers of foreign domestic workers, are there lesser standards for businesses? Online account suggests that in some cases, MOM officers try to persuade workers not to pursue their claims against their employers. It would be good if the Minister addresses this perception that the Ministry is too pro-business.”
“Sir, while it is true that only a fraction eventually encountered any incident, the Minister has said that the number embroiled in salary spats is expected to rise this year. It is a good time to do more for this group. To begin, the Ministry must know that foreign workers do not enter Singapore on an equal footing as local workers and employment pass or S-pass holders I read a recent article by NTU researcher Yolanda Chin who wrote that Singapore Utilitarian Immigration Policy evaluates the foreigners' worth based on its usefulness for business. Foreign workers satisfy this criterion by accepting low wages and skeletal rights to keep costs competitive. Besides low wages, another particular aspect of the condition of foreign workers here is that they often incur heavy debts to pay fees to employment agents. So, they start life in our little red dot in the red. Is there anything that can be done to tackle this aspect of the system? Since companies must apply to the Ministry to secure work permits for its workers, does MOM require that the companies also declare which agents they have used in order to bring in their workers? Provision of this information could help with early intervention measures if MOM were to be alerted to agents known to be unscrupulous based on past incidents. But early intervention is not the same as prevention. Can MOM work towards a system in which only licensed employment agencies are allowed to recruit foreign workers for companies here? Employers also have an important role to play to ensure that workers are treated well. The majority tends to do the right thing but we have read in the media about the few black sheep – those who deny their workers recourse for proper medical treatment, for example.”
“One way to start is to require operators to provide timetables for more services, or to require operators to ensure that buses leave the interchange at a fixed schedule, and not just a scheduled headway. Of course, if the occasional need arises for operators to provide more bus trips than scheduled, all the better. The point is, let us start somewhere. Central Bus Planning”
“Sir, in other first-world cities, there are clear bus timetables, so commuters know when to expect their buses to arrive. In Singapore, basic bus operators get away with inconsistent arrival times. Moreover, the operators display bus service frequencies that can range from more than 10 to 20 minutes during afternoon off-peak periods, for example, or six to 15 minutes during morning peak periods. This makes public transport unsatisfactory. The range, in terms of frequency and time period, is too wide and too broad. Even then, buses can take longer to arrive. A friend of mine said this has been his experience with Service No. 97, which has become less frequent in recent years. He started taking taxis. And this is precisely what we should avoid. With more bus lanes being introduced and vehicles having to give way to buses exiting bus bays, for example, can we expect higher standards from the operators so that services are more regular as well as more frequent? With better headways during peak periods from August this year, I hope MOT can start by looking at off-peak periods, where less traffic should make it easier to have more regular arrival times. Basically, a commuter should not go to a bus stop and find that the bus arrives, for example, at 8.05 pm on the first day, 8.10 pm on the second day, 8.15 pm on the third day, and so on. Why does PTC require timetables to be provided only for bus services with headways of 20 minutes or more? In any case, the PTC's website does not say if PTC even measures whether the timetable is adhered to. The Ministry has set about to raise bus service standards. This should include timetables, and ensuring that operators adhere to them.”
“I thank the Second Minister, and I understand that there have been 10 exceptions made in the past 10 years. I just want to ask the Minister whether he thinks with progress as a nation, for MINDEF to be more visible and flexible about deferments, and if the Minister thinks this can help affirm in the eyes of Singaporeans that administration of national service is meant to develop not so much an attachment to the armed forces but to the nation.”
“Our national sailors have been granted deferments. I am sure others who have represented Singapore in global competitions have been as well. I suspect it is easier to grant deferments in these circumstances. I suspect it is harder when it comes to Singaporeans pursuing rare talents, chasing once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. But if we accept appeals by organisations such as Singapore Sailing on behalf of sailors, we can also accept appeals by other national bodies, such as the SSO, on behalf of rare musical talents, for example. Actually, I do not intend to draft an entire deferment mechanism now. I recall how the Finance Minister said the Singapore system "relies on the trust in the individuals in charge" when it came to our reserves. I am sure the Defence Minister will be no less trustworthy to decide on deferments. Other countries have found a way to do it. So can we, probably better. More importantly, how much do we gain as a nation when we read about stories such as Keegan Ng's? How much more could we gain if we are able to read stories that celebrate rare talents who can put us on the world map and see policies that support them? Sir, this is what the Singapore narrative needs more of now, to strengthen our identity.”
“Sir, I read in December the story of Keegan Ng in the Straits Times. He was the second Singaporean child to win the Marion S Gray Outstanding Musician Award at 11 and had wanted to study piano at the Eastman School of Music in New York. But he was told he had to complete National Service first. Eventually, he moved on from his music. The story reminded me about violin prodigy Ike See, who was rejected twice when he applied to defer NS. He finally got to study at the prestigious Curtis Institute of Music after he opted for a two-year diploma instead of a three-year course. As a musician, I know how vital it is to continuously hone one's skills, and I think the Ministry could be more flexible in granting deferments. I am speaking not just for musicians but all rare Singaporean talents. This may seem odd, since I have clearly not done NS before. But I raise this issue because others who have served NS have voiced their support for such Singaporeans. We should encourage this culture of affirmation. The Minister has said before that the principles of universality and equity must apply to NS. I agree on universality. This is not a call for NS exemptions. But we should strike a balance on equity. We must not take it too far or we will lose the opportunity to help build a more enlightened society. If equity is all, should not those who had served two and a half years of NS now feel a sense of inequity because youth only serve two years? I am really sure that we are better than that. When NS was new and Singapore was young, it was understandable why the Ministry needed to be very strict after deferments. But if our deferment policy cannot be refined, it says a lot of how much progress our policymakers think our nation has made. In fact, I know the Ministry is more flexible.”
“Sir, can I seek clarifications from the Minister to address my cut on single parents and housing?”
“Sir, in these two estates, as my wheelchair-bound friend put it, you need to know where the accessibility points are, otherwise you have to go round in circles to find them. Surely, the Government is not investing so much to upgrade our estates and to make them more disabled and elderly friendly only to achieve the results I just described. It is a pity that the attitude towards accessibility seems to be one of getting the job done with little thought put into purpose, functionality and safety. Simply building a ramp – never mind how steep some might be – and assuming that is enough for the disabled will not do. The question of where and how, by putting the disabled on equal consideration with the able-bodied, needs to be applied. I would like to ask the Ministry if there are any compliance standards set for accessibility in our existing and upcoming estate rejuvenation programmes, and what may these be. Second, who monitors estate renewal, from the planning to the implementation, and who would be responsible for ensuring accessibility is met? Third, are Singapore's accessibility standards aligned to any international code? Sir, we have what it takes to integrate accessibility into our infrastructure. So let us ramp up our efforts and get it right.”
“Sir, as the Government brings forward $1.3 billion worth of Government projects, it is imperative to ensure that accessibility needs are not only taken into account, but met to the fullest extent, especially when it comes to the work being done to rejuvenate our estates. At present, it would seem that getting this right and making it safe for the disabled and less mobile is a challenge. Just last week, I took a walk in two recently upgraded neighbourhoods – in Bishan and at Towner Road. I noticed how a lot more work is needed in this aspect of our infrastructure development. In Bishan, the lifts at one of the blocks were recently upgraded. Very well done, except that there was a small step down from the new lift lobby to the walkway leading to the main road. Sir, I may say small step, but that is only the case for able-bodied persons. For a wheelchair user, it is an obstacle. It is a difference between ease of access and having to go around the block to find a way out. There was also a path leading to the main walkway. The path was slightly elevated. Instead of a proper ramp, a narrow and makeshift-looking slope of concrete was slapped on at an angle where path and walkway met. I asked a mother pushing a pram down what she thought of the ramp (I use that word loosely), and she said, "It's not very good." In the other estate, there was an upgraded covered walkway leading to a bus stop. Instead of a ramp to link the two, there were three high steps. Sir, this is for a bus stop that is part of a wheelchair-accessible route. So, a bus stop for all Singaporeans and a sheltered walkway only for the able-bodied.”
“The question the Ministry must answer is whether their policy actually strengthens our families, or undermines our community and whether the Ministry is undermining or advancing our national interests on balance, as I have just listed, and in reality. I repeat, on balance and in reality. Speaking of divorced mums, I would next like to touch on how a good number of them find it hard to afford their own homes, especially those who have little in their CPF accounts. I recently came to know of one, whose husband walked out on her and their two children. She was a stay-at-home mum for a few years, with very little CPF and is not confident of buying a flat. But she probably would not qualify for public rental flats, either. Sir, what can be done for these mums? Is it possible for those who had bought only one subsidised flat to purchase a second smaller flat direct from the HDB? Or can the HDB at least offer them concessionary loans, even if they buy resale flats? Sometimes, divorced mothers have to wait for their matrimonial homes to be sold before they can find new housing, which can be delayed by uncooperative dads. How can the Ministry help speed up the process? HDB Downgrading”
“Sir, the Prime Minister has said Singapore will be a caring and inclusive society under his Government. With this promise in mind, I would like to speak for a group of people who might feel that they have been left out – single mothers. The public housing policy for single mums has not changed, and those under 35 cannot buy HDB flats unless they go through a difficult process that is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Mother and child are not considered a family unit. Sir, why does the Ministry keep a housing policy that undermines many other Government policy objectives? The authorities say they endeavour to prevent dysfunctional families. Is this better served by allowing mothers to find a roof over their head if they can afford to, or by preventing them from doing so? The Finance Minister said Singapore must be the best home to nurture our young. How is this served by preventing some of our children from benefiting from the security of their own home? MND says it works to make home ownership a pillar for Singaporeans, to provide an asset that will grow in value. Does excluding single mums and their children strengthen or weaken this pillar? Most of all, when it comes to single mums, how can the Prime Minister's promise be best fulfilled? Sir, at the very least, let us start somewhere. Why not allow single mums above 30 to be allowed to buy a flat? I can imagine the Ministry might say that the priority is for family units consisting of a father, mother and child. Sir, there are ideal families, but a mother and child are a family too. We allow divorced mothers to own a flat, why not single unwed mums. What is the difference? Ultimately, the fabric of our community is made up of all families, big and little.”
“Trivial though it may seem, but I think the phenomenon that was "The Little Nonya", a show which remarkably cut across young and old, Chinese-Singaporean, Peranakan Singaporean or minority Singaporean, spoke of a harkening to a Singapore of yore, to a shared history despite our diversity, as if to say: This is what we were. This is us. And this is why there is so much angst when buildings such as the National Library are torn down. Because this is what we lose. So, when I look at the Budget, as I have for the past five years, I have always asked what does this say about who we are, and what does this say about us? Sir, with that, I support the Budget.”
“A home where Singaporeans feel motivated and inspired to achieve their dreams and aspirations. E is for Equal – where every citizen will know that they have an equal shot in life regardless of background or ability and a home that will facilitate for this. This Government has always rolled up its sleeves and got its hands dirty to get the job done, so to speak. We have focused on the nuts and bolts, and we have built a sturdy house. Now it is time to build resilience inside the house. Now is a good time to work on making Singaporeans feel good about the home they live in. I remember how Singapore took the lead when the Boxing Day tsunami struck in 2004. I remember how we set off the spark that brought world leaders together in an unprecedented global commitment of aid. I remember how all levels of society made their mark, in their own small way, in the region. Then I look at the $30 increase for those on Public Assistance. Someone pointed out in the media that is $81,000 for 2,700 people out of the $20.5-billion Budget and he said, "Are we saying that we are a compassionate society?" We are small, but we are more than the sum of parts. We need to feel that way more. We may be an improbable nation, but we are a nation nonetheless. And like every nation, we need to strengthen our identity, with each passing day, every single year, and indeed, after every Budget. I hope future Budgets can engender that goal. Sir, I say this for the sake of younger Singaporeans. I was nominated as an MP to represent the youth, and I have learnt that our youth are very diverse. They have many interests. But they are all looking for inspiration and identity, and I truly hope they find it in Singapore. I think they want to find it in Singapore.”
“Sir, as we face the first truly global recession in the post-war period, what will build resilience in Singapore is a Government that inspires. This Budget, for example, has many good schemes. But is there an over-arching vision? What does it stand for? I have heard this Government stress that it wants to build the best home for Singaporeans. The Minister said in his speech that the "best home for Singaporeans must be the best place to start families, to help them nurture their young and to look after their old". On the other hand, this Government has also stressed how it wants to be a global city. But we are not just a city. We are a country as well. What about those who cannot plug into the global city? There is no hinterland to embrace them. I read the Straits Times interview today with architect William Lim, who said, "Singapore is quite cosmopolitan, but that does not automatically make a city vibrant. Melbourne is not a global city, but Melbourne is very vibrant." Sir, who are we trying to be a global city for – is it for Singaporeans? Can we be a best home at the same time when a global city is going to be the subject of the vicissitudes of global ups and downs? The notion of "home" evokes security. There needs to be more assurance for those that need it, such as those who will be retrenched during Singapore's deepest recession. So, what does a best home mean? Singaporeans should all have their say and this is mine. A home where: H is for Hope, A home that gives its people hope for a better life no matter how bleak the situation may seem. O is for a home that is One of a kind. We do it the zai (Hokkien word) Singapore way – honest and hardworking. M is for Motivation.”
“It was no wonder that a 28-year-old told me recently that he was surprised how everything was great before the F1 race in September, or at least that was the impression he got. With recent reports about the growing credit debt of Singaporeans, I wonder if Singaporeans were prepared for the downturn. Resilience comes from knowing what to expect and it is important for the Government to share as much as possible, as early on as possible, about what is in store. The Finance Minister said in his Budget speech that "we had known and had highlighted the downside risks of a US recession and a worsening global credit crunch" but did not anticipate the "speed and scale of the deterioration in the global economy". With all due respect, Sir, Singaporeans have been told they have a world-class Government. It is why they accept high market salaries for public servants. It is natural that they expect better from their leaders. Sir, Singaporeans also expect consistency. In an recent interview with Bloomberg, the Finance Minister said we should not be less susceptible to global markets because that is our future, that is where our fortunes are tied to. And that the key is to learn how to come out leaner and smarter. This has certainly become apparent. This should have been communicated from the start and this is what builds resilience. On the other hand, if there is one message that has been consistent from the Government, it is that we should not have a crutch mentality. Sir, at a time when Singapore is facing its deepest recession, in an economy whose fortunes depend so greatly on others, for a people who have always worked hard and sacrificed, I would say that this is not the time to bring this up again.”
“Likewise, for those in public rental flats, they should be given the moratorium on rental payments. The length of the deferment could be perhaps up to a year. Sir, I am aware the HDB is flexible in restructuring loans and arranging instalments for arrears and that can be done in the first few months after a job loss, but there is no reason not to provide Singaporeans with an extra layer of security from the fallout of a financial crisis. A financial crisis that they had no control over, and should their situation get worse if this global recession becomes long drawn. There could also be an additional month of S&CC rebates for every six months of unemployment if the person has gone for training under SPUR. Sir, it is good that we want to have a resilient Singapore. But what makes a resilient people? I have found myself wondering about that since the Budget announcement. Firstly, it helps if we are prepared for the future. Two weeks ago, as we were listening to the Minister about how we are likely to experience the deepest recession in the Singapore economy since our independence, I remembered how one year ago, Government leaders were saying that we will be able to weather the market turmoil and we would continue to do well economically that even though we could not be sheltered by the world economy if the US goes into a recession, we were in a good position to face the economic storm, that we are now not overly dependent on the US economy and the growth in Asia will keep us on track, and that we will ride out the global slowdown thanks to the investments here and regional momentum. We were told in the middle of last year that we were entering a golden period.”
“How will we know if the banks are profiteering by setting interest rates that do not commensurate with the lower level of risks they will be assuming under the Government's Special Risk-Sharing Initiative? Will the Minister give us regular updates and assessments? Likewise, if there is going to be a 40% property tax rebate for industrial and commercial properties, and landlords are being strongly urged to pass on the benefits to their tenants, can the Ministry for Finance update the public on the extent to which everyone did the "right thing"? Other measures the Government should take the initiative to report back on is the Public Transport Fund – whether the $10 million was sufficient this year and did it include transport for the disabled, as well as on how many people qualified for the Workfare Income Supplement Special Payment and how much was paid? In fact, why is the work eligibility criteria not also relaxed for the regular WIS programme, if we are expecting more disruptions to employment this year? Most of all, however, I think this Budget needs to do more for the jobless. The Government has expended a lot of focus to save jobs but what happens when someone is retrenched? One a long-term basis, the jobs retraining they get, the skills upgrading they go for is a good policy. What about the short term? Will the training allowance they get be enough, especially if they have a family to feed, mortgage to pay, old parents to look after and if the PCP takes more than a year? Sir, there should be a moratorium on housing loan payments to the HDB for those who are retrenched longer than six months. Perhaps it could even kick in after the person has been retrenched for three months.”
“Plus, the GST was raised at a time when the economy was booming and, judging from the sentiment on the ground and the fact that it is hardly common in Singapore for prices to come down, the psychological impact of reducing it for a period of time now could perhaps work better to boost the economy than GST Credits. Just look at what happens during the Great Singapore Sale. So if it is just a temporary measure, during an unprecedented recession, why not give it a go? Sir, I suppose the question to ask is what approach is the Government taking with this Budget in response to this recession? Is this the approach that is better to go all out at the first of asking, as some economists would urge, and perhaps do more than what might eventually turn out to be necessary. Or is the approach that it will be wiser to spread out the measures with the risk that some of these may be less effective later. I ask this, because on the one hand, the Minister has said that the Resilience Package aims to save jobs to the maximum extend possible, and at the same time, the Government is keeping its savings built up during this term of office to "respond as the situation requires". The debate about whether we really need to dip into the reserves, I think, hinges on a better understanding of the Government's approach. Overall, I think there needs to be clarity in the Budget and whether it achieves its goals. The Government is providing unprecedented support from banks by sharing the risks of lending. But how will we know whether the banks are playing their part? How will we know whether they will make the $11 billion of loans estimates they will make this year?”
“So, why not consider spending vouchers for citizens, such as in Taiwan where each person received US$170? Shopping coupons which cannot kept in the bank or spent on the likes of cigarettes and gambling, unlike GST Credits. A voucher that is guaranteed to be spent on goods and services provided by retailers, wholesalers and food and beverage establishments in Singapore, before a certain date or it will expire. Since plummeting demand is a threat to jobs. Why not add this to our toolbox and do even more to save jobs? Many Singaporeans are wondering if there are sacred cows the Government is not willing to touch. I do not think vouchers are one of them, but certainly many think that GST would be one. In the UK, there had been a temporary reduction in the sales tax or the VAT, from 17.5% to 15%. It is a move which will last until the end of this year, 13 months in all, in order to stimulate growth by making goods and services cheaper. Sir, the Minister has said that the direct benefits to households this year exceed what they would have gained if the GST had been cut by 2% instead. But what if the recession gets worse? I join my colleague, Mr Inderjit Singh, in asking if the Minister would consider bringing GST back to 5% for a year at least, or until Singapore bounces back from the recession. I know the Minister has said before, that higher-income Singaporeans who spend more would save more from a GST cut than lower income Singaporeans. That is in absolute dollars. But because lower-income Singaporeans are not in a position to save as much and have to spend a higher proportion of their income, they pay more proportionately of their income to GST. A GST cut works in their favour too.”
“Finally, Sir, my comment – besides the need to professionalise our charities for capacity building, the Government needs to take a look at whether there are duplication of resources within the charity sector. Here, I would like to acknowledge the views of my colleague, Ms Irene Ng, with whom I agree. It is one thing to have a "many helping hands approach", it is another to have too many helping hands, resulting in less than satisfactory delivery of social schemes. We need to be more structured in this area so that those in need of help will be less confused about who to turn to for help and what help is available. And it is time Government took the lead. MCYS and the CDCs should really be the starting point for the needy. Government agencies are the ones which help fund the VWOs and their programmes. Government agencies work with the VWOs so if the agencies can get a better sense of the needs on the ground, they will be better placed to ensure a more efficient needs-based social support system, instead of MPs and Meet-the-People sessions as a default starting point for social assistance. Judging from the way the ComCare Fund is not being fully tapped, as the TODAY newspaper reported yesterday. Sir, now that I have touched on the volunteer sector, let me move on to the rest of the Budget. The Minister for Finance said that keeping jobs will provide more support and confidence for the domestic sector of the economy than efforts to stimulate consumption demand directly. But why not do both? There is one school of thought among economists that, if governments really want to put the brakes on the current economic decline, they need to act early, pre-emptively and to spare no effort at all.”
“I was pleased, in general, about the support for charitable giving, eg, tax reductions of 250% for donations in 2009 to IPCs will definitely encourage donations. Could I just add one suggestion, one clarification and one comment? First, the suggestion – since we know how important families are, since we know how important the social service sector is in propping up our families, especially the less fortunate ones, and since we know that manpower is an issue for VWOs – all of which the Minister acknowledged in his Budget delivery – is it possible to give extra Jobs Credit to the social service sector? Is it possible, at a time when families are going to come under increasing strain because of the deepening recession, to give social service employers 15% or even 20% of the first $2,500 of the wages of their employees, so that VWOs can not only retain their social workers, but to hire new ones, to hire good ones to cope with the expected demand for their services. Sir, I know policymakers like to keep policies clean, simple and as uniform as possible, but is it possible to exercise some flexibility, rather than rigidity, and do this in the name of our families? Now, a request for clarifications – an additional $15 million will be given to Government-funded VWOs, bringing the total to about $220 million a year. What will the money be used for? How much is going towards training social workers? For example, is there a professional conversion programme under the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience, or will there be other courses under SPUR, in the university or otherwise, for social work?”
“Jobs Credit does not change market realities. These are the reasons why some are wondering if the scheme is enough of an incentive for companies to save jobs. In the US, the proposal was shelved because of fears that it could be abused by businesses, especially profitable businesses which do not need to have their payroll subsidised. It is quite clear that if we can improve the Jobs Credit Scheme, we should do it. If we can make it more effective, more bang-for-the-buck, we should do it. If we can mitigate abuse, we should do it. So why not reduce the payout for companies that accept the Credits and then retrench? Axe 5% percent of your headcount, then Government only gives 9%, instead of 12% of the wages of the remaining employees. Layoff 10%? Government gives 6% and so on. If, as the Minister said, the intent is to provide a significant incentive for companies to retain existing workers, then surely this sounds more like an incentive. In its existing form, the Jobs Credit is all carrot without the condition – which is to save jobs. No wonder some say that this is pro-business more than pro-worker. Be that as it may, I also see the intent to help businesses with their cash flow. And I think we can do more in this regard. Since the Government is giving residents who lose their jobs more time to pay their income taxes from 12 months to 24 months. Why not do the same for companies and their taxable income? Perhaps this will help the very companies we want, to weather the storm. Perhaps this gives us another tool to save jobs. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that Jobs Credit will save some jobs. In fact, I was pleased to hear that the scheme would be extended to VWOs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing to participate in this Budget debate. Sir, every year after the Budget announcement, parliamentarians always receive a large brown envelope containing the Budget speech and annexes. This year, it was not a brown envelope but a black cloth bag. Either to match our suits or to suit the mood, I remember saying at that time, or it was obviously a save-the-environment initiative. Obviously, Sir, there were also far more important changes about this year's Budget. The economic outlook for Singapore has changed. And the Budget reflects that, with its $20.5 billion Resilience Package. In response, I would like to do two things in my speech: to talk about resilience as a nation; and to offer my humble ideas as we face possibly the deepest recession in our history. I say humble ideas because the best economic minds around the world have been hard at work already, trying to resuscitate their respective economies, and it is proving to be a massive task. But if every idea counts, if every Singaporean matters, then I humbly speak from a citizen's point of view. First, the Jobs Credit Scheme, certainly a better way of cutting costs than the practice in past recessions of cutting CPF contributions. However, the big question we are all wondering, the question for which the answer will only be known later this year is whether it can save enough jobs. The Minister pointed out that the problem we face this time is not one of wage competitiveness. Unlike in the 1980s, for example, the problem we face this time is a slump in global demand. Even low-cost China, as the Minister pointed out, is suffering job losses. Even profitable companies such as Microsoft are saying they have to streamline. In Singapore, it has already happened with DBS, for example.”
“The incremental annual GDP is estimated to exceed $1.5 billion. So I would like to ask how confident is the Government that the two IRs will give the Government the hand that it is hoping for. Thirdly, it was mentioned also in this House three years ago, that for the Bayfront IR, the gaming area will be less than 3% of the total floor area allowed. Has the position of the Government changed since, and if 3% of the floor space is meant to hold 600 tables and if it is to be increased to 1,000 tables, then is that not a disingenuous way of just getting around the 3% restriction? Fourthly, it was reported that taxpayers' money will not be used to bail out the IR and as the public does see Temasek to be managing the taxpayers' money, does that mean that Temasek will not step in under any circumstances?”
“I like to thank the Senior Minister of State. I have four supplementary questions for him. Firstly, how much was financial security a consideration in awarding these contracts three years ago? And if it was a consideration, did we anticipate the scenario when the company will actually go bankrupt and did we prepare sufficiently for it? And, also, did we pay too little attention to the financial security of the companies when we awarded the contract? Secondly, with the losses in the gaming industry now, there is a belief in some quarters that the quest in the gaming industry has been reached and past, and this begs the question as to whether it was a gamble to legalise resorts with casinos. And it was said in this House three years ago that with the two IRs –”
“I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State. I have three supplementary questions for her. First, Town Councils have invested in structured products. What is the investment process like? Were the Town Councils or the people in charge of approving these investments aware of the risks involved which included losing the entire sum? Second, my question is whether the intent for allowing Town Councils to invest is to go for higher returns or to seek stable returns. Does the SMS think there is a need for town council to invest in risky and complex financial products since the higher the return, the higher the risk? Can I ask what is the value of those investments now?”
“I would like to ask the Minister two supplementary questions. Sir, up until now, the men-on-the-street have placed their trust in our banking institutions such as DBS, which truly is a Singapore brand name. And because trust is not a word that the Government or the people take lightly, and we have been told that we can trust our institutions, I would like to ask: is it fair that the men-on-the-street, who clearly do not know much about these investments and many of them who were clearly working on the basis of trust, end up being the ones who lose out? And if this was the case, will this erode trust in our system? Secondly, will the Minister agree with John Peterson, an article in TODAY, when he said that banks were selling complex products for which they were never correctly licensed and over which they have been poorly regulated, and his proposal that regulators separate the simple banking licence from the licence to sell products, and that we should allow banks to be one or the other and not both?”
“But for the PCF event, as I have explained, not just in terms of the status of the organiser, which is PCF – its track record shows very clearly that it does not engage in politics and it does not discuss political issues; it is on the ground running kindergartens and doing good for senior citizens and other Singaporeans who are less fortunate – but the event itself was really like any other family day event that voluntary welfare organisations organise. A day in the sun; in fact, monies were given out to 17 charitable causes; there were music and performances. I think in that setting, the likelihood of public disorder arising is definitely not of the same order as, for example, the earlier event by the Workers' Party cycling in the East Coast.”
“Sir, I have two supplementary questions on behalf of Mr Siew. Last August, the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs told this House that people may stop politicians or may want to debate with politicians and then attract a crowd which will result in problems. So, other events by political parties are not allowed because of law and order concerns. Do such risks also not apply to outdoor events organised by the PCF, which is a charity that explicitly declares on its website, that it is an arm of the PAP and that it is well attended by PAP Members? Secondly, the PCF logo incorporates the PAP's logo which all Singaporeans will be familiar with. In fact, many Singaporeans will probably not be able to make that distinction. So, if we are concerned about Singaporeans causing a scene and confronting politicians, then, is it not artificial to draw that distinction between the PAP and the PCF? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is quite different for a political party under its own banner to organise an event where it espouses a political cause, talking about issues that are close to the heart. Some Singaporeans would agree or disagree. And indeed, as we have seen in other countries, when you do this, as we have said in this House many times, politics can create emotive feelings, passion, and you may not intend it to be such, but there may be bystanders who may stir up the situation. I think that is very clear.”
“Thank you, Senior Parliamentary Secretary, once again. I understand that you will review the system from time to time. I was wondering whether the Government will think about topping up the cash reward. After all, one of the Paralympic values is equality. We talk about meritocracy with regard to scholarships, among other aspects of our society. Why does it not apply in terms of equality of recognition for disabled athletes? My second question is whether the current system for sports for the disabled is playing catch-up in Singapore. Will the Ministry use the remarkable achievements of our Paralympians to improve on what we can do for our disabled athletes? Is it possible that we can have a plan on what can be done for them?”
“I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply. Sir, I would like to ask, with regard to allocation of resources, why is our reward for the Singapore Paralympians not on par with the able athletes. The total prize money that our Paralympians will receive for four medals is in fact still less than that of an individual bronze medal at the Olympics. I am sure the SPS does not value our Paralympians any lesser. Can I just ask why there is a disparity in the reward system?”
“We should not penalise citizens when a political party is unable to choose good and capable candidates. Currently, it is up to the Prime Minister to decide when to call for a by-election and it is certainly true that a wise and good PM does not need the law to tell him when a by-election is needed. But, surely, this House is not complacently assuming that there is no chance our future leaders may be less than wise or, worse, become self-serving. Amending the Parliamentary Elections Act, as suggested by my hon. colleagues, Prof. Thio Li-ann and Dr Loo Choon Yong, would safeguard the value of having by-elections. The question is whether the legislation is flexible enough for the Government to act reasonably and for the by-elections to be held fairly? I think so. The timeframe provided by the hon. Members is fair. [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) in the Chair] 6.22 pm Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past, the Government has said that by-elections could end up as distractions to more important matters at hand. I think we should put more faith and trust in Singaporeans, at least, if the Government would like Singaporeans to put their trust in its leadership. This is no longer a monochrome world. In this day and age, we must multi-task. If we are saying that Singaporeans are not up to multiple challenges, or that only the PM can decide that, we are doomed. All our years of education would have gone to waste. Ultimately, how we view the motion reflects how much we value political engagement, how much we trust Singaporeans, how much progress we are making in opening up the system and how much we want Singaporeans to be a part of the country's future. Sir, with that, I support the motion.”
“If we consider this issue using the conventional yardstick of tangible impact to services in the constituency, there may be no need to hold by-elections. But I call on this House and the Government to aspire to higher ideals and objectives. In 1970, when Minister Mentor was Prime Minister, he articulated these principles at one rally. He said, and I quote: "Very simply, we need not have had a by-election. But it is not in our nature to allow things to go on, to allow time to pass by, when we can in fact improve matters, make things better and prepare for the future. We took this opportunity not because there was anything wrong or inadequate in what the incumbent MP had been doing for us ... but that we felt the time had come, and he had given of his best. We need a new recruit, somebody who has a greater performance. .". We all know that having a full complement of MPs is the optimal situation. Let us not be satisfied with getting by with less. Let us always have a people-centric approach. I read the parliamentary reports the last time the by-election issue was debated extensively. I read how it was said that it would not be fair to ask other MPs in a GRC to resign simply because a member of the team had vacated his or her seat. I read how by-elections were not deemed necessary to prevent any MP from holding his GRC colleagues to ransom. I failed to see how the people's interests came first in this line of reasoning. If there are problems within an incumbent team in a GRC, is it not in the interests of residents to have a more focused team in place? I think the motion is quite fair to propose that a by-election be called when half or more of the MPs in a GRC – and not just one – vacate their seats.”
“Singapore is not an ancient civilisation, with 5,000 years of history to give her people an innate and deep-seated stake in the country. Only if she were, then perhaps we could dismiss the importance of elections in giving citizens a sense of ownership. So, it is heartening to hear how the PM wants to encourage Singaporeans to build our shared future. Therefore, when it comes to this issue of by-elections, I am not so concerned about the legal wheretos and constitutional wherefores about why this House should or should not affirm the motion – to me, the guiding principle should be the long-term interests of Singapore. At a time when Singapore is set to face increasingly more challenging population issues – from the lack of babies to the increase in immigration – we must act to strengthen citizenship, not weaken it. I believe this motion strengthens citizenship. On the other hand, imagine the message we would be sending if we defeat this motion. In essence, we would be telling Singaporeans that it does not matter if half or more of the MPs in your GRC vacate their seats for any reason. It does not matter if your vote has been nullified because your MP in your single member constituency has vacated his or her seat. It does not matter if there is no minority representation in your GRC. What would Singaporeans think, especially young Singaporeans, about the role they play and the kind of Singapore we want them to inherit? We have had instances in the past where seats in single member constituencies have been vacated and have not been filled until the next election. It would seem the constituencies survived.”