Gan Kim Yong
Singapore
“Consumer complaints relating to the secondary resale market for tickets to major events and concerts have generally remained low. Nonetheless, to protect the public from scams on secondary ticket resale platforms, the Police have imposed Code of Practice requirements under the Online Criminal Harms Act to require designated online service…”
“Singapore does not condone the use of forced labour. We criminalise forced labour in Singapore under various laws. Relevant Government Ministries and agencies, such as the Ministry of Manpower, Ministry of Home Affairs and Singapore Police Force, play their part in investigating complaints of suspected breaches in domestic laws that relat…”
“The Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) discontinued the PayNow nickname feature as scammers had been exploiting the use of nicknames to impersonate legitimate entities and trusted individuals.”
“As of end-2025, around 6,900 private residential buildings have registered their solar installations with SP Group for the export of excess solar-generated electricity to the grid. The installed solar capacity of these residential buildings is 115.3 megawatt-peak (MWp), or around 5.5% of all current installed solar capacity in Singapore.”
“The one-year pilot extension of liquor trading hours has seen strong interest from businesses. As of 31 May 2026, the Police have approved 88 applications for the extension of liquor trading hours from public entertainment outlets in these areas.”
“The Government does not make projections of domestic or regional demand for renewable diesel or sustainable aviation fuel. Demand depends on commercial considerations, evolving market conditions and regulatory developments across different jurisdictions.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,841 lines we hold for Gan Kim Yong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 76 of 77.
“Given that the number of such privately funded schools is going to be limited to only two or three, I would like to urge the Ministry not to be too restrictive on the conditions imposed on them. The key criteria should be the quality of their system and the quality of their output. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] 5.32 pm My fifth point relates to the 3-year pre-university programmes which are currently provided in the two centralised institutes. Most of the proposals in the White Paper are focused on the objective of maximising the potential of our students, especially those who are in the upper end of the cohort. This invariably gives rise to the impression that the lower end of the cohort, especially those that are pursuing the 3-year pre-university programmes, are being neglected. There were few proposals, if any, to improve the system to also maximise their potential. I would like to urge the Ministry to also look into this aspect so that these students would not feel left out. Perhaps some of them may be suitable for the proposed specialised independent schools if they possess specific talents. A system could be put in place to allow them to switch to these specialised schools where appropriate. Lastly, communication is vital. Whatever changes we want to make to the education policy, it is vital that we take pains to explain them to the teachers, students and parents. This is crucial in garnering acceptance and support for the policy changes and for the new policy to be effective. For this reason, I would like to urge the Ministry to continue to engage the various stakeholders through public media, dialogue sessions and other avenues to explain to them and to solicit feedback from them as we refine the proposals.”
“Thirdly, on the proposed integrated programmes, it is important for us to carefully explain the various models to the students and the parents so that they are in a position to make informed decisions with regard to the route they are taking, so that they can reap the maximum benefits. To provide diversity, it is good to allow JCs and secondary schools to come up with creative ideas on integrated programmes. So far, we have seen quite a number of schools submitting a wide variety of proposals. I am sure more variations will emerge as time goes on. Even the university is keen to operate a specialised school. To avoid confusion, it would be useful for the Ministry to explain in layman's terms how the system works and how parents and students should make their decisions and the implications of their decisions. Annex N of the report provides a very good overview of the proposed education landscape, but it is not easy for a layman to fully understand what it means. Once the models have been finalised, it would be opportune for us to explain in greater details. We could also simplify the models and pilot perhaps just one or two as a start. Once we have gained more experience, we can then experiment with greater variations. Fourthly, on the proposed setting up of privately funded schools, I think it is a welcome initiative. I would like to urge the Ministry to proactively encourage internationally renowned private schools to set up their branch here. These well-run private schools will not only provide variety and choice for our students. They could also bring in innovative teaching methods that could benefit our schools here as well.”
“Teachers at the upper secondary levels also have a vital role to play as a bridge to help advise and counsel their students so that they in turn can make informed decisions on the subjects they intend to take up. Parents, in particular, may also need to be similarly briefed and counselled beforehand. It would therefore be helpful if the Ministry could consider providing a briefing for the secondary school teachers and principals in addition to those in the JCs. They will then be in a better position to offer advice to their students and parents. This way, I believe that it will help smoothen the implementation of the new curriculum. Secondly, I would like to suggest to the Ministry to consider including some elementary management components in the new curriculum. This could comprise people management skills, communication skills, decision-making process, basic business and management principles. This is in line with our move to promote and encourage entrepreneurship. In fact, no matter what our students end up doing in future, they will invariably benefit from some basic management know-how. Some project work in the new curriculum could also include development of business ideas and this will foster innovative thinking among our students. There could even be vacation attachment programmes to give students an opportunity to see first-hand how business corporations work and the issues involved in running a business. Schools who wish to offer management components may be able to draw on the resources from the management schools in the universities or from the private sector. This way, we can inject greater professionalism in our courses. Hopefully, over time, we can produce more entrepreneurs to spearhead our economic development.”
“In this regard, I am glad that the report has recognised the potential upstream impact on the secondary schools. I would like to urge the Ministry to also look into the upper secondary school curriculum and make adjustments where necessary to help students adapt to the new system in the JCs. For example, some modules of the Knowledge and Inquiry could be introduced to the students in the upper secondary schools so that they will be more familiar with the subject when they enter into the JC. In reality, some students, especially the slower ones, may find the broadened curriculum more difficult to handle. These difficulties may be more acute during the transition period when the new curriculum is first introduced as it would take some time for things to settle down and for the students and teachers to get used to the new system. To help them cope better, additional time and attention may need to be provided to coach them and to help them catch up. The schools could help identify these weaker students and consider providing some form of learning support. This is particularly useful during the first one or two years when the changes are introduced. It will also help assure our parents that their children will be able to benefit from the new approach rather than to suffer from it. Teachers, on the other hand, will need time to adjust to a more skilled based system. As new subjects such as the Knowledge and Inquiry will be introduced, teachers will need to understand the new requirements. Some may need to change their teaching methods and acquire new teaching skills. They may also need to develop new ways of assessing the students. It is therefore crucial that the Ministry prepares and trains the teachers so that the new curriculum can be implemented effectively.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of RAdm Teo Chee Hean, Minister for Education. Sir, I recently returned from a trip to China. There is now a very popular phrase in China, and that is, "yu shi ju jin" - progressing with time. Sir, the world is changing very fast, much faster now than before, and the education system must also change for us to keep up with the changing times. The initiatives and proposals contained in the report of the Junior College and Upper Secondary School Education Review Committee are bold and wide-ranging. If implemented, they will significantly change our approach to education. Historically, our education system has been based on a highly structured approach. Over the years, we have sought to gradually open up our system to allow for variety and some experimentation. Now, we are ready for a major quantum leap. The impact of these proposals before us will be far reaching and long lasting. Sir, while I agree with the overall concept and approach proposed by the White Paper, I would like to make several observations and I hope the Ministry could take them into account when implementing these new measures. The success of the proposed changes depends critically on the implementation process. Firstly, we need to prepare our teachers, students and parents for these major changes in the JC curriculum that have been proposed. The broadening of the curriculum will undoubtedly better prepare our students for the university education and to meet the challenges of the fast-changing world we now live in. However, as these changes are quite significant, there may be a need to prepare the students even during their upper secondary school days so that they are better prepared for the broader curriculum.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he would consider it important to find out what are the reasons that our citizens have opted out of the scheme - whether it is because of the pay out or whether is because of the difficulty in qualifying for the pay out.”
“Sir, could the Minister of State tell us how many people have opted out of the scheme because of the difficulty to qualify for the pay out, and how many have opted out because the pay out is too low in terms of quantum and too short in terms of duration?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether he could assure the residents that the operation of the Bukit Panjang LRT is safe, given the fact that such an important component like a cotter pin can go missing despite stringent maintenance procedures. How could we be sure that there are no other critical components that affect the safety that might also be missing?”
“Resolved, That this House, noting the concern of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong as highlighted in his National Day Rally Speech on "stayers" and "quitters" and in view of the increased mobility of third-generation Singaporeans, urges the Government to review its policies and programmes thoroughly and to take meaningful measures that will help to strengthen their sense of belonging to Singapore. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 31st October, 2002." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes past Four o'clock pm to Thursday, 31st October 2002.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, we tabled this Motion with the intention to identify possible causes of people thinking of quitting Singapore, and an attempt to look for solutions. As we prosper and excel in our economic development, we cannot afford to lose sight of the need to also develop a sense of belonging, a sense of ownership, and a sense of responsibility. The issue of stayers and quitters cannot be resolved overnight. Like Mr Lee has mentioned, it is a long process, and it will take time. I hope that we will not stop at this debate. I hope that this debate will serve as a road sign, a guiding post, for us to work towards building a Singapore for Singaporeans, a home that we can all call our own. Mdm Deputy Speaker, it leaves me to thank all the MPs who have spoken on this Motion. They have spoken passionately because this is an issue that is close to their hearts. Their participation has undoubtedly helped clarify and crystallise the issues at hand. Many of them have made specific and useful suggestions, all with the single purpose in mind - to root Singaporeans to Singapore. I would also like to thank the Government for responding to the Motion - Mr Hawazi, Dr Ng Eng Hen, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan. I would also like to thank Deputy Prime Minister Lee, in particular, for his insightful remarks. Having heard his comments, I am heartened that the Government is taking a serious view and making serious efforts to look at this issue. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am glad that the Motion has been thoroughly debated in this House. Madam, we have achieved what we set out to do. Finally, I would like to thank the Speaker and you, Mdm Deputy Speaker, for giving us this opportunity to table this Motion. Question put, and agreed to.”
“The majority of these are likely to be the younger generation or the third generation Singaporeans. On top of that, they are better educated. They are more mobile and they have greater exposure to the opportunities that await them in other countries. On the other hand, we are remaking Singapore today for the benefit of this third generation which will inherit whatever we create. Should we not be concerned of their views and perceptions? Thirdly, the future factor. The third generation Singaporeans will be our future leaders. They will be our future people. In fact, they will be our future hope. I would therefore suggest that we cannot ignore the aspirations and the concerns of these third generation Singaporeans. For a motion to be vague and too broadly-based will be meaningless. I would like to suggest therefore that we remain focused in this motion to deal with our people in the third generation Singaporeans. Mr Speaker, Sir, the reference to the third generation is an integral part of the motion. I would therefore like to urge the House to reject the amendment proposed by Mr Chia. I would like to move that the House now takes a vote on the proposed amendment. Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and negatived.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your indulgence to allow me to respond to Mr Chia's proposed amendment to my motion. Sir, the original motion was very carefully crafted to focus on the key issues at hand, and I went through at great length yesterday in this House to explain the wordings and why the motion was moved. I also explained why we need to take into consideration the challenges facing particularly our third generation Singaporeans. And with your indulgence, Sir, I would like to reiterate and elaborate for the benefit of Mr Chia. Mr Chia, in his speech, although he proposed the amendment, did not go into detail why the amendment was necessary. Let me explain our position. Firstly, we must look at the historical factor. I said yesterday that the first and second generation Singaporeans fought shoulder to shoulder against the threat of communist infiltration and they have built amongst themselves a mutual trust that will bind them together. They also went through the anguish of separation from Malaysia and they have struggled together to find a way for Singapore to survive. Having gone through the difficult times together as a people, they will stand united as a people. In comparison, the third generation Singaporeans grew up in relative peace and prosperity. We are blessed with the fruits of our forerunners. There is nothing wrong in that, Sir. We too would want our children to have peace and prosperity. But the question is whether we can replicate the same kind of bonding and commitment as our earlier generations while we enjoy the peace and prosperity. Secondly, the present factor. I also explained yesterday that more and more Singaporeans have to go overseas to work. This is part of the globalisation policy of the Government and our companies.”
“Although there were abuses, to the majority who have benefited from it, it was a huge success. I am not suggesting that we open up a floodgate on our welfare schemes. However, I am suggesting that perhaps we can afford to be more helpful and not deny help to those who really need it simply because we are fearful of abuse by those who may not need it. This may be a fundamental shift from the Government policy today but this is what family is all about, mutual help and support. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, the Motion on stayers and quitters is intended to spark debate in Parliament on issues of Singaporeans' commitment to the country. The process of nation building has no short cut. It will not happen overnight. But it is a crucial issue, particularly at this point in time when Singapore is at the crossroad. PM's speech was a timely reminder that we cannot take this for granted. As we rebuild our economy, we must also build a home, not a hotel. This will take not only the efforts of the Government alone, but the efforts of all Singaporeans, of all the members in the family. Together, we can build a home where Singaporeans have a say in its shape and size, a home where Singaporeans have a part in building, a home where Singaporeans have relationships with one another, and a home where Singaporeans will stay to fight and defend. We must build a home that is uniquely Singaporeans' home. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“We must assure him that there is a place in Singapore for him because this is his home. He may not get the job he wishes but there are always job opportunities for him so long as he tries and is willing to be flexible. So instead of telling our people that there is no free lunch, perhaps we should change the tune and tell them that we will help them to find their lunch. We must tell them that every Singaporean matters, whether you are a taxi driver or an SIA pilot, whether you are a mechanic or a biochemist, whether you are a professional or an entrepreneur - you have a place and a role in Singapore. You can always contribute meaningfully. You matter to us. And in return, Singapore will matter to them. Two, create alternative career opportunities. Not all Singaporeans can fit into the main stream. Some of them may not be as good academically but they may be able to excel in other fields, arts, sports, etc. If we can open up new avenues for these people to pursue their career development, it would help to demonstrate that we care about them and help persuade them to remain committed to Singapore. I believe the Remaking Singapore Committee is addressing this issue and I eagerly await its report. Three, balance economic progress with social progress. As we pursue economic excellence, we must balance it with strengthening of our social fabric. Those doing better must have a sense of responsibility to care for those who may need an extra hand. The Government needs to take the lead. We are rightly concerned that our help may be abused. But those who abuse the system are quitters because they have already quit trying to do the right thing but, thankfully, these are the exceptions. The EDRS, for example, is a meaningful gesture to show that we care.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, other than education policy and social policy, the third initiative relates to the need to review our economic policy to strike a balance between economic progress and social cohesion. As our economic restructuring progresses, there is a risk that an increasing number of Singaporeans may feel left behind. They either cannot adapt to the new economy or may find it very painful to do so. They feel that they can no longer fit into the family and they have no choice but to quit. Worse, some of them cannot even afford to quit, given the limited resources they have. So even if they have not physically quit from Singapore, they have done so emotionally. This is a real problem that we should not ignore. To this, I would like to make three suggestions. One, make space for every Singaporean. We must ensure that all Singaporeans have a place in Singapore, not just for the elite, so long as he tries his best and regardless of his achievements. We cannot abandon the meritocracy philosophy as it is the very basis of our existence and success so far. But if we continue to tell our people that there is no free lunch and that they either wake up or lose out, the message we are giving them may be interpreted as telling them to fend for themselves and that we will do whatever it takes to move on. We cannot say that to a family member, even if he is handicapped and, especially, if he is handicapped. One day, my 6-year-old daughter came home from a cartoon movie, Lilo and Stitch. She quoted to me a phrase from the show. She said, "Dad, Ohanna means family." Family means nobody gets left behind. As a family, we must give every member a fair chance, fair in relation to each person's ability. If one of them is slower but he has tried his best, we cannot abandon him.”
“Perhaps the Government can consider sponsoring a few major events like these, in order to give them the resources and the recognition. Three, let people have some say. There has been much criticism of the Government for failing to take in feedback seriously. I agree that we cannot govern the country based on feedback alone. The Prime Minister's example of seeing a doctor on slimming pills is a good one. But I would suggest that Singaporeans' relationship with the nation is not that of a patient consulting his doctor. It is a family affair. Singapore is not my clinic but my home. In the past, whatever my father says goes. Now, whatever I say, my daughters will ask "why?" and my wife will go "why not?", and a debate will ensue. Eventually, my wife or myself will make a decision, but not without painstakingly explaining to my children the rationale for the decision. They may not always be happy with the outcome, but they are usually satisfied that due consideration has been given to their views. Similarly, it is important for the Government to explain its decisions carefully and thoroughly to the people to minimise misunderstandings. The recent fare increase is a case in point. While the people accept that cost increases may be inevitable, the communication process can be improved. Singaporeans need to be assured that the Government understands their current difficulties and have factored them into their decisions. Communication and mutual understanding is the basic foundation of a closely-knit family and a loving home. I would therefore urge all Government agencies to make the extra effort in obtaining feedback proactively and to take pains to explain tough policies to our people, so that they can feel part of this big family.”
“We must continue to build on social and community bonding. We must develop individual's relationship with the community. From my experience, I find it most effective when people work together on certain projects and they develop an esprit de corp as they go through the process. They learn to respect and accept one another. They develop a special bonding among themselves. As community leaders, they can then help to expand this same bonding to other residents. I would like to urge the Government to give more resources and greater mandate to the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles for this purpose. The need for social bonding is not just among different races. Even within the same race, there is also a need to strengthen our bonds. When we lived in kampongs in the old days, we were much closer to one another, although we were physically further apart. We need to re-kindle that kampong spirit to re-build the depth of community bonding. Recently, I attended several lantern festivals within our GRC and I was pleasantly surprised by the large turn-out, from different races, not just the Chinese. This is due in no small part to the hard work of the grassroots leaders, and I must also thank our Mayor, Dr Teo Ho Pin, for his support. But it leads me to ask the question: what is in it that attracts the people? Perhaps it is more than just the makan and the goodie bags. Some of them simply brought their kids along and joined in the fun. They lit up candles on the pavement, much to the annoyance of the town councils, and they chatted with one another. If we can promote more of these traditional and festive cultural events, it will help foster greater interaction among our residents.”
“If we do not feel at home in our own home, we cannot feel at home in our country. Therefore, we must start with strengthening our family ties. In one of my dialogue sessions with my residents, some of them suggested that we need more space and avenues for family outings and activities. Today, one of the most favourite family pastimes is window shopping. This does nothing to strengthen family ties. In fact, it weakens the pocket and creates more stress. We must create more affordable and convenient destinations for families and friends. Some of our attractions, such as the zoo, the bird park, etc, are designed for tourists, and may not be resident or family-friendly. For example, can we make a conscious effort to review the entrance charges to promote family tickets or season tickets? Or we can even have a universal family pass to allow discounted entries to all our attractions the whole year round, so long as they come as a whole family. This way, we will draw them away from all the shops to spend time with each other in wholesome activities. Sir, we have a Children's Day, a Youth Day, a Mother's Day and a Father's Day. Maybe, we should have a Family Day where families take centrestage, and make it a public holiday. This will go a long way to reminding Singaporeans of the value of our family. Two, strengthen social and community bonding. Yesterday's newspaper quoted Mr Wee Cho Yaw as saying that there is little meaningful interaction among the various racial groups despite the peaceful co-existence for many years. I hope he is wrong. But we must have realistic expectations. The differences in our cultural and religious background are not easy to bridge. It may take several generations before progress becomes apparent. But we must not quit.”
“Colourful as it may be, the younger generation may find it hard to relate. Unlike the first and second generation Singaporeans who have lived through the early years of separation from Malaysia and the struggle against communist infiltration, the 3G generation has grown up in relative security and prosperity. I believe that to be successful in our National Education effort, we need to take a more practical approach. I would like to suggest that we enhance and expand the Community Involvement Programme for this purpose. If we allow our students to be involved more actively in community and national development, no matter how big or small it is, it will give them a greater sense of ownership. We can even encourage our tertiary institutions to organise groups that discuss and debate about Government policies. This will generate greater awareness and engagement. There are risks no doubt, but the reward of having a committed citizen is well worth the risks. The second initiative: I would like to urge the Government to review our social policies to build a home, and not a hotel. A hotel may have 5-star facilities compared to my small apartment, but it is not my home. What makes a home? A home is a place where I have a relationship with my family members, my parents, my spouse and my children. A home is a place where I have some say in how it is run. A home is a haven that I long to return to for safety and security and, when it is threatened, I would not hesitate to defend it with all I have got. I am almost certain that all of us would agree with this perception of home. The issue is: how do we make our nation our home? I would like to make three suggestions. One, strengthen our family bonding.”
“In our competitive system today, it is natural that failures are costly, whether in schools, society or the economy. However, there is again a Chinese saying, "shi bai shi cheng gong zhi mu", ie, failure is the mother of success. If we cannot accept failures, we cannot achieve success. As we develop a gracious society, we must also be mindful to create greater capacity for failures. This way, Singaporeans will be assured of acceptance by the society and the nation, despite their shortcomings, and they do not need to run to another country. Our children in schools must be taught to expect failures, and that perseverance will eventually lead to success. I remember when I first went to the UK for my university education, I had great difficulties in handling the laboratory sessions. The instruction sheets given to me had no instructions at all. They merely stated the requirements. It was up to us to figure out what to do. My teammate - another Singaporean - and I tried every other way but could not get the results. Finally, after some four hours and after all the other students had gone home, we figured it out. We did not fail. We merely found a dozen ways that did not work. Our schools should also consider introducing open-ended activities and programmes like these that require our children to try and keep trying. This way, we will build a strong character in them that can accept failures of others as well as of their own. Four, revamp our National Education Programme. The objectives behind the NEP are good. But if the programme cannot effectively reach out to our children, it could not serve our purpose. I believe that the subject of National Education is a subject of the heart, and it cannot be taught by simply reciting to them our nation's short history.”
“Yes, it is a story from China, but I am sure we can find similar stories from other places as well. I would like to suggest that some of these should be incorporated into our school curriculum, especially in the language lessons, so that there is no need to add on the load. For example, instead of talking about the Tail of a Squirrel (one of the passages I read in my daughter's Chinese textbook), we can tell stories about Yuefei or about George Washington and his cherry tree. This way, we can help build the character of our students. My second suggestion is to introduce activities that encourage teamwork and inculcate a sense of accountability and responsibility in our schools. These can either take the form of sports and games or project work. It is important for our children to learn from young that he is not alone and he cannot work alone. He is part of the team and part of the big picture. There is a Chinese saying, "xi sheng xiao wo, wan cheng ta wao", which means to sacrifice yourself for the interest of the greater community. These activities will be able to demonstrate that only by making individual sacrifices - be it time, interest or money - can we succeed and, ultimately, all will benefit from it. Through these activities, they can also learn that while others depend on them to do their best, they too depend on others. This interdependence is the beginning of relationship building and community bonding. Let us not underestimate the impact of some of these seemingly simple and childish activities. They leave a long lasting impression on the minds of our young ones. Three, develop greater tolerance for failures in our schools. One of the causes of the kiasu syndrome stems from the fact that we have very little tolerance for setbacks and failures.”
“Other subjects, such as Hao Gong Min are given much less emphasis. The schools must provide more than just knowledge and skills. It is where our character is moulded and developed during the early days of our lives. It is also where we first derive our values and principles. If we focus only on the hard subjects, we will produce an army of efficient workers, but we will not produce citizens. I can still recall the story of Yuefei, which I read during my primary school days. His patriotic and heroic story has inspired many, like me, to feel a sense of duty to the nation. Yuefei was born in the year 1103. When he was young, his mother tattooed four words on his back, "jing zhong bao guo", which means "be loyal and repay your country". He later became the general commanding the armies of the Song dynasty. During the 12th century, when China was attacked by invaders from the north, he led the Song armies in defence of his homeland. His attempt to push north and recover all the lost Chinese territory was opposed, however, by a peace party within the capital headed by Minister Qinhui, who believed that further prosecution of the war would be too costly. Qin's faction proved more influential and, in 1141, Yuefei was recalled to the Song court and imprisoned. Later, he was executed, after being framed by Qin. Yuefei's dedication and commitment to his country serve as a model for many Chinese patriots. Many songs and poems written by General Yuefei are still cherished by the Chinese today, and there are even movies made about Yuefei, eg, "shi er jin pai", and I am sure many Singaporeans of my vintage are also familiar with the story of Yuefei. Real historical stories like these will inspire readers to develop a sense of patriotism.”
“A strong family bond will help spur a strong sense of belonging. This sense of belonging will then motivate us to strengthen our community bonding. With this, we can begin to build relationship with the nation and the individuals. There is no short cut. To try to develop a strong sense of nationalism without strong family and community bonding will be an uphill task. Third, the Concerned people. We must change the bo-chap attitude of Singaporeans. I believe that most Singaporeans do chap. Judging from the heated response from Singaporeans to PM's speech, I think I am right. And I hope I am right. The question is whether we can further encourage this sense of ai-chap. Can we get Singaporeans engaged? Can we get them concerned? Can we get them involved? It is always difficult to walk away from something you have helped to build up. Proposed Initiatives Mr Speaker, Sir, with these three themes in mind, I would like to urge the Government to consider three initiatives: Firstly, I would like to urge the Government to review our education policy to give greater emphasis on building a strong character in our children. Education is fundamental in nation building. The learning institutions have a vital role to play in the remaking of Singaporeans. They carry with them the great responsibility of shaping our future generations. In this regard, I would like to make four suggestions. One, greater focus on character building in our curriculum. Our strive for excellence in today's knowledge-based economy dictates that our school curriculum has to focus primarily on knowledge and skills, subjects that can equip our children to participate in the new economy, subjects that matter. Our children too will focus on subjects that matter, namely, those that will be tested and scored.”
“Even if the standard of living is lower, at least they may have more quality time for the children, the family and themselves. Their intention may be quite noble. While cost increases may not be avoidable, we may be able to manage the process better and to ensure that better standard of living does translate into better quality of living. The Approach Sir, to address these issues, we need to focus on three aspects, and I would summarise it with three Cs - Committed, Connected and Concerned. First, the Committed people. We need to get Singaporeans committed to our cause. We need them to be committed not only to themselves, but to their family, to their community and to their country. Commitment to Singapore goes beyond the property and assets that they have. Many Singaporeans have houses in other countries, Australia, Canada, UK and more recently, China. House ownership is no longer the key to commitment. We need to create in them a sense of ownership not just of the house, but of the nation. Then they will have a sense of responsibility towards the country that they own and from there comes a sense of belonging. Second, the Connected people. We spend millions every year building covered linkways to connect all the HDB blocks. We must also build linkways to connect the hearts of Singaporeans. I believe that Singaporeans do have a heart but they need to be linked up. We need to encourage and build stronger relationship among Singaporeans. Very often when a person is contemplating quitting Singapore, the one last thing that ties him back is the relationship he has with his friends and his relatives here. The stronger that sense of relationship, the more determined he will be to stay and fight. This relationship must start at home.”
“In fact, I would say stress is sometimes healthy, if given the right dosage. Singapore is a unique country with no natural resources and no natural advantage. It was a miracle that we could get as far as we did. We need to continue to strive to stay ahead of our competitors. Therein lies the origin of stress. However, perhaps we could examine whether the level of stress has exceeded the safe dosage. Are Singaporeans suffering from an overdose of stress? We can also look into how we can help Singaporeans better cope with stress. Can we put in some relief valves? Secondly, some Singaporeans think that there are greater opportunities elsewhere where they can make better progress than the competitive environment in Singapore can offer them. Instead of being a technician here, he can be an engineer in another country. Instead of being a worker, he can be a manager. As we bring in foreign talents, Singaporeans also can become foreign talents to other countries. The truth is Singapore will always remain competitive, given our unique situation. The key is whether we can offer equally attractive opportunities to Singaporeans. The question is whether we can offer them more than economic opportunities. Can we convince them to look beyond personal career achievements? Thirdly, many Singaporeans complain about the rising cost of living here. They accept that this is the result of providing a higher standard of living. However, they feel that the higher standard of living does not necessarily translate into better quality of life. They may have three golf clubs, but they do not have time to play golf. They may have a big bungalow, but they are hardly at home. They hope that in a different world, the cost of living may be lower and they can afford to have lower income.”
“While there may not be a major problem today, we need to be conscious of the issue and continuously work at it to prevent it from becoming a major problem. As our economic restructuring and remaking of Singapore pick up momentum, the need to address Singaporeans' commitment to the country has also become increasingly urgent. The Issue Mr Speaker, Sir, over the last 30 years, we have built ourselves a world-class infrastructure. We have one of the world's best airport and sea port. We have one of the most efficient transport and telecommunication system. We have the best hardware. We have also built ourselves a world-class workforce. Our productivity has been the main attraction to foreign investors. We have the best software. Now, we must also build ourselves a world-class citizen, what I call the HEARTware. We need to understand what are the issues at the hearts of Singaporeans. What cause them to think about quitting? I think there are three main issues that concern most Singaporeans who are sitting on the fence. Firstly, they feel that Singapore's lifestyle is too stressful. Their children face a lot of stress in schools. They themselves face a lot of stress at work. This stress is then brought home and they face stress in their family relationship which may eventually lead to the breaking up of their family. They believe that by quitting Singapore, they may be able to find a less stressful lifestyle in another country, another environment, and they will be happier, their children will be happier and they can keep their family together. Whether they are right or wrong is not the issue here because they may never be able to find out whether the pasture is indeed greener over the other side. What is important is their perception. Sir, stress is inevitable.”
“They came here to make a living and most of them did not even have a chance to return to their motherland. However, I have no doubt that deep down in their hearts, many of them felt that they were more Chinese or Indians than Singaporeans even till their death. It took us more than one generation to change this migrant mentality. Surely, our forefathers were no quitters when they left their motherland. Similarly, many Japanese have worked overseas for many years as their industrialisation programme took them to where the markets were. They are still very much Japanese in their hearts and they all look forward to the day they can return to Japan, although they will invariably find great difficulties in adapting to the lifestyle at home. The real issue, Sir, is an affair of the heart. It is about our emotional linkage to Singapore. It is about our sense of belonging, our sense of ownership and our sense of responsibility to the country. Regardless of where we are physically, will we stand up and be counted when Singapore needs us? Are we willing to make sacrifices for the interests of fellow Singaporeans or would we give up instead at the first sign of trouble? Do we take Singapore as our home, or do we treat it like a hotel? That is the question. I believe that many Singaporeans are committed to Singapore. However difficult the situation may seem, they will stay and fight. The introduction of the NEWater in response to the threat by Malaysia on our water supplies is a good example of the "never say die" spirit. For this, I must applaud the Minister for the Environment for his efforts. However, I think we cannot take this commitment for granted.”
“The transparent process of parliamentary debate will also create greater awareness among Singaporeans of the issue of stayers and quitters and will undoubtedly send a strong signal to them on what it would take for us to meet the challenges ahead. The Motion Defined Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me to explain the motion. First, let me say what it is not. The motion is not about identifying who are the stayers or who are the quitters. The labelling does nothing productive. The focus of the motion is to debate on the possible causes of people wanting to quit Singapore and what we need to do to make them stay. What do Singaporeans want? Can we give them what they want without compromising collective national interests? What do we need to do to achieve that? I am not naive enough to believe that we can all agree on the same answers to these questions. But if we can find some common ground to start working on, we would have made good progress. Well, what is the issue then? I think the key issue facing us today is not about Singaporeans leaving Singapore, not about them going overseas, be it for studies or for work. Singapore is fast becoming a global city. It is inevitable that more and more Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, or the 3G Singaporeans, will be going overseas to work. This, in itself, is not a bad thing. The Government has been encouraging our companies to go global. To do so, we must be prepared to send our managers and workers overseas. In fact, given that overseas operations are often more complex than the home ground, we usually end up sending out the best of the breed. Going overseas to work does not make Singaporeans quitters. In fact, many of our forefathers came from China, India, and other countries.”
“Judging from the public reaction to PM's speech, the issue of stayers and quitters is close to the hearts of many Singaporeans, if not all Singaporeans. The PM has clearly achieved his intention "to jolt Singaporeans into thinking about the issue". Sir, as we endeavour to re-position our economy and remake Singapore, we cannot lose sight of the fundamental issue of Singaporeans' identity and commitment. As we strive to create a new Singapore, we must be certain that Singaporeans do want this new Singapore and are committed enough to be willing to make personal sacrifices to defend our ideals and to realise our dreams. Given the gravity of this issue, I felt that it should rightfully be debated in Parliament, being the highest governing authority in the country. We, as leaders, must make a stand and lead the way to strengthening our commitment to the shared vision. Therefore, after discussing with a few of my parliamentary colleagues, we decided to table a motion on stayers and quitters at this sitting. The Objective By moving the motion, we hope to provide a formal and official forum where this issue can be thoroughly debated. Both the backbench and the frontbench will have an opportunity to express their views on this subject. We hope that, by doing so, we can identify and clarify the real issues that are confronting us today. We can then begin to examine our policies and programmes from a balanced perspective to see if there are weaknesses that need to be addressed in order to help strengthen Singaporeans' sense of belonging and commitment to the nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move*, That this House, noting the concern of Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong as highlighted in his National Day Rally Speech on "stayers" and "quitters" and in view of the increased mobility of third-generation Singaporeans, urges the Government to review its policies and programmes thoroughly and to take meaningful measures that will help to strengthen their sense of belonging to Singapore. The motion also stood in the names of Dr Chong Weng Chiew, Ms Indranee Rajah, Dr Mohamad Maliki bin Osman, Dr Ong Seh Hong and Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong. Background Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister's speech at the National Day Rally touched on a very crucial and sensitive issue, that of stayers and quitters. The PM asked, and I quote, "Will Singaporeans be rooted to Singapore? Will enough Singaporeans stay here, to ensure our country's long term survival?". He was concerned about fair weather Singaporeans who would run away whenever the country runs into stormy weather. He called them quitters. The speech sparked a series of spirited debate over the issue of stayers and quitters in the media and among many Singaporeans who cared about the issue. Some Singaporeans resented the labels of stayers and quitters. They were quick to offer reasons for people wanting to leave the country. They rigorously defended their decision to move out. Some even went to the extent of stating their intention to leave but complained of their inability to do so. On the other hand, there were also Singaporeans who were passionate about the country and pledged their loyalty and commitment publicly. There were even foreigners who felt strongly enough to join in the debate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, two supplementary questions. Firstly, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether he would assure the House that the cost of over-capacity of hospitals is not passed on to patients, and if it is, would the Ministry consider subsidising the cost of this additional capacity. The second question is with regard to Medifund. The Minister of State has repeatedly said that Medifund has been used to help subsidise the lower income group. Indeed, that is a good sign. However, in view of the high utilisation of the fund, would the Minister consider increasing the amount available for the fund and relaxing the criteria so that more can benefit from it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like the Government to reconsider this move to reduce the CPF contribution rate for workers between the ages of 50 and 55. If this scheme has to be implemented, then I would urge the Government to persuade employers to convert the 4% CPF savings into a variable component of the worker's monthly salary. If any particular worker's performance is not satisfactory, this variable component can then be removed by his employer. This will ensure that the employers will not take advantage of Government policy to force the workers who had already suffered a round of pay cut to take another cut in terms of CPF contribution. In this regard, I am pleased to note that the Government has taken the lead to compensate the affected civil servants in this age group with the TCTC scheme. Government's determination to improve our economic situation through fundamental changes in our CPF system is evident to all. However, the changes to the CPF system must be carried out in parallel with the creation of job opportunities. If there are no new job opportunities, the unemployment situation will not improve. I think we should, on one hand, improve the employability of our workers and, on the other hand, strive to attract more foreign investments so as to create more jobs. This way, we can then solve our unemployment problem at a fundamental level. I support the Ministerial Statement.”
“On the other hand, if the candidate is found to be unsuitable for the job, the 4 percentage point difference is not likely to swing the employer's decision in favour of the older candidate for the job. Secondly, I agree with DPM Lee that it would not be fair to those who had already made sacrifices and accepted a wage cut so as to retain their jobs during the crisis. During the bad time, they were told and they had accepted a pay cut to help the company stay viable in order to secure their job. Now that the economy is showing signs of recovery, they are slapped with a 4 percentage point reduction in their CPF contribution rate. This is a double blow to them. These are the workers who were more responsive to the Government's call to "bite the bullet", yet we are now cutting their pay again. This is unfair to them. Thirdly, I feel that this will send a wrong signal that the Government endorses the belief that older workers are less productive and should therefore be paid less. I understand that this recommendation is aimed at countering the seniority-based wage system. But, by reducing the older workers' CPF contribution rate, it will unintentionally further entrench this seniority-based salary system. We may send the wrong message that seniority-based system is all right since the Government is finding ways and means to compensate for it. I feel that we should instead encourage employers to adopt a flexible wage system and reward the workers according to their productivity and contribution. In this way, we will be more competitive, and be in a position to compete globally. Of course, this is no easy task, but we should not shy away from the important task and take the easy way out. We should give the employers more time to accept and implement the flexible wage system.”
“Why do we not allow them to use the money to pay for their own property instead? I think this will enable the people to have more flexibillity in using their CPF savings. Next, let me talk about raising of the income floor for CPF contribution. Now that we have many people unemployed, I think we should help these people, especially those in the lower income group. We must encourage them to be more flexible and adaptable. They should be persuaded to take up whatever jobs that are available to them, even if the pay does not meet their expectations. They should take these jobs first, at least for the time being. By raising the income floor, they would enjoy higher take-home pay and be more willing to accept lower paid jobs, or part-time jobs. Thirdly, I would like to talk about the reduction of CPF contribution rates for those aged between 50-55. On this recommendation, I must say I am somewhat relieved. At least, those aged between 40-50 are not affected, at least for the time being. However, I feel that we should be more cautious in implementing this recommendation. First, the 4 percentage point difference may not be enough to make the employers decide to employ the older workers. DPM Lee has also said that from experience, most of the retrenched older workers had to accept a lower pay. From experience they have to accept at least 20% less than what they were drawing before their retrenchment, if they were to get back into the labour market. Recruitment decisions are based on many factors and salary is just one of them. The employers would normally want to employ older workers for their experience, maturity and reliability.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed changes to our CPF system, as announced by DPM Lee in his Ministerial Statement, are very prudent and timely. I would like to share my views on three aspects of the proposals for the consideration of the Government. First of all, on the lowering of withdrawal limit for housing. I think this is a wise move. Many Singaporeans are investing a significant part of their income and savings in housing, some have even exceeded their means. Lowering the withdrawal limit on their CPF savings will help to prevent Singaporeans from buying properties beyond their means, thereby ensuring that they would not be caught in a crunch when faced with a financial crisis. On the other hand, as this package will be implemented gradually in stages, it will give the people time to make the necessary adjustment, and will not create too much of adverse impact on the property market. I am sure the property developers will heave a sigh of relief. However, when this lowering of withdrawal limit has eventually come into full effect, it will inevitably affect the property purchasers because once they have reached the ceiling of the withdrawal limit from their CPF savings, they will have to pay the remaining instalments in cash. To ease the situation, I have two suggestions to make. First, I think we should consider allowing the purchasers to have their properties revalued. If the property price has gone up, they should be allowed to raise their withdrawal limit. Secondly, so long as they have the Minimum Sum set aside in their CPF account, they should continue to be allowed to use their CPF to pay for their housing. After all, they are allowed to use their surplus amount in their accounts to invest in shares.”
“I would also like to urge the Government to disclose early impending fee hikes, if any, and to give more time before implementation, so that our people would have sufficient time to make their own plans or adjustments. It does not help to keep proposed fee hikes under wraps and spring a surprise on our own residents. Mr Speaker, Sir, we understand that the PTC has a tough and thankless job. But its decisions will affect the entire population, some more than others. In fact, the lower income families will be affected more than those who own cars. It is, therefore, important for the PTC to take into account not just the CPI but all relevant factors, such as the economy and the employment situation, before arriving at its decisions. It should also be more transparent in its decision making process, so that our people can be assured that their interests are being taken into account. The Government has been fearful of bending to public pressure and of adopting populist policies. But this is probably not an issue of whether the fare increases are popular or not. The issue is obvious: we are debating whether the approach is appropriate and the increases are timely. We are all talking about remaking Singapore now. So, let us acknowledge that perhaps the process of the fare hikes could have been better handled, and let us work together to improve the process. I believe that, this way, we will then be able to continue to enjoy the confidence, the endorsement and the commitment of our people.”
“Sir, we are like sailing through a storm in a boat, faced with economic difficulties. Yet, in the middle of the storm, the passengers were asked to top up their fares. So, the question is: is it the right time to ask them to top up their fares? As a result, many have wondered why the PTC could not have deferred the increase for, say, another six to nine months, when the outlook will be a little bit clearer. Alternatively, PTC could approve the increase but defer the implementation to next year. This way, commuters would also have more time to prepare for the increases and they would probably accept PTC's decision more readily, knowing that PTC has taken the current economic and employment situation into account. Thirdly, our people are fearful of what else is there to come. First, the Government increased the ERP, citing its objective and intention to curb usage of private cars and to encourage the use of public transport. Then, we increased the public transport fares, apparently in contradiction to the Government's policy. In between, there were increases in HDB carpark charges, electricity rates and others. I understand that SingTel has also submitted application to increase its fixed line charges. With almost monthly announcements of rate hikes in one form or another, residents have become very wary of more such increases to come. They come away with a strong sense of frustration. Over time, the frustration will turn into desperation, and desperation will turn into anger and disappointment. I would like to urge the Government to assure the people that it will critically scrutinise future increases in Government-related rates and fees and that, unless absolutely necessary, fee adjustments would be deferred until the economy recovers strongly.”
“Sir, I would like to argue that a more equitable basis to determine bus and MRT fare adjustments should take into account the performance of the overall economy as well. Even if CPI goes up, which may be possible even in a recession, fare increases may still not be justifiable if the overall economy and companies, in general, are not doing well. This is, in fact, the situation we are in right now. Indeed, if the economic performance had been taken into account, the PTC might have taken a different view and its decision might have been different. Perhaps we should consider introducing some competition. Singapore Airlines reacted very quickly to the changes in industry by initiating fare cuts to maintain its market share. They need to do this because of international competition. PSA also finally acknowledged the threat from competition and decided to reduce its fares. But there is no competition in bus transport or MRT. When we raised the ERP, commuters can choose not to drive and take the bus instead. But when we raised bus and MRT fares, our commuters do not have the alternatives. I would like to urge the Government to consider allowing some form of competition. Sir, the second issue is regarding the timing of the increase. The absolute dollar amount of the increase may not be as much an issue as the timing of the increase. PTC should be applauded for its efforts in deferring fare increases in previous years in view of the difficult economic environment then. The economy has not fully recovered. In fact, it has somewhat worsened, especially in the employment situation. Many people have lost their jobs. More have taken a pay cut to save their jobs. With reduced income, our people would be very wary of cost increases, especially in the essential services.”
“The Government has stated clearly that it is not its intention, nor its policy, to subsidise public transport and that the public transport companies should operate on a commercial basis. However, by adopting a formula that is pegged to CPI + X factor, is the Government not endorsing a form of subsidy, and yet this subsidy does not come from the Government, or from the commuters? This is particularly hard to justify since both SBS as well as MRTC have been profitable. The fare increases will add a significant amount to their bottom line. Yes, we must allow our companies to make profit, even if they are providing essential services. These are what companies are for. Their shareholders must see a return. But their return must be taken in context. The reality is that many companies have suffered lower income, if not losses, over the last two years. Take the listed companies, for example. On average, listed companies in the year 2001 saw a reduction of over 40%, on average, in their profits. Many of them have to adopt aggressive restructuring and cost reduction programmes just to stay alive. Some have to accept short-term losses to ensure long-term viability. These are inevitable outcomes in time of a severe economic downturn. If the public transport operators are truly commercially run, they will not be able to escape similar challenges. However, let us take SBS, for example. They suffered only a 20% drop in their profits in the year 2001. They have performed better than the market, in general. The public transport operators made proposals to the PTC for rate increases. But do the commuters have a chance to make proposals to the PTC, or representation to the PTC, to object to these increases, or to propose a reduction instead?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, while there are early signs of our economy bottoming out, it is still some time yet for a broad based recovery to materialise. The employment situation, in particular, is likely to worsen before it improves. The Government has repeatedly called on the people to be patient and flexible. We are asked to tighten our belts and accept lower pay so as to stay employed. We are urged to make sacrifices so that we could bring in new investments and restart the economy. The people having been convinced, we took the bitter medicine, albeit with a bit of sugar. However, such sacrifices should be borne by all in an equitable manner. It therefore should not surprise the Government when our people reacted strongly when the various Government agencies and the public transport operators raised their charges one after another. Sir, feedback from our residents showed that the decision of the Public Transport Council to allow bus and MRT to raise their fares has probably pushed our people over their tolerance limit. They came to me and said, "Towkay, tong mui teow loh ler." Sir, they raised three issues with me. Firstly, they questioned the basis for the increase. Secondly, they wanted to know whether the timing of the increase is appropriate. Lastly, they were worried and uncertain about future increases. Sir, firstly, the basis for the increase. The Public Transport Council claimed that the increase is in accordance with an agreed formula, the famous CPI + X. Questions were raised on the basis of this formula. Why should the PTC adopt a formula that allows the operators to increase their fares according to CPI increases, let alone the plus X factor?”
“The place must, firstly, be youth-friendly. We can also organise wholesome and exciting activities, not boring ones, that will engage the young. Participation: active citizenship and participation in nation building. One of the factors that are pushing some Singaporeans away is the sense that they have no place in Singapore. They have to choose between being nobody in Singapore or being somebody in a less competitive country. We cannot reduce the competitive spirit, but I would like to appeal to the Ministry to create more space for Singaporeans, and give them greater opportunity to participate in important matters such as nation building. This will make them know and feel that they have an important role to play in the making of Singapore, that they have a say in shaping their collective future. This way, we can promote active citizenship and strengthen the sense of belonging. We must take the feedback from the people seriously. Change, if we agree to the feedback, and explain if we do not agree with them. Otherwise, we may end like what some of the residents say about feedback - feed, but nothing comes back. Sir, national identity and rootedness cannot be developed overnight. We have come quite a long way, given the short history that we have. However, more needs to be done and can be done. I believe passion and participation are the keys to building a strong national identity and active citizenship.”
“Sir, Singapore is fast becoming a globalised state. This is inevitable if we were to plug into the world economy. But as we become globalised, more and more of our young generation will be working abroad. At the same time, an increasing number of our children are also going overseas for their education. This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. However, as more and more Singaporeans are going overseas, the issue of national identity and rootedness becomes more acute. We need to address this issue urgently or we will risk losing our younger generation. Home ownership, Sir, is no longer an effective means to hold them back. We need a new raison d'etre. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what programmes his Ministry has to address this issue. Perhaps I could suggest a two-pronged approach to reach out to the hearts of Singaporeans. These are: passion and participation. Passion: passion for Singapore, passion for the community, passion for the family and passion for friendship. Family and community bonding is an important element in fostering rootedness. I have spoken to a number of Singaporeans who are contemplating migration. One of the major reasons that is holding them back is the relationship they have with their family members here and their friends in Singapore. Sir, I would like to urge the Minister to look into programmes and initiatives that would encourage our people and help them build closer relationships and stronger bonds with their family members and their friends. This is particularly so for the younger generation. This way, their roots here will be strengthened. For this purpose, perhaps we can designate part of the Marina Esplanade as a Youth Corner, to allow our younger generation to hang out and to make friends.”
“Sir, as we phase out the EDRS when the economy recovers, I would like to appeal to the Ministry to consider introducing some kind of Economic Restructuring Assistance Scheme (ERAS) to help these three categories of people. The ERAS can be similar to the EDRS in that it is short-term and limited in dollar value, so as not to create a dependency mentality. But it is discretionary and simple to operate, therefore, we can respond rapidly. It has a specific objective of helping those who lost their job as a result of economic restructuring, and yet unable to qualify under the usual public assistance schemes. The Ministry could perhaps consider expanding the Interim Financial Assistance Scheme for this purpose. Alternatively, the ERAS may even take the form of a short-term interest free loan which the recipient has to pay back over time after he has found a job. Under normal circumstances, he would find it difficult to take a commercial loan as he is unemployed. With a short-term loan provided by the Government, he can avoid having to sell his house and risk breaking up the family just because of a short-term cash flow problem. As the loan needs to be repaid, the temptation for abuse is drastically reduced and those who apply for it are likely to be those who are genuinely in need. Sir, I would like to appeal to the Minister to consider my suggestion to put in place an Economic Restructuring Assistance Scheme, either as a form of short-term grant or a short-term loan, to help those affected by economic restructuring in future.”
“Sir, when our economy went into recession last year, the Government introduced the Economic Downturn Relief Scheme (EDRS) to provide short-term help to those affected by the recession. Now the economy is showing signs of recovery. I assume that at some point in time, when the Government is certain that the economy is out of the woods, the EDRS will be suspended or terminated. While I agree that the EDRS should not be a permanent feature, I would like to highlight three areas of possible problems in the future. Firstly, improvement in the job market usually lags behind economic recovery. Even when our economy recovers, it will take time for employers to regain confidence and start recruiting again. It will also take time for new investments to come in to create new jobs. Therefore, we need to be prepared that the job market will take a longer time to improve. Secondly, while the economy may have recovered and the job market improved, there may still be segments of residents who are unable to find a suitable job, or may need more time to find one because of skills mismatch. They may remain unemployed for a while more. Thirdly, economic restructuring is likely to be a permanent feature in our economy. This is because of the fast-changing world we are in today. People are expected to be in and out of jobs as the industries they are working in restructure themselves. This is unavoidable, but it does mean that there will always be a good number of workers who may be temporarily out of job. Some of them may be financially stretched, especially those who have heavy commitments.”
“Madam, other than providing funding, we believe that the Government should also provide guidelines on basic curriculum that are broad enough to leave room for creative teaching. There is also a critical need to upgrade the quality of our kindergarten teachers, not just providing the funding, but also to provide the teaching facilities. Madam, we have gone a long way in our formal education. Many of us are proud of our achievements. It is time we looked at pre-school education in a more intensive and focused manner so that it becomes an integral part of our total education policy. It will then make our education policy complete.”
“It is, therefore, a double jeopardy for these families. Pre-school education cannot equalise every child, but it certainly can at least narrow the gap. I would like to urge the Government to consider providing more resources to pre-school education. I would like to suggest that at least the following areas should be looked into. Firstly, providing funding for selected non-profit kindergartens; secondly, provide guidelines on basic curriculum; and, thirdly, specify minimum qualifications of teachers. For funding, the Government should not subsidise kindergartens which are profit-oriented, but should consider helping those which are being run purely as social service to the community.”
“Madam, there have been recent studies pointing to the value of pre-school education. These studies suggest that much of a child's capacity to learn self-confidence, self-respect, his ability to communicate and his attitude towards learning are determined during the first six years of a child's life, before the start of formal education. There have been some suggestions in the past that the benefits of pre-school education may not be lasting. However, long-term studies have now been done, and these studies show that children who have had pre-school education tend to do better later in life, even as late as age 27, at which the study was done. These are in terms of social responsibility, educational performance and economic achievement. By that, it means how much they earn. Obviously, these studies have their limitations, but the results warrant a serious review of our policy towards pre-school education. Madam, the Ministry of Education spends $16,600 per university student at the top of the scale, and $3,200 per primary school student at the other end. I am not questioning the basis of this ratio. However, I am rather sad that we spend little or almost nothing at all on pre-school education. A total of 98,000 children are attending kindergartens today. A significant number of our children either do not go to kindergartens or they drop out after a short while. Based on my discussions with some self-help groups, most of these tend to be the lower income families who could not afford the unsubsidised fees. As these children move on to primary level, they would find it difficult to compete with those who have had pre-school education. Yet, the same families would again find it difficult to provide added help, such as tuition classes, to help them catch up.”
“We must start early, as early as pre-schools, as character building is a lifelong process.”
“It has to be nurtured through life experiences. I think, in this regard, the community involvement programme (CIP) is an excellent initiative in building up the character of our students by involving them in community projects. However, the current programme has its limitations. For example, the requisite hours of CIP is only six hours a year. Hardly anything can be done in six hours. Some schools end up visiting old folk homes, much to the annoyance of the homes. But do not get me wrong. This is still good effort. However, I think the impact is somewhat unlikely to be lasting. Perhaps the Ministry could consider providing some guidelines on the CIP programme, without stifling creativity. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that we should encourage schools to partner maybe selected voluntary welfare organisations in designing and implementing CIP programmes. This way, it will inject greater professionalism in the CIP programmes while at the same time reduce the load of the teachers. Students may also find real life programmes more enriching and more meaningful. They may even grow up later on to become volunteers. For example, I know that NJC runs a partnership programme with the private hospitals to allow its students to be attached to the hospitals as assistants during their holidays. Madam, character building is the key to building a progressive, committed and caring people. This is the cornerstone of our nation building. There is a Chinese saying, "Shi nian shu mu, ba nian shu ren", which means that it takes 10 years to grow a tree but it takes 100 years to grow a man. I would like to urge the Minister to review the curriculum programmes of our schools and our kindergartens to ensure sufficient attention is given to character building.”
“Mdm Chairman, we have always taken pride in our academic achievements. Our children have in general performed much better than students in many other countries, even some of the developed countries. The Education Ministry must be given credit for doing a great job, especially so in view of Singapore's small population base. However, education is not just about academic achievements. Academic development is only one component of a person's development. We must aim to provide a holistic education for our children which aims to strike a balance among academic, physical, emotional, mental and social developments. In particular, I think there may be a need for us to re-look at our curriculum to strengthen our efforts in character building. Three specific aspects need to be emphasised: moral values, social responsibility and capacity for failure. Moral values: it is most crucial to teach our children the sense of right and wrong. If we fail in this, the society will degenerate into lawlessness. Our basis for justice and equality will disintegrate, and our academic achievement will mean nothing in the end. Social responsibility: we must inculcate in our youths that they have a responsibility towards the society that they live in. They are not just individuals striving for their own success at the expense of others. Instead, they need to recognise the needs of the society and see themselves as part of the solution. Capacity for failure: our own failures as well as those of others. We must learn to be tolerant of failures. We can then be willing to take risks and venture out. This is the beginning of nurturing entrepreneurs. Madam Chairman, character building is a difficult subject to teach, as it is a rather abstract concept. It cannot be taught through classroom lessons.”