Hri Kumar Nair
Singapore
“This has a direct bearing on how liberally orders for OCPOs and FROs will be made. To conclude, the Bill gives us more tools to attack and dismantle OCG and ensure that they and their sympathisers do not benefit from the proceeds of crime.”
“I thank the Minister for the answer. I have two supplementary questions. Could the Minister let us know what is the number of pending cases with MOM on unpaid salaries?”
“According to section 11, such a landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy and can re-possess the property a minimum of 14 days after giving notice. Could the Minister give an estimate of how much the bond is likely to be?”
“LTA has announced that beginning February 2015, the contribution rate of deregistered cars to the Open Category will be reduced from the current 15% to 10%. But why not just scrap the Open Category entirely and transfer its quota entirely to Category A?”
“Second, I renew the call I have made since 2010 to lift or remove the income ceiling. The income ceiling is too blunt a tool. It does not take into consideration the circumstances faced by each family, such as the number of dependants.”
“This will enable students to make informed decisions before and during their university. Second, by better matching demand with supply. I understand that the Law Society currently maintains a page of training contract listings.”
The complete record
Every one of 461 lines we hold for Hri Kumar Nair, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
“Worse, as Mr Inderjit Singh pointed out, they see death as a more viable option. But if you speak to doctors in the private and public sectors, who have seen what goes on in the hospitals in other countries, they will tell you that we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, ie, a system that works. They are perplexed as to why Singaporeans feel otherwise. The problem is a lack of education and exposure. More importantly, if Singaporeans do not know the limits of our medical system, and there will be limits to any system, how can they make informed decisions about what they should do to better protect themselves and their loved ones? In an ideal world, everyone should make the effort to educate themselves on such matters. The reality is that most will not and will only ask when it is too late. And they will feel that the country has let them down when they needed help. Likewise, we should demystify other institutions like the CPF. On 10th October this year, the Straits Times published a story on the findings on a worldwide survey carried out by an international insurance group. The findings were revealing. 90% of Singaporeans surveyed think that they are saving enough by contributing to the CPF. Almost half thought their CPF would give them a monthly income equal to their last drawn pay. Mr Richard Shermon, Chief Executive of AXA Life Insurance, Singapore, said that the findings showed a worrying disconnect with reality. He said: "There is a huge retirement funding gap in Singapore. People dream of an early and comfortable retirement, but they are not financially prepared (for it)." This is a serious situation.”
“Now, 15 years on, the music has stopped and the next generation in France and other European countries have been left holding a welfare bomb which they are unsure how to defuse. Our approach is self-reliance, family or community help and then Government assistance. This philosophy is clearly less seductive than a system that apparently promises an unconditional needs-based permanent safety net. That is why we need to explain it better. At the same time, Singaporeans must also be informed that there are many schemes in place to help those in need so that they will feel that their country would not let them down when they are in need. It is fair to say that many Singaporeans, even grassroots leaders, do not know what schemes currently exist, and I am pleased to hear that the Government intends to do more. But equally important is the need to make these schemes known to everyone. Unless this happens, it will only add weight to the perception and to further arguments in this House that the Government does not do enough for those in need. So, let us talk about these matters in schools as well. Another example is our healthcare system. We keep talking about the 3Ms. But through my conversations with residents, it is clear that most do not understand the difference between Medisave, MediShield and Medifund. They do not know what treatments are subsidised and covered and what are not, and more importantly, cannot appreciate why distinctions are made. Most just hope and pray that they or their loved ones do not get sick. But everyone does, sooner or later. When they end up with a large bill, they blame the Government for not providing affordable healthcare and ask why we cannot be like other countries where medical help is free.”
“Making occasional trips to mosques, temples and churches during religious festivals will not be enough to deepen the younger generation's understanding of those who appear different from them. Teaching Singapore should not stop at family or community issues. It is important that the younger generations understand the philosophy behind our national institutions as well. Let me give Members a few examples. First, our social assistance philosophy. Many have portrayed our system as a cold, uncaring one which does not help those in need. That is a damaging impression, because we cannot realistically expect Singaporeans to feel for their country if they believe that the country will fail them when they are most in need. Worse still, if the impression is wrong. We do not have a welfare system like what they have in Europe and there are good reasons for this. These have been canvassed before, so I will not repeat them. But I would however like to relate one incident. Just after my university examinations, a couple of friends and I backpacked through Malaysia and Thailand for about a month. We scrimped and saved, so Malaysia and Thailand were about all that we could afford. In Thailand, we met a French girl about our age. She was on a two- or three-month Asian tour. We asked how long it took her to save for her trip. She said she did not have to save at all. The French government was paying for her holiday. She had quit her job and was receiving unemployment benefits and was using the money for the trip. As a young man, this was sweet music to my ears - money for nothing and trips for free! I thought France sounded like a paradise, and this French girl left a seductive thought in my head! Unfortunately, the seduction stopped there!”
“They are also expensive to take care of. Children also take up space and children are also temperamental. But we do not see parents abandoning their children in numbers. What happened to that connection, that unspoken obligation when parent and child grow older? I believe the lack of personal interaction between them has much to do with this. Schools can play an important role in making these conversations happen, and I urge the Government to look into this. On my part, I am collaborating with my old school to run a programme whereby students will research and permanently record the lives of their grandparents and parents, particularly during the events which shaped our country. This will encourage them to talk to the older generation and, hopefully, that will be the start of many long and meaningful conversations. We must also continue to emphasise the most important pillar of our society and what makes us unique, ie, multiracialism. Many older Singaporeans have spoken to me about what they perceive to be a lack of interaction between children of different races. Many in the older generation grew up in kampungs where children of different races often played together. It was not unusual to hear Chinese kids speaking Malay or Indian children speaking Chinese dialects. Today, most of our youths live in HDB flats and barely know their neighbours. Interaction must therefore take place in our schools. We have to ensure that all our schools at every level are multi-racial. We cannot truly understand a person of a different race or religion unless we spend time and share life experiences with him.”
“But I would venture that Mr Sam Tan is a better person and more rooted to Singapore, having lived through those dangerous times. Although he rightly says that he does not want his children to live through what he did, I hope he constantly reminds them of his experiences so that they will appreciate what life was like for their father and his generation. But I fear many of these Singapore stories will become irretrievably lost as generations pass on. I had a few dialogues with students some weeks back. During one session, I asked some secondary school students if they knew how their parents met or how their father proposed to their mother. Of the group of about 30, only three raised their hands. I think that is sad. Parents and children are not having conversations about personal matters. Maybe such details are embarrassing and it is not in our Asian make-up to share such personal matters. But these are vital ingredients in building relationships, developing connections with our families and, ultimately, with Singapore. A lack of connection will lead to another problem, ie, the caring for parents. Mr Mah Bow Tan spoke last week about the changes we can expect to the rental housing policy. But the part I remembered most about his speech was his hope that children will not use rental flats to dump their aged parents. It is an aspect of our MPs' duties that affects me most, ie, elderly Singaporeans telling me that their children are refusing to support them or do not want anything to do with them. One of the reasons often given is that the elderly need to be constantly looked after, they are expensive to take care of, they take up space, they are temperamental. Again, practical reasons. I also find these reasons quite ironic, as children also need to be looked after.”
“Schools must play an active role in developing not just the mind but the soul as well. I accept we cannot teach values like we would Mathematics and Science, but we can create an environment where they can be understood and absorbed more easily. Parents also have an important role, but let us face the reality. In my parents' generation, my father was the sole breadwinner and my mother ruled the house and the children. Nowadays, it is different. Both parents work and have less time for the children. The schools should therefore take a more active role. And this is possible because children spend the bulk of their time in school. They respect and will listen to their principals and teachers, and we should not miss out on this opportunity. Besides teaching the traditional subjects, we should spend more time teaching our youths about Singapore. There are many things about Singapore we should know. For example, many people my age did not know that Mr S Rajaratnam wrote the Pledge until after he had passed away. That is not surprising, because we never talked about these things in school. There must be a different approach to teaching such matters. I was therefore heartened when I heard Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Minister of State for Education, speak of involving parents and the community in teaching values. I believe this is critical. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are in a unique position. The generation which built Singapore from scratch and lived through those tumultuous times are still with us and can impart real-life stories and lessons of what happened. Last week, Mr Sam Tan spoke passionately about how he witnessed a racial attack and suffered from inhaling teargas.”
“Principals and teachers were pushed to improve academic results through school rankings. Our achievements were measured by the grades we received, and our value and self-worth by the money we earned. I remember, in fact, when I was in school, my teachers, under pressure to complete the curriculum or give remedial lessons, would often encourage us to skip PE lessons, to spend more time revising our lessons with them instead. Everyone simply assumed PE was unimportant and expendable because it was not examinable. But there is a price to pay for inculcating such a practical mentality. The world is now different. Singaporeans are learning skills to make them global citizens. If Singaporeans believe they will have a better life in another country, the practical response would be to move. Singaporeans need more than practical reasons to build their lives and raise their families here. The question, therefore, is how do we make Singaporeans feel that they have a stake in our country? Let us start with the basic premise. We cannot feel truly connected to something unless we understand it. The great religions of this world recognise this. Although religion is about making a connection with God, it is still necessary to study them in order to truly understand them. If we have questions which are unanswered, doubts will form and the connection will be lost. I believe that the same goes for making connections with one's country. Singapore is not a collection of Government institutions, businesses, laws and campaigns. Singapore, Sir, is a philosophy, a state of mind. It will not be fully appreciated unless we understand our past, what we are today and where we stand in relation to our neighbours and the world. The best place to teach these important lessons is the classroom.”
“It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbour is of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction." Indifference can exist and is destructive at all levels. Mr Lim Biow Chuan last week spoke of the inconsiderate behaviour of some Singaporeans and asked why they should refuse to do something as simple as give way in the MRT. These are not evil or bad people. They are simply indifferent to their fellow commuters. This House can debate what is best for Singapore and implement the most far-sighted of policies. But it will not matter if younger generations are indifferent to the less fortunate in our society, the challenges to our economy and the future of Singapore. Many older residents I have spoken to have expressed concern about the younger generation and their commitment to Singapore. But can we blame the youths? They are a product of our own system. For many years, our main focus has been to build Singapore as an attractive place to work and to do business. One word best describes us: practical. We are a nation geared for business and focused on the bottom-line. Our schools reflected this mindset. The emphasis has always been on teaching subjects of economic value and of producing tangible results. Our curriculum focused on the core subjects - languages, Mathematics and Science. Schools were more like job-training centres, preparing our children for the commercial world.”
“This House has been referred to the recent Straits Times survey where more than half our teens said that they will consider emigrating. Less than one in 20 of Singapore youths choose the country's progress as what was most important to them, preferring instead the well-being of their families or their own personal development. Is this the legacy my and future generations will leave behind, generations which place more emphasis on the individual and less on the community, where the number of marriages is falling but divorces are rising? Where parents have fewer children and delegate the task of raising them to foreign domestic workers? Where children abandon their parents or place them in homes because they find them inconvenient? Generations which oppose the hiring of foreign talent because they fear for their own jobs but not the viability of their companies or their country? Generations which will cower and apologise when other countries decide that we have offended them? Generations which will seek greener pastures elsewhere if Singapore takes a turn for the worse? My greatest fear is not that the P65 and succeeding generations will become anti-Singapore. I am confident they will not. My fear is that they will become indifferent to Singapore. Indifference is not like a common cold which passes with time, even without treatment. It is a cancer which will slowly eat away at the nation's soul. We ignore it at our peril. On 12th April 1999, Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate, Elie Wiesel, spoke at the White House as part of the Millennium Lecture Series. He had this to say about indifference and I quote: "Indifference can be tempting - more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims.”
“This is no mean feat, considering that some of our bigger, more resource-rich neighbours are still dealing with conflicts and economic woes. The older generation has handed Singapore over to the next generation and they can hold their heads high for what they have achieved. That is a legacy which they have left us. The next generation of leaders has continued these successes and has taken Singapore to the next level. We are no longer talking about catching up with first-world countries but of surpassing them. In time, the reins will be handed over to the P65 generation and, one day, my generation too will hand over to those born after us. As I thought about this maiden speech, I also found myself thinking about what the P65 generation may say in our final speeches. What legacy will we leave behind? Will we also be able to move on with our heads held up high? We will not enjoy the same success unless our generation and the generations which follow feel connected to Singapore and believe that they have a stake in the future. If we read the forum pages in the newspapers or the Internet, we will see that many have expressed doubts over Singapore's future. They are unsure whether Singapore will adapt to globalisation and survive the challenges we will face. They wonder whether our social fabric will be ripped to shreds in the event we suffer big shocks, like a terrorist attack or a sustained economic downturn. Their views are important. We may not agree with them, but, at least, they feel enough for Singapore to articulate their concerns. The common thread running through most of these comments is that they want to see Singapore do better. But there is a larger group out there who have remained silent. I worry about them. What are they thinking about?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion to thank the President. After listening to the President's stark provoking address, one issue resonated with me. It is about getting our youths to take an interest and have a stake in our community and in Singapore. The President gave prominence in his speech to the P65 generation, of which I am a member. He highlighted that the P65 generation is better educated and more globally exposed than their parents and completely at home in the Internet age. That is true. But what does this mean for Singapore? As the President highlighted at the very start of his speech, it was 41 years ago that Singapore was thrust into independence and an uncertain future. Those were tumultuous and dangerous times, circumstances which my generation will never fully comprehend and will never hopefully have to live through themselves. The first generation of leaders showed courage and fortitude in building Singapore to what it is today. They made personal sacrifices, risked their political futures by implementing unpopular policies in order to benefit Singapore in the long term. They opened up the markets, as they realised that Singapore could not survive by adopting isolationist or protective policies. They were not afraid to court foreign investments and foreign talent to supplement the knowledge and skills we needed to bring our industries to the next level. They stood up to countries bigger and more powerful than us to send a clear message that we would not be pushed around. So, today, we are blessed with good infrastructure, world-class schools, a healthcare system that works, low unemployment, respect from the international community and, most importantly, peace and prosperity.”