Indranee Rajah
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a clarification in relation to two written answers on childcare leave issued by the Prime Minister's Office on 25 September 2025 and 3 February 2026 in response to Parliamentary Questions filed by Members of Parliament Ms Cassandra Lee and Ms Valerie Lee respectively.”
“Based on Year of Assessment (YA) 2025 data, about 9,500 working mothers claimed a lower amount of Working Mother's Child Relief (WCMR) under the fixed-dollar basis than they would have under the previous percentage-based basis, for children born or adopted on or after 1 January 2024.”
“We regularly receive feedback on enhancing child-related leave provisions, including the Member's suggestion. In recent years, parental leave provisions have been significantly enhanced, such that parents now have 30 weeks of paid leave, including 10 weeks of Shared Parental Leave.”
“The Government does not have data on the number of transactions involving multiple units on a single residential title that have not been subdivided. Such properties are treated as a single property for Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) purposes when it is bought, so no ABSD is foregone.”
“The Government publishes data on personal income tax, which is publicly available on www.data.gov.sg. This includes data on the number of course fees relief claimants and the amount of the relief granted. The Member may refer to the website to access the data for the first three questions.”
“In considering the duration of leave, we will look at the need. In this case, as I have explained, there is a difference between those who give birth physically to a child and those who adopt.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,520 lines we hold for Indranee Rajah, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 49 of 51.
“Sir, with respect to the first cut on stateless persons, I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Home Affairs has reviewed and looked into the status of stateless persons in Singapore. I have, for example, in my constituency at least two stateless persons, one who is quite elderly, and another one who is fairly young. I am particularly concerned, especially for the young one, because if a person is stateless, he or she is a lot more restricted in the ability to move. Perhaps, if the Ministry could inform us as to the status of their review and what could be done to redress the situation of these persons. Legislation on Harassment With respect to the next cut, Sir, legislation on harassment, I had first raised this issue in the COS debate in 2002. At that time, the Minister of State had indicated that this matter was being looked into. I would like to ask what is the current status of legislation on this issue. I am concerned particularly because there are many ways in which people can be harassed nowadays: one is stalking, another through e-mail, thirdly, through SMS. The legislation that we presently have does not appear to be adequate to deal with the advances in technology and the changing situation. So I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know the status. Societies Act”
“Many young couples prefer to stay with their parents, in-laws or relatives so as to get childcare support when they have children. Some prefer to live near certain schools or location. We should facilitate their choices and let young couples set up their homes as quickly as possible. For those with two or more children, we can also accord them priority and more choices when they register their children in primary schools. Incentives for married couples with high opportunity cost For married couples who need to make more sacrifices, such as career or lifestyle if they have more children, we need to implement measures to minimise the negative impact on their quality of life. One measure is to provide them the means, ie, financial incentives, and allow them the flexibility to make their choices to have children. I would propose a 5-year tax exemption for the second child, and another 5-year tax exemption for the third child. The tax exemption should be applicable to both husband and wife. In this way, the tax savings will help these couples to decide on their children's childcare arrangements and educational needs. Madam, I support the motion.”
“If the Government is serious about helping Singaporeans to get married and have children, I would propose that more grants be given to SDU and SDS so that free match-making services can be provided. Since the CDCs are doing well in job matching for free, they can also expand their services to include match-making services for young Singaporeans. This is indeed a "bonding" activity for the CDCs to pursue. Marrying earlier In Singapore, many young couples need years to save money to purchase a HDB flat and to get married. The cost of settling down can be a burden and often delays their marriages. If Singaporeans were to marry at an older age, their biological clock will stop them from having too many babies. Therefore, it is crucial that we encourage Singaporeans to marry at a younger age, ideally between 23 and 28 years old. In that case, they will be able to live as a couple for a few years and have enough time to have two or three babies. I would propose that the Government provide a "family start-up" grant of $30,000 for young couples to settle down earlier. The $30,000 start-up grant will provide the impetus for young couples to settle down at the appropriate age. In addition, HDB should relax its rules and give priority to young couples to select a flat of their choice anywhere in Singapore. At present, the flat allocation system has too many restrictions on first-timers. Furthermore, HDB has been selectively releasing batches of flats for selection. This process has hampered many first-timers to choose a flat quickly and settle down. I urge HDB to adopt the private sector's practice of listing out all available flats on sale at their website, and allow first-timers to choose a flat as and when they are ready to purchase one.”
“We need to address this problem in three areas: (1) increase opportunities for young Singaporeans to socialise and find their life-time partners; (2) encourage Singaporeans to marry at an earlier age; and (3) provide incentives for those who are married to have children. The key thrust is to facilitate early decision-making to get married and have children. Finding a life-time partner We should provide more opportunities for young Singaporeans to find their life-time partners, especially when they are in tertiary institutions, such as polytechnics and universities. The course curriculum of tertiary institutions should be reviewed to provide more time for students to socialise. Students should also be encouraged to participate in more co-curricular activities to strengthen their friendship and bonds. I understand that SDU and SDS have achieved some success in helping Singaporeans to find their life-time partners. But I am surprised to learn that SDU charges a fee for their match-making services. If you log on to their website at www.lovebyte.gov.sg, you will find that you need to open a GIRO account and pay $30 for membership to use the computer match-making services. If you want personalised introduction, then you first pay $150 for professional consultation per session, and it is stated that "no matches are guaranteed at this point". Thereafter, you have to pay another $150 for registration and have the first match. You are only entitled up to a maximum of three matches. Subsequent matches will be charged at $50 per match. I have received feedback that many singles are discouraged by the commercial approach of SDU.”
“In order for the firm to service these MNCs, the call centre must employ staff who speak and understand different languages and cultures of those countries which the MNCs are operating. Thus, without the support of foreign talent, the call centre will not be able to secure such contracts and provide jobs for Singaporeans. This is a clear example of how our local firms would be able to compete for contracts to provide international support services by employing both foreign talent and Singaporeans. Building the next generation Madam, in order to have a sustainable population and a sustainable economy, we must continue to encourage Singaporeans who can afford to have more children, while those who cannot afford should keep their families small so that they can better provide for their children. Therefore, our approach to population management must be two-pronged, namely, (1) using the present HOPE scheme to help lower-income families to build strong and small families; and (2) providing incentives for those who can afford to have more children. Getting married and having children are personal decisions. Although Singapore faces a serious low birth rate problem, we must not micro-manage this problem. I do not support the setting up of a mandatory framework to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. Instead, the Government should adopt a voluntary and supportive approach to make it conducive for Singaporeans to have more children. So, how should we do it? We need to understand the root of the problem. Singaporeans are marrying at an older age due to their studies, National Service, hectic work schedules and lifestyles. As a result, many are unable to find their life-time partners, and some married couples are unable or do not wish to have children.”
“The Government should further expand the People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme in these industries. We should extend the six-month wage support to one year so as to further encourage more firms to participate in the scheme. Skills upgrading Skills upgrading will be a key thrust in developing a skilled and adaptable workforce. The raising of the skills development levy salary ceiling will provide more resources for workforce training. I believe that employers can play a more active role in workers' training. The SDF must continue to support those employers who regularly conduct in-house training to update and upgrade their workers. Very often, the bigger firms are in a better position to conduct in-house training and tap on the SDF funds. As for SMEs, I would suggest that SDF allocates a certain portion of its fund for various trade associations and professional bodies to organise accredited skills training for its members. In this way, all Singaporeans working in both big and small firms will have ample opportunities for skills upgrading. To further incentivise individuals to upgrade, the Government should remove the income tax relief cap of $3,500 for course fees. 'S' pass holders Madam, I support the introduction of 'S' pass for middle-skilled manpower to supplement the lack of workers in areas, such as healthcare, IT and aerospace industries. Recently, I visited a call centre in Singapore which employs about 200 workers (20% of its workers are foreigners holding employment passes). The centre provides a range of call services for Government agencies, local firms and MNCs. It also supports the disaster recovery operations and business continuity services of various MNCs.”
“But we must also provide a conducive environment for businesses to make a sustainable profit so that they can continue to provide jobs for Singaporeans. The cut red tape initiative by the Government is a step in the right direction in providing a conducive business environment. We should take one more step forward to ensure that our civil servants are also pro-business. This will require a major change of mindset. Civil servants must change their perception and regard businessmen as their partners in serving our people. There must be mutual respect and trust between the Government agencies and the business community. The reduction of Government bureaucracy will not increase the profit of businesses. It is the support by Government agencies that will help businesses to grow and flourish. Thus, we must strengthen the partnership between the Government and the business community. People-for-Jobs Traineeship Programme Although EDB manages to attract about $7 billion of foreign direct investments yearly, not many jobs have been created. Many of these new investments are very capital intensive and their operations are highly automated, thus requiring fewer workers in their factories. Very often, these jobs will be taken by younger Singaporeans and foreign workers as they are better qualified and skilled. Based on the experience of the CDCs, many structurally unemployed older Singaporeans are unable to secure these jobs. As such, many have remained unemployed for more than 12 months. This has caused much hardship to many families. Madam, besides foreign direct investments, we must support the local SMEs to create jobs for Singaporeans. Many unemployed Singaporeans have expressed interest to work in the service industry, such as healthcare, logistics, transport and hotels.”
“At the same time, the Government can expand the scope of medical services at the polyclinics to provide treatment for the chronically sick. In addition, more support, such as Government matching grant, can be provided to encourage self-help groups of VWOs to set up various treatment centres within the community. Madam, we must provide a supportive environment for needy students in Singapore. Despite many help schemes, there are still many needy students who require guidance in their studies and financial assistance. At present, the Ministry of Education provides a financial assistance scheme for needy pupils in Government and Government-aided schools. We should review the income limits of this scheme for different household types, and waive both school fees and miscellaneous fees. To better coordinate the assistance for needy students, I would suggest that MOE transfer this financial assistance scheme to the CDCs. In this way, the CDCs will be able to work closely with the schools and various VWOs to provide a holistic approach to guide these needy students. Life insurance policies Madam, I support the tax exemption for both Singapore and foreign source investment income. This definitely encourages more individuals to save and plan for retirement. To further encourage savings for retirement, I would urge the Finance Minister to consider increasing the tax relief for life insurance, ie, removing the $5,000 CPF contribution cap. Similarly, the Government should encourage home ownership by removing property tax. Jobs creation Changing mindsets of civil servants Madam, the 2% corporate tax cut will provide incentives for more firms to operate in Singapore.”
“Be more self-reliant With less Government handouts and rebates, Singaporeans would have to learn to be more self-reliant. But how can the Government provide a support system to make Singaporeans more self-reliant? Madam, the key to self-reliance is to increase the earning capacity of Singaporeans. This could be achieved through continual skills upgrading, and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to set up businesses. Madam, over the last two years, the CDCs have seen many unemployed Singaporeans lose their earning capacity overnight due to factors such as age, skills redundancy, erosion of drive to work hard and loss of confidence in changing careers. We need to instill more confidence in our present and future workers to be nimble and adaptable to changing work conditions. This confidence should be developed while they are schooling or attending skills upgrading courses. Helping needy Singaporeans Although Singaporeans must learn to live within their means, there are some needy Singaporeans who do not have the ability to support themselves. The CDCs have played an effective role to identify these needy Singaporeans and administer a wide range of help schemes to assist them. However, there is a group of needy Singaporeans who need more help from the Government. These are the chronically sick and those who need long term medical treatment, such as kidney failure or stroke patients. Very often, these residents face severe financial hardship as treatment is costly. A member in a family who is chronically sick will drain out the financial savings of the entire family, including their Medisave accounts. I urge the Government to extend financial assistance, especially subsidised medical treatment, for these needy Singaporeans.”
“We must also make Singapore a "Land of Harmony", a place where there is harmony between the Government and our people, between employers and workers, between our built environment and nature, and among different races and religions. Living within our means - Ministry's 2% cut Madam, I support the initiative taken by the Government to live within our means. As we face tighter budgets, our Ministries and Government agencies must cut waste and be efficient. With a 2% cut in budget in all Ministries, except Defence, and the push for best sourcing, I wonder whether there will be more job losses in the public sector. Madam, we are starting to see layoffs and voluntary retirement exercises being conducted by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, PowerSeraya and the Zoo. Will the 2% cut in the Ministry's budget trigger off more retrenchments? This may further worsen our unemployment situation. HDB Upgrading Programmes In the Budget, a sum of $379 million has been allocated for the upgrading of HDB precincts. The HDB upgrading programme is mainly funded by budget surpluses. Thus, with a budget deficit and tighter budgets in the future, I would urge the Government to reduce the scope of work for the upgrading programmes. The cost of upgrading can be drastically reduced if we cut down on frills and fanciful architectural features such as facade treatment, basement carpark construction, extensive landscape and space adding items for flats. Instead we should focus on the provision of lifts at every floor, covered walkways and drop-off points, and general communal facilities. I urge the Government to expedite the LUP and IUP-Plus upgrading programmes and replace the MUP with the SERS programme to better meet the needs of our residents.”
“This year's budget is a "no-frill" budget. There are not many handouts to individuals. As such, many heartlanders perceive it as a non-event, and cannot feel the benefits immediately. Despite that ground feeling, many Singaporeans do understand the severe challenges facing Singapore, such as global competition, terrorism threats and structural unemployment. In particular, the intense global competition we face threatens job availability and job security in Singapore. They can feel the sense of urgency by the Government to transform our economy, and prepare our people to better cope with globalisation challenges. The pro-business measures will attract more Foreign Direct Investments in Singapore, thus stimulating the economy. It will save existing jobs and create new jobs. Madam, the Budget also strives to make Singapore a "Land of Opportunity". While we share the vision of the Government, we must be careful to ensure that policies are properly implemented to achieve the desired outcomes. Otherwise, we may end up as a "Land of Opportunists". Madam, Singapore must be a land of opportunity for three groups of people. First, for both local and foreign investors to profit and to provide jobs for Singaporeans. Second, for foreign talent to work in Singapore and help increase the competitiveness of our companies. And, third, for all Singaporeans to have good jobs and a good quality of life. There must be ample opportunities for all three groups to fulfil their aspirations. But we must be cautious to balance the interests of all these stakeholders in our society. I agree that we should not focus solely on economic pursuits. We need to build a strong and cohesive society where Singaporeans live in harmony.”
“" Then her second child came along and it became more difficult for her and she asked me whether she could go on no-pay leave. It was a bit of a struggle, but I understood that family was important and it was important to her, and I find family important as well, and also I understood her desire to work because she wanted to come back at the end of six months. She did not want to feel that she would have lost her job or lost her position. So I said, "Yes, by all means, go ahead and take your no-pay leave." I struggled in those six months, not the most enjoyable months of my life, but it was worth it because she came back at the end of it and she continues to work with me to this day. So, it is not that employers cannot do it. They can do it. It is just a question of how determined you are to do it. In terms of mindset, let me just say this. Our Government has never shirked from changing mindset if it has to. Look at what we did in 2001. We told Singaporeans, the world has changed, gobalisation is now something that will not go away. The workforce is changing. We must change or risk becoming irrelevant. We were prepared to say that for entrepreneurialship and to change the mindset as far as the economy was concerned. Well, the women have changed. There is no going back. If you want to have more children then you would have to make this mindset change or you face the risk of becoming extinct. And with that, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I conclude my speech and would like to support the Budget. Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang): Mdm Deputy Speaker, I hope what I say will mean the same to both men and women in this House and, in particular, the Finance Minister. Madam, I rise in support of the motion as proposed by the Finance Minister.”
“The point is that if you do want to address this baby problem and, at the same time, take into account the woman's desire to work, that is going to have to change. It is either one or the other. It is very difficult to have it both ways. You cannot retain the same employment mindset and, at the same time, expect things to work out. The Government's reaction may well be that this is something for employers to decide. There is not that much that one can do about it. But my response to that would be that has never stopped the Government before if it has considered it really important. Take the issue of flexi-wage. The Government considers that important because it is necessary for our economic survival. If you want to have more babies and, at the same time, allow the women to continue to work, then this is something that you will have to address in the same way that you were prepared to address the flexi-wage issue. So, it really boils down to two main points on what I have been saying, which is that whatever policy you formulate, there are two main cornerstones that you are going to have to change: there has to be a change in societal mindset as the role the man has to play and there has to be a change in the employer's mindset. I know this from personal experience because my secretary who has worked for me for many years, in fact she has been with me since 1998, when she had her first baby, she said to me: "Ms Rajah, I cannot stay late and work anymore because I am having my baby. Do you mind if I go home at 5.30 pm sharp?" At that time we finished at 5.30 pm but she very often stayed till about 6.30 pm, sometimes 7.00 pm, to help me clear the work. I said, "Yes, it is not a problem.”
“I have spent these years getting educated for it, training for it, and I just enjoy my work. I would also not wish to put myself completely at the mercy of somebody else in financial terms. So, if I were married, if I were to have children, the single most important thing to me is not the money, not the subsidies, not the childcare centres - those are important things - but it would be that I had the husband's support because I would have to know that he would be there if I needed him to take on part of the role. I will just give you an example. If I have to do a trial that starts on Monday morning, the trial preparation starts three weeks before that. I have to read the bundles, some of which go into thousands of pages, I have to do the opening statement, I have to go through the authorities, I have to prepare for my cross-examinations - that takes time. It may mean that I cannot come back in time to do dinner, it may mean that I may not be there on the weekends. So I would need to feel that the husband is there taking care of part of that role, which basically means that what you are looking at is societal change. Because our society still does have the mindset that it is more of the woman's role rather than the man's. This is changing. It is true. But when you are making a policy, all I suggest is that that policy needs to take into account this mindset change because if you do not take that into account, then you are only addressing symptoms and not necessarily the cause. The third perspective is the perspective of an employer. A lot of the ground reaction to the proposals for six months' maternity leave has been that employers are not in favour of this and that there is a possibility they will not employ women as a result.”
“I am just saying it probably goes back again to the difference in thinking because they did not realise that there was a problem. Another thing that the single woman very often hear is: why are you so choosy? Mdm Deputy Speaker, I looked at the papers today and this was in the Today paper and there was a letter from a member of the public, a Mr Robert Ooi, and the heading was, "Impose disincentives on women to increase birth". He suggested that the Government could look into disincentives because he felt that all the encouragement had not produced any results and he said that if the carrot does not produce the result, perhaps the stick could be more effective. He said, "Women should give more thought to the country's long-term survival before the Government comes out with the stick in the form of disincentives or penalties, eg, higher CPF contributions or even an infertility tax should be levied on them." He concluded with this statement: "Like a donkey that refuses to budge in spite of all the carrots, what else but the stick can make it yield." Madam, I just venture to suggest that on this question of choosiness, the most polite way which I can put forward the ladies' position is that maybe it is not all the ladies' fault and sometimes we have to deal with certain attitudes which may be less than palatable. I would just ask the Government to bear that in mind again when they convey the message that the women are choosy. I move on now to the next perspective, which is my perspective as a woman and as a working professional. I have nothing against marriage. Nothing at all. But, if I got married I do know that I would want to work and the reason why I would want to work is because it is part of me, it is part of my identity.”
“What I would suggest is that when you put across the policy, bear that in mind and it would help a lot more if you get across the message such that the women receive the message that you believe that their babies are of equal value to the nation. Do not make them feel that one baby is better than the other because you think the mother is smarter. I think you might have a lot more success in our policy if you bear that in mind. We should also bear in mind that for the singles, they do feel a lot of pressure because they get the sense that somehow it is not right for them to be single. Again, I do not think that is what the Government means or intends to say but that is what many of them are hearing. At the same time, they are contributing by way of income tax to the State budget, and they help to pay for various things, including subsidies for married couples. Some of them get a little twitchy about this.You must remember that singles are a growing constituent and so it is important to make sure that they hear the right thing. I also caution about encouraging people to leap into marriage just for the sake of marriage simply because marriage is a long-term commitment and it is very important that when somebody enters into the state that they do understand what they are getting into. It is important to also look at the divorce rate before one encourages people to just rush into it. I remember a few months back there was a report released by the Subordinate Courts and one of the findings was that, in many cases, the majority of the husbands were not aware that the marriage was in trouble until the divorce petition was filed. Again, I am not blaming them.”
“In all honesty and good faith, the message that the men mean to convey is that we have a declining birth rate, we are concerned that our population will drop and we need to make sure that we have enough population to survive. That is what they meant. Let me tell you what the women heard. I know this because I was in university in 1986 and this was exactly what I heard. I heard: your education does not really count; your purpose in life is to have babies and it is all your fault that we do not have enough children. This is what many women actually heard. I am not saying that it is anybody's fault. I am not saying that one side is right and the other side is wrong. I am just saying that we have to remember that there are differences. When the Government makes a policy and communicates that policy to a target audience of a different gender, it must take into account that how they think is different and what they hear may be different from what it intended to say. So the way in which the Government conveys it is very important. One aspect of the policy, for example, is that the Government would like to encourage better-qualified women to have babies. What you mean, I think, correct me, if I am wrong, is that "it will be a shame if you, having had all this education, do not have babies because you can contribute and your children will be part of the nation." That is what you mean. What the women have all heard is that you are putting a value judgement on the babies and the babies of the highly-educated women are better than the babies of the women who are less educated. That was what they heard. And that is why we have had a lot of resistance to the encouragement for women of higher education to have babies.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate. When we go to the supermarket at NTUC, under the various sections, we can get 3-in-1 coffee - milk, coffee and sugar. On the baby issue, I would like to offer a 3-in-1 perspective because I am single, a woman who is a working professional, as well as a woman who is in the position of an employer or looking after employment. [Mdm Deputy Speaker (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua) in the Chair] 4.11 pm The policy is to encourage people to get married and to have more babies. At the present time, the policy is being worked out by the Cabinet, who is male, and the target audience are Singapore women. When we are working out a policy of this nature, I would like to suggest three rules that we should bear in mind. Gentlemen, if I may offer the rules. Rule No. 1 is that men and women think differently. I did not actually know this for many years until I was in my 20s. It used to puzzle me as to why I got into a lot of disputes with men about many things. But once I figured that out, a lot of the problems were taken care of and I had very little difficulty after that. Rule No. 2 is that what men say and what women hear is often very different. Rule No. 3 is what women say and what men hear is also often very different. For purposes of this debate, I only need to concentrate on Rule No. 2 because Rule No. 3 could be a subject matter that will hold the entire debate by itself. The message that has come across since 1986 from the politicians to Singapore women is that they should get married and should have babies.”
“May I ask the Minister of State, Sir, in that connection, whilst we are studying the experience of other countries, is there a not insignificant number of our population which are either illiterate or speak only dialect, Malay or Tamil who may not have the same degree of access to information as some of the others may do? So, when it comes to implementation of the system, particularly with respect to household consumers, may I ask if the Ministry will look into this issue to see how information can be given to such people, and how they can be helped, so that they can benefit from this policy of opening up the market?”
“If employers were required to give reasons that would act as a deterrent to termination of employment, would the Parliamentary Secretary care to comment how that would affect our workforce's flexibility and ability to respond to the vagaries of economic conditions?”
“I think the average Singaporean in the street needs to feel that he is not the only one bearing the brunt in the battle to revive the economy. The average Singaporean needs to feel that he is part of the team. He will feel that he is part of the team if we hear that the Ministries are doing various things, if we hear that Government and other agencies are doing various things, if we also know that employers are on board, if the banks are on board, if the property owners are on board. And if we can do this, there is no reason why we cannot pull ourselves out of our economic doldrums.”
“I read in the newspapers the other day that there was this company called Wash Wash that had applied to the HDB for a corporate licence to do car washing in a HDB multi-storey car park. When they first broached the idea to the HDB, it was reported that HDB rejected them giving, among the list of reasons, "no such licences have been given before." What kind of reason is that? If we use that kind of reason, we will never be able to do anything new. And there was also, "car washing is only permitted at the car washing bay." I really like this one, "the detergent run-off will weaken the concrete". It was only after the owners of Wash Wash appealed to their MP, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, who is also the Minister of State of MND and the Government pro-enterprise panel, that they eventually succeeded in getting their licence. My point is this. It should not take all this convulsion of effort in order to get a licence. The bottom line is: every Ministry, every statutory board, every Government agency should have a policy that if an idea generates jobs, if an idea can generate business, if an idea can do something to boost the economy, it should be given serious consideration. Do not make the poor guy jump through so many hoops and hurdles before he eventually gets to it. But, of course, we are happy to say that in that case, there was a happy ending. And I read in the newspapers that 128 licences have been issued. At the end of the day, CPF cut is only one part of it. There are many other things that we have to do. Singaporeans need to feel that we are all part and parcel of the common enterprise. When we fought the battle against SARS, everybody had their part to play.”
“If they are, Singaporeans need to hear it, and if they are not, then they should hurry up and do it straightaway. There is an urgent need to have intelligent cost cutting that would translate into savings that can be passed on to the average Singaporean in the street. Not all cost cutting is good. If a Ministry spends on a project which results in a contract being awarded, the contractors get the job, the contractors' employees get jobs and they get their salaries, income is generated, that is fine. That is why I say there is an urgent need to look into intelligent cost cutting. It should not just be the average man-in-the-street who pays this price because it should be a collective effort. Employers, obviously, need to play their part. They should pass on the savings that they get from the CPF cuts. The banks and HDB should seriously look at what can be done to either convert payments to only interest payments or deferment of repayment of instalments in cases where there is difficulty in making repayment. Going forward, I would just stress that the CPF cut is only one part of a much wider issue and a much wider debate. The wider issue really is how to make Singapore more competitive, how to generate business, how to generate jobs. The CPF cut is not, by itself, going to be the magic formula that immediately solves all our problems. There are obviously many other things that we have to do. And one of the things that I would suggest is that there be a new policy introduced across-the-board for all the Ministries, which I call the common sense policy. Basically, how it works is: when in doubt, use common sense. Let me just take an example.”
“As a general rule, when faced with a problem, Singaporeans will rally round together. But in order for them to feel that they are really part of the team, they also need to feel that if we are asking them to accept the pain of CPF cuts, why is it, at the same time, the cost of living is not going down but, in fact, it seems to be going up? A few days back, in the Straits Times and, I think, in Streats, it was reported that the Consumer Price Index has reported a jump. One of them reported a 0.4% jump in prices and the other a 0.6% jump in prices. I am not sure which indicators they were referring to, but it is clear that there has been a jump in prices. The feedback from the grassroots leaders is whether the Government can look at the costs of utilities, transport and rentals to see whether these can be brought down. When we talk about the cost of doing business, there is also an urgent need to see whether the cost of rental of commercial properties can be brought down. Generally speaking, at the end of the day, if Singaporeans feel that they are being asked to make a sacrifice, they can appreciate that, but they would also appreciate it if something can be done to alleviate the pain. In this connection, I would like to mention that I applaud the announcement by the Acting Minister of Health, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, about cost cutting measures for the Ministry of Health in order to reduce the cost of providing healthcare. That was a very important message to send to Singaporeans that at least one Ministry is looking at reducing costs. What about the other Ministries? We have not heard anything from them. It may well be that the other Ministries are looking at cost cutting.”
“We would think that this is an obvious thing and that Singaporeans understand that. Let me tell you that some Singaporeans understand it, but many Singaporeans do not see the importance, or understand the urgency or need for it. All Singaporeans are equal citizens. All Singaporeans have equal rights under the law, but not all Singaporeans have equal understanding of the economy, the financial consequences of what we do, or the importance of financial planning. It is very important, therefore, for the Government to get this message out, especially to younger Singaporeans, and make them aware of the importance of it. I would go so far as to suggest that the Ministry of Education actually look to introducing this as a subject, but not as an examinable subject, as students have enough on their plate, to make students understand the importance of this, going forward, so that we educate an entire new generation of Singaporeans on the need to supplement their CPF savings. I move on now from the consequences of this to some of the feedback that I have received in respect of the proposed CPF changes. I spoke with my grassroots leaders a couple of days back in anticipation of this debate. The first and most important piece of feedback that came in was that it is really the middle income group, especially the lower-middle income group, that would be affected. I think my Parliamentary colleagues have already touched on the points about housing loans and repayment of mortgages. So it would not be necessary for me to elaborate on that. But I would just like to highlight that this is a strong feeling on the ground. The other strong feeling on the ground is the cost of living. Singaporeans, as a whole, can accept the need for CPF cuts.”
“But what these changes mean is that, in good times, the savings function of CPF takes precedence because you put in more, but in bad times, the macro-economic function takes precedence because you try and retune the economy. These have certain consequences for the average Singaporean in the street because he is at the receiving end of this. At the Government level, when we tune the economy using CPF, we can see from an economic level why it is necessary. But from the poor guy in the street, it is very difficult for him to adjust to this because, going forward in the long-term, it is difficult for him to plan. So the consequences would be the difficulty in long-term planning. It also means that when a Singaporean buys a property, he should never use the maximum amount allowable because he must always provide for a buffer, as he cannot tell, going forward, whether or not this rate is going to go up or down. That message needs to go out to Singaporeans because for decades, they have planned on the basis of a reasonably certain rate. But now, going forward, he is not certain and he must allow himself a buffer. The next consequence of this is that, given that the rate is fluctuating and given that in 10-20 years, the amount that you have in CPF is subject to inflation, the $30,000 today would not be worth $30,000 in 10 years' time. There is then an urgent need for Singaporeans to understand the importance of financial planning. In the past, they have depended on their CPF and looked to that as something that would take them through their old age. Now, this is no longer possible. CPF would take care of some part of it, but they certainly have to see how they can provide for themselves in terms of financial planning.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to participate in this debate. When I considered the CPF cuts, I asked myself: would I support it? After some thought, the answer was yes. The reason is that doing nothing is not an option. If doing nothing is not an option, then the question is: how do we move forward? My position on the CPF cuts is that I support it, but wish to sound a cautionary note and to say that CPF cuts are not the be-all and the end-all. There are other things that have to be considered and I would touch on that in a moment. Just coming back to the cautionary note, when we started off with the CPF scheme, its original purpose was for social security - savings for retirement, home ownership, medical expenses and, to some extent, education. That was its original purpose and remained so for a long time until the mid-1980s when we had to make the first CPF cut. In the 1980s, because of the difficulties of remaining competitive, we had to do a cut and, more recently, in the late 1990s, we had done it again twice. But the significance of the Prime Minister's announcement today actually marks a fundamental shift in what we have done before. By saying that CPF rates would be a range between 30-36%, we are formally endorsing the use of cutting our CPF rates or using CPF rates as a macro-economic tool. It may move from its original purpose of purely social security to an economic calibrator. The two purposes are very different and they serve different purposes. I do not oppose the usage in the new way simply because circumstances have changed and we are plugged into the global economy. And because the global economy moves so quickly and it is so volatile, we have to be able to react quickly.”
“They have a project known as "Matchbox Project" done by their aesthetic club, and they have actually taken the art works and pottery done by the students and exhibited it in a gallery at South Bridge Road called Utterly Art. I was invited to come down and have a look at this exhibition. When I saw the works of art there, I was really blown away because the works of art that were hanging on the walls were done by 15-year old students. The kind of depth and sheer raw power that emanated from those paintings were illustrative of maturity far beyond 15-year olds. For anybody who has not seen that exhibition yet, I strongly encourage you to go and see it, including the Minister, because it is very, very good. One of the paintings, for example, was done by a 15-year old girl. She had lost her dog. So, the painting was of a poodle suspended on the hands of a clock against the background of a clock. It was very Salvador Dali's. It was not a copy, but you could see elements of that, without the kind of darkness that you see in some Salvador Dali's paintings, but it had a certain lightheartedness about it that was just excellent. There were other paintings hanging up there which reflected the various thoughts and feelings of the pupils. There was one of HDB housing which I had strongly encouraged the principal to donate to the Ministry of National Development because I happened to think of the particularly good piece of work. So the point that I want to sound out here is that we have no lack of talent. We have an enormous depth of raw talent. It is just a question of how we harness it and I hope the Minister would be able to expand on how we can channel the energy that the young Singaporeans have.”
“In the current economic climate and given the world as it is today, creativity is no longer an option. Creativity is the key to our survival in this very different world. For that reason, I would like to ask the Minister what we are doing to encourage creative arts in Singapore as well as creative designs. The way of the future is not Singaporeans sitting back and asking the Government what jobs there are available. The Government will play its part, I am sure, in providing jobs, but the key to surviving in this very challenging world is the ability to actually create or come out with things that might actually grow or encourage your own employment. One of these areas is creative design. Just take handphones, for example. The three popular designs in Singapore would be handphones by Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson. The reason why they are so successful is because the way these handphones were designed - easy to hold, press and use. Design is actually the key for a lot of things that are going to be marketed in the future and the issue is how we can harness the talent that we have to create creative industry in Singapore. I want to sound a very upbeat note on this because I do not think it is a situation where Singapore has a lack of talent. Most people, when they think of Singaporeans, think of us as technocrats, a little dull and boring, and I think that was what prompted Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon to talk about Singapore being a "wow" city. I had the occasion, this week, to encounter what I consider to be very powerful talents in Singapore. This was an exhibition done by Henderson Secondary School.”
“Sir, like my parliamentary colleagues before me, I too would like to know the findings of the Legal Centre's survey. In addition to that, I would like to know whether the Minister could assure the House that there will be an adequate supply of lawyers in terms of the intake. The reason I ask is because some years back, we had restricted the number of lawyers with the result that the supply was inadequate to meet the demand. The fact that there are young lawyers leaving the profession is not in itself necessarily a bad thing. One of the reasons why they leave is because they now have a lot of options. They can go inhouse or they can go to offshore firms. That is not something that was available to young graduates when I graduated more years ago than I care to remember. The other thing that I should perhaps highlight - and I am not sure whether this is in the Centre - is that there are, in fact, lawyers who are coming back to the profession. This is a recent phenomenon which I had noticed as a practitioner. In our firm, in the past year or two, we have actually had four of our prodigal sons and daughters return to us. The reasons why they left were they wanted to broaden their horizons; they wanted to try something different. Two became inhouse counsel with IT companies; one became a bank consultant; another wanted to try drama and theatre. All of them have come back, and a common thread seems to be that it is the intellectual challenge of the work that has attracted them. So, for whatever reasons, they seem particularly addicted to our peculiar form of stress, and have decided to return to the profession. Sir, I was just curious to know whether the Centre has addressed that.”
“And, frankly speaking, I think that it is a very good thing that we have raised the tax of cigarettes. What does this have to do with the Budget, you may ask? It has an indirect impact in that it actually saves on medical and health costs. That is the benefit that we will see maybe only in 15-30 years. But the Ministry of Health today has to deal with medical and health costs of dealing with diseases arising from practices that people adopted 15 or 30 years ago. Studies have shown that smokers are very responsible to fiscal measures and I think that the tax increase on cigarettes is a very good move. With that, Sir, I support the motion.”
“And if this trend continues, then in the next 15-30 years, there is going to be a substantial increase in smoking-related health costs among the young women who are picking up the habit now. Cigarette smoking was initially adopted by men in developed countries in the West followed by women in those countries. It then spread to the developing countries including Asia. And the relatively low use of tobacco by women as opposed to men is not because of better health awareness. It is attributable to social and cultural traditions and, in the past, the fact that women had less money to spend. The trouble is that now they do have more money to spend. More are picking up the habit. The reasons seem to be the same as that for young men, which is curiosity, peer pressure, need to relieve stress, desire to impress friends, and to relieve boredom. For women - for young girls especially - they think it keeps them slim. The problem is that this does not seem to be balanced by an awareness of the dangers of it. The dangers are well known. Lung cancer is the most obvious risk. That used to be a rare disease in the early decades of the 20th century. But by the 1950s, it was a leading cause of cancer death among men in developed countries. Now, it is also becoming a cause of death among women. And what is little known about the fact of lung cancer is that what you really die of is suffocation. You die because you cannot breathe. It is a horrible way to go, and smoking leads to that. There is also risk linked to pregnancy, infertility, cardiovascular disease, stroke, haemorrhage and on top of all that, you get wrinkles as well. A World Health Organisation report noted that the sad fact is this. If women smoke like men, they will die like men. It is not a good way to go.”
“It is the most absolutely divine dessert. It is made from milk powder. It is made into little balls and soaked overnight in golden syrup. It is absolutely wonderful and it is like an instant sugar injection, and one probably gets an instant cardiac arrest after eating it. This year's Budget did not come in the form of a bowl of ghulab jamun. It came in the form of a plate of fresh fruit with a handful of vitamins, Omega 3 and Omega 6 oils and a bunch of antioxidants. It does not taste as good but it is a whole lot better for the system. So, it is just a question of what we make of it. This leads me to my next topic. International Women's Day was on 8th March 2003. Every time International Women's Day comes around, there is this discussion of women's issues and the question of gender equality crops up. There is one area in which Singapore women do not have equality with Singapore men. For various reasons, we have lagged behind, though it seems the gap is narrowing. As far as I am concerned, this is one area where we should remain firmly unequal and we should stay far behind the men where we belong, and this is in the area of cigarette smoking. I firmly support the increased excise duty on cigarettes and the decision to tax cigarettes by sticks instead of weight. I noted with concern the fact that although the proportion of smokers in Singapore dropped from 18% in 1992 to 14% in 2001, the percentage of young female smokers aged 18-24 increased from 2.8% to 8.2% in the same period. This is a danger signal because those who start at a very young age find it harder to quit later on in life.”
“There is a second wrong question that has been asked, which is: where are the goodies in this Budget? In a time like this, one does not look for goodies. It is really time to batten down the hatches and get to work in terms of stimulating our economy and making the opportunities for ourselves. The goodies, as I see it, have come in an indirect form - the measures to stimulate business, the rebates, eg, on service and conservancy charges, the deferment of the GST - that is a pretty large goody; you just do not see it in a tangible form, but it is a very big goody - the budget for retraining. This Budget is all about what we make of ourselves and the ability to stay relevant in these times. There is a small group of Singaporeans who really need this help, but there is a very large majority of Singaporeans who can help themselves, and the difference is what you make of it. One example is a lady who came to see me at my meet-the-people session. She has been doing low-skilled jobs. Her husband had just recently been retrenched. She wanted to try and get a job as a cashier and she found that she could not, because she did not have IT skills. In today's environment, anybody who wants to work as a cashier will have to be able to use a computer. She is going to be faced with a choice. She has got a choice of not learning IT skills and she will always remain low-skilled and, eventually, marginalised and irrelevant, or she can go ahead and make that choice to learn basic IT and, eventually, get herself a job. But that choice is hers and hers alone. The Government cannot make that choice for her. The goodies this year did not come in the form of a sweet dessert. For Members who are familiar with Indian food, they may know of a dessert called ghulab jamun.”
“She had a long hard time out in the wilderness and suffered quite a bit before she eventually learned how to fend for herself and how to hunt and how to kill, and eventually had her own family, which she raised. And, it is like that with Singaporeans, because we had been buffered from a lot of things. We were a lion city. We come from immigrant stocks. We still have those instincts to hunt, but some of them have been blunted over the years simply because we have had a fairly comfortable life. I do not think that the instincts are gone. I just think that if we are put in an environment where we have to use those instincts they will come to the fore. So, being a good entrepreneur does not mean that you succeed because of the Government. The mark of a really good entrepreneur is to succeed despite Government. That is what a good entrepreneur is. I notice also recently that SPH or Times Periodicals has come up with these awards: Woman of the Year; Young Woman Achiever. Woman of the Year Award was won by Olivia Lum. The Young Woman Achiever was Elim Chew. In their acceptance speeches, two things stood out. What they had in common, both of them, was strong religious faith, and a gung-ho attitude. I also notice that in Olivia's case, her school results were good. Elim in her acceptance speech, said that she was always bordering on not doing very well and her school results were not good. But they are both today in a position where they have made something for themselves and the common factor, apart from the fact that they are young female and single, is that they have really good attitude. They are go-getters and they are gung-ho. And that is the sort of thing that we need in Singapore today. That is the attitude that will make this Budget work or not work.”
“Surely that is the area that one should concentrate on, rather than saying that: you must be protected against something like this. It is a question of responsibility. This idea of looking elsewhere for protection against something that is going to happen is not a good one. You cannot buffer people from the vicissitudes of life. Life is tough. That is one of the things that we have to deal with, and Government cannot protect everybody all the time, from every possible adversity that might come up. It is very much a question of what each of us makes of the circumstances that we find ourselves in. I remember when I was very young, my mum took me to see a movie called "Born Free". Some of you may remember it. This naturalist had adopted this lioness cub, Elsa, and they raised her in the house as a pet. They patted her. They gave her milk. She had food every day. She slept in their bed. She played with them, and she grew up to be a very inept young lioness because she did not know how to hunt. One day, the time came for her to return to the wild and there was no other way to do it except to reintroduce her to the wild by leaving her there. And she was really upset because she had no idea what to do, no idea what to hunt. She kept coming back, looking for food. She found a male lion, and those of you who are familiar with the habits of lions will know that the male lion does not hunt, the lioness has to go out and bring him food. So, he found this lioness, fairly young, attractive looking, who was pretty useless at the job because she could not bring back the kill, so that did not work out either.”
“A lot of comments have been floated up that this Budget does not go far enough, it does not do enough for entrepreneurs, it does not do enough for SMEs, it does not do enough for this group of people or that group of people. My response is that this Budget is what we make of it. It will succeed or it will fail depending on the amount of effort that each one of us personally puts into it. Unlike our neighbours who surround us, we do not have huge amounts of natural resources, we do not have huge tracts of land, we do not have minerals, we do not have agriculture. The one thing we have is our people. People make all the difference in these times, and the critical factor is attitude, and the mental attitude that we have to have is taking responsibility and ownership. Many Singaporeans do this. Many of them go about in life taking responsibilities for themselves and for their work and business. But increasingly, over the years, I have noticed a trend that seems to have crept into our national psyche and consciousness, which is this trend of wanting to place responsibility elsewhere. An example is the recent MRT accident. After the accident where there was a car on the MRT line, and the train had crashed into it, I noticed a couple of letters in the Straits Times saying: Why has the LTA not built stronger fences? Why have they not done something to prevent this from happening? And my response is: Is that not a wrong question? The right question must surely be: what is a 23-year old driver of a Mercedes Benz doing in the middle of a MRT track? Surely that must be the right question. What on earth was he doing? How was he driving to land up there?”
“Perhaps I can start off where Mr Chiam left off. I agree entirely with Mr Chiam that we can certainly do with a few more of the creative industries. But he highlighted two things with which I thought perhaps are not entirely accurate. The suggestion appears to be that the Government has not made job creation one of its priorities. When I last looked at the budget, there was a $500 million retraining programme in there. If that is not a priority for creating jobs, I do not know what is. There were measures to attract foreign investments, there were also measures not to tax foreign income. All of that is aimed at creating jobs. So I do not think it is entirely fair to say that job creation is not a priority. I think that it is. The second statement that was made was that the Government does not seem to promote education and healthcare. As I remember it, we spent three days debating on a White Paper on Education, three days' worth of very serious consideration on the quality and content of education in Singapore, and I think that it cannot be disputed that our Government does concentrate a lot on education. The example cited was of a Chinese student who had received rather poor treatment in a private institution. But the Government does not run the private institution. That is something that has to be taken up at the level of the educational institution that is providing the service. The Government cannot do every single thing, and that really brings me to the main thrust of my comments on the Budget, which is that it is all about taking responsibility.”
“I have a few questions for the Minister arising from certain facts that the Minister has put forward. We know that Singapore has exercised sovereignty over Pedra Branca since the 1840s. We know that we had separation in 1965, and the first time that the Malaysians had made a claim to Pedra Branca was in 1979 in a map, which means 139 years after we exercised sovereignty and 14 years after Separation. Have the Malaysians given any explanation why there has been this deafening silence on their part in relation to assertion of sovereignty for 139 years or 14 years? More specifically, is it their case that they did not know in 1965 and they suddenly knew in 1979? Or is it that they knew in 1965 but forgot until 1979? Or is it the case that they neither knew nor forgot and suddenly decided in 1979? And, if so, is it a principle of international law that they can suddenly decide that they have sovereignty over their neighbour's property?”
“But in turn, we ask that you stand with us. Stand with us against the JI and against the extremists. Stand with us in making sure that Singapore is kept safe and whole, because it is your home as well as ours. Stand with us in making sure that our way of life and freedom is preserved. Mr Speaker, if I might just take the liberty to translate into two sentences what I have just said "kami akan bediri bersama kamu, dan akan sedaya upaya memastikan yang masyarakat tidak akan menghadapi diskriminasi". I stand together with you to ensure that the Malays will not be discriminated. We also want the Malay community to stand together with us, with other races, to defend the country, our beloved country, from the threat of the JI and the extremists. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [Mr Mah Bow Tan]. THREAT OF TERRORISM Debate resumed.”
“For Hari Raya, the Buddhist Lodge, which is in our area, very kindly offered to contribute the sum of $10,000 to be used as ang pows or to buy things for the poor and needy Muslim Malay citizens in our constituency for Hari Raya. It was given with sincerity and goodwill. When the ang pows and the goodies were distributed, they were received with appreciation. And it is things like that which help bridge the gap. So every Singaporean can contribute in part to this strategy of dealing with the JI. There is another thing which, of course, has surfaced in the course of the debate in the past few days - the concern of the Malay/Muslims that they might be associated with the JI and blamed for what the JI tried to do. If you think about it, this is not so distant from back in 1964 when the Malays were then concerned that they were discriminated against. At that time, it was about the extension of credit and the sale of necessities. Today, in this environment, it is about fear of not being able to get jobs. This is where the employers can step in. How you treat your Malay/Muslim employees will make a big difference in the way that they react to you. As a non-Malay and non-Muslim MP, I would have this to say to the Malay/Muslims in Singapore. We do not blame you for the acts of the JI members. We know that you did not do anything wrong, and it is unfortunate that as a result of a few misguided people, the spotlight is on you and your community. You have to understand that obviously some people of other races will have concern - that is normal. But I think I can safely say that I, and I think every other MP in this House and community leaders, regard you as one of us. We will stand for you and ensure that you are not discriminated against.”
“It is the responsibility of every taxi driver, every hawker, auntie, uncle, pak chik, mak chik, lawyer, doctor, engineer, secretary, student and factory worker. It is the responsibility of everyone, whether you live in a condominium, a HDB flat or landed property, the responsibility of everyone sitting in this Chamber, up in the Gallery and who walks on the streets of Singapore outside. It is your responsibility and mine. And how do we do this? The funny thing is that the complex is often achieved by the simple. The simplest thing to do is to look at the points of contacts that we have with people and other races, and that is not just at grassroots activities. That is our everyday life, when we go about our jobs, when we go about interacting with people. It is the small things that matter. Do we take the time and trouble to wish our neighbours of other races and religion, or do we just walk past them and ignore them? If you are an Indian or Malay, do you pause at Chinese New Year to wish your Chinese friends? If you are a Chinese, do you pause at Deepavali or Hari Raya to wish your Indian and Malay friends? Are you a parent who does not let your children play with children of other races? When your children reach perhaps the teenage level, do you tell them that they cannot have a boyfriend or a girlfriend of other races? It is the little, little things like that. Because they all impact on the way we think and act and behave towards somebody else. So that is very important. At the community level, it is important as well. It is important to reach out and I will just give an example of something which happened in my constituency.”
“Anything which is good, anything which is wholesome, anything which is right can stand up to public scrutiny and can stand up when you shine a light on it. And that is what the White Paper purports to do. It sets out the activities of the JI to show everybody and to expose them so that we know exactly what they are, what they are about, what their objectives are, so that we can deal with them. The White Paper is not about Muslims in general. It is about the extremist elements and how every Singaporean, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, can cope with the situation. The other point of the White Paper, obviously, is how do we counter the threat. And there are three things identified there, which are extremely important. First, enhancing security measures; second, policing the terrorists and extremist ideologies; and, third, strengthening social cohesion and religious harmony. Now, the first one, enhancing security measures is obviously the role of the Government and security agencies, and I think we can leave this safely in their hands. The second, the policing of ideology is something which I believe is best done by the Muslim community and their leaders. The only thing that the non-Muslims would have to do, obviously, is to be vigilant and to look out for things which may seem suspicious and inform the authorities. But it is the third strand of our strategy in dealing with this threat that is very important - strengthening social cohesion and religious harmony. This is the one task that we cannot delegate to anybody else. This is the responsibility of each and every Singaporean. As it was in 1964, so it is now. It is not the task of the Government, it is not the task of the MPs, CCCs, IRCCs or grassroots leaders alone.”
“Then, as now, there was the call to be rational, tolerant and understanding and a call to reach out and bridge the gap and heal the hurt. And, very importantly, then, as now, the objective of the foreign elements was the same - it was all about gaining political power. One thing we have to understand about terrorism is that it is a form of war. Anyone who studies the history of war will be familiar with the work of Clausewitz on war. And he defined war as "An act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil their will." And this is exactly what the Jemaah Islamiyah and the Al-Qaeda are trying to do. They are trying to use violence as a means to compel us to fulfil their will. And what is their will? To create a Daulah Islamiyah in the region and they have to do it through violent means because they cannot do it through democratic means. And they know that. Sir, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that the JI's cause is about religion. It is not. Ultimately, their objective is political. It is all about gaining political power, and they have no hesitation in using and misusing religion in order to do it. You might say that was a very interesting history lesson, but what was the point of that? The points, or what we can draw from the historical parallels, are these. One, we have faced this threat before. Two, we have overcome it before. Three, we can overcome it now. And from our experience in the past, we have the key to dealing with the present. When you actually look at what we did in the past, you will see that what the White Paper has set out does contain the basic points that will be necessary to deal with this present threat. The first thing that we have done, and that is what the White Paper is about, is exposure.”
“It was also reported on 27th July 1964 when Mr Lee Kuan Yew was speaking at an Extraordinary Delegates Conference of the Singapore NTUC, he called upon the people to keep down extremists who may emerge from any racial group in the State. He warned that if this was not done, then the extremist elements would also emerge from other groups. And he said to the unions - make an effort in your union in the next few days to renew the faith. The situation slowly stabilised until it flared up again in September 1964, and the Straits Times headline of 5th September 1964 read as follows: "8 Dead, 60 Hurt In New Rioting - Singapore A Danger Zone." A state of danger had been proclaimed in Singapore where the casualty toll in 48 hours of sporadic Indonesian-inspired clashes was given as 8 killed and 60 injured. A curfew was imposed and, over the next few days, more arrests were made. A few days later, the Central Government had swooped down on the ringleaders of the Indonesian plot and they slowly restored order. Eventually, as we know, these problems were stamped out and we moved into an era of racial harmony in the 1970s. But the point that I wanted to make was the very interesting historical parallels. Then, as now, there were foreign elements instigating our local people to cause strife and enmity. Then, as now, the favourite means were violent means. Then, as now, there was racial tension because the Malays felt after the event that they were being discriminated against, and the others felt that they were upset with them. And then, as now, there were peace and goodwill committees. Now, we call them IRCCs, but the basic purpose and function is the same.”
“The police were called out in force, and the entire area from Arab Street to Changi Road was cordoned off. Mr John Jacobs, the President of the then Malayan Indian Congress, said: "At this time, when we are threatened by external forces, the people of Malaysia should be united. We should remain calm and do what is necessary to create understanding and mutual trust." A few days later, the Straits Times of 25th July 1964 reported: "First Peace or Goodwill Committee was set up and their aim was to make effective arrangements for the mutual protection of residents regardless of race to prevent unruly elements from outside the area to come in and stir up trouble or communal hatred and to impress upon each race living in the area the need for restraining their own irresponsible members from creating agitation and communal misunderstandings." The next day, Singapore's Deputy Premier, Dr Toh Chin Chye, and three Ministers set out to meet leaders in their respective constituencies with the common purpose, which was to instill in people the urgency of maintaining inter-racial religious harmony in an inter-racial society and the dangers of allowing rumours to disrupt the peace and harmony in the State. By 27th July 1964, there were Peace or Goodwill Committees in all 51 constituencies. The newspapers also reported something else. They reported that some Chinese shopkeepers had refused to extend credit to Malay customers, and some hawkers had refused to sell to them at all. Steps were then taken to have the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and the other Chambers of Commerce to step in. At the same time, the CCCs - there were CCCs back then - together with the kampong penghulus and ketuas did a good job of easing the tension and fear caused between neighbours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I stand here today in support of the motion. We have, yesterday and earlier today, heard several references to the threat by the JI as being a new threat. But, actually, it is not new at all. If we really think about it, there are very few things under the sun which are new. The ideological basis and the means and the dimension might be new, but not the threat in itself. If we listen to the voice of Singapore's history, we will actually hear a very loud echo of what we are facing today. Let me just take Members back to life in September 1964, ie, about a year and a half after I was born, and probably before many people in Singapore were born. This was the headline in the Straits Times of 22nd July 1964: "Singapore curfew after clashes. The Acting Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak, made an appeal for calm in a broadcast tonight on the clashes which occurred in Singapore, to which 74 people were killed and about 178 injured, leading to the imposition of a curfew from 9.30 pm to 6.00 am. They quoted Mr Lee Kuan Yew at that time saying: "Each one of us shares a responsibility in keeping the situation here sane and rational." A disturbance had actually occurred during a mammoth procession which started from the Padang where, earlier in the afternoon, about 25,000 Muslims had gathered to commemorate the birthday of the Prophet. The incident which started the clashes was not immediately known, but scattered incidents were reported as the main body of the procession moved eastward towards Geylang. A series of incidents then occurred near Lorong 3, Geylang, just opposite the Gay World, where ice-water and other stalls were overturned. Fighting broke out between stallholders who grouped together and retaliated.”
“We will know these recommendations have succeeded when Singaporeans are no longer afraid of foreign talent, when we are no longer afraid of competition, when we know that we are innovative, creative enough to take on competition and foreign talent anywhere, anytime, any place. We will know we have succeeded when our SMEs are not afraid of our GLCs. We will know we have succeeded when we become internationally known, not just for being good stewards but good CEOs and good leaders. We will know we have succeeded when you signal and the person actually drops back and lets you change your lane. With this, I support the motion.”
“These recommendations are for JCs alone, but obviously, you cannot expect a student, who has always been thinking in the box, through nursery, primary, lower secondary, to suddenly to be able to think out of the box once he hits JC. If you have ever gone to the wet market and bought persimmons, they put these persimmons when they are not fully ripe into these boxes with carton grates and the cardboard grates are square. So after the persimmons ripen, they all come out square which is not their actual shape. If we have all these little "square persimmons" going through nursery, primary and lower secondary school, you cannot expect them to suddenly become round in JC. I am sure that MOE will be looking at this but I would urge them to reconsider the whole system. Finally, I come to how we measure our success. In today's Straits Times, Tan Tarn How in his column "From the Gallery" commented on the "mind-numbing surfeit of middle management minutia" and he said that the question that cries out to be asked is this: how does one know when one has succeeded? How should this recommendation be measured in terms of success? I agree, as he said that you cannot measure it by the usual pure academic yardstick of whether we are first in Mathematics or Sciences. He suggested that one way was using the measure that we lag behind in, the number of Nobel prize winners you can produce and the world famous academics, the number of patents filed. I disagree with that. The number of people who can actually achieve a Nobel prize and the number of people who become world-famous is very few. Our education system is for Singaporeans as a whole. This is what will be the measure of success.”
“If we want to reduce the stress and if we do not want to do away with the ranking system, then what I would do is to ask MOE to look at the other indicia of success, to signal to society that just because you do not make it to JC or university, it does not mean that you are not a success. That is why I fully support the recommendation for specialised schools for arts and sports, for example. But I would ask MOE to consider some form of signalling to parents that just because their children are in EM3 and land up in Normal (Technical) and ITE, that ITE is not the end. Find some form of signalling to parents that ITE is actually a beginning. Find some form of giving indicia to society whereby they can understand that their children are in this stream rather than in that stream, their children are not failures. It has to do with both the system as well as society. Having said all that, one area of concern I have, which is the same concern expressed by some of my colleagues in this House, is implementation. Who is going to design the curriculum? If it is the same people with the same ideas, you may have the same old things but just in a new packaging. I sincerely hope that when the new curriculum is designed, it will be what it was intended to be, which is fresh, new, innovative and exciting. And the teachers too matter because teachers obviously cannot change their mindsets overnight. If it is the same teachers, they have got to either be retrained or think of a different way in which to teach. Sir, I hope that the MOE will look at that as well. I am sure that MOE has already thought of these.”