Irene Ng Phek Hoong
Singapore
“Mdm Speaker, elder abuse may be more common than is recognised, particularly amongst seniors with dementia or other cognitive impairments. Does the Minister agree that the barriers to recognising and reporting elder abuse should be addressed? One of them is the lack of a clear definition of elder abuse.”
“I am heartened by the Minister's reply. In my duties as a Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) Member for Defence, I have interacted with many women officers, including commanders in combat units, and they hold their own in a male-dominated workforce.”
“Madam, my condolences again to the families and friends of those who lost their lives at the Sabah Earthquake. I thank the Minister for his reply and we support the Ministry's approach to outdoor adventure learning and its continuance.”
“Thank you, Madam. It is heartening to see how readily Singapore responded to the disaster in Nepal. I would like to ask the Second Minister: now that the disaster relief phase is coming to an end, how would Singapore contribute to the long-term reconstruction phase that follows?”
“This will help to sustain the practice and tradition and increase appreciation of their artistry within the community and beyond. We should also conserve the unique tools of traditional art forms, such as the last remaining dragon kiln in Singapore, and protect it as part of our heritage.”
“I would like to ask about the stress levels on the students. I welcome the Ministry of Education's (MOE) shift to go beyond grades. But, on the ground, Page: 123 the reality is that there is increasing pressure on the students to chase good grades, given the very competitive system and also the high expectations of parents.”
The complete record
Every one of 931 lines we hold for Irene Ng Phek Hoong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 19 of 19.
“Sir, the Government is an enlightened and exemplary employer in all aspects, except when it comes to the medical benefits scheme for civil servants. Under this scheme, family members of a female civil servant are not entitled to medical benefits in the same way as those of their male counterparts. Sir, tell me how I can explain to the women, such as our SAF women regulars and our many top women civil servants, that this is a patriarchal society, so just accept it? Women have made great strides over the years. We have a woman commanding officer in the artillery, and a woman captain of a ship in the Navy. If you are on a ship going to battle, it does not matter if you are a man or a woman. You are on the same battleship going to war, defending your country. The risk is the same. The rewards, too, must be equal. Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told us about the new Medisave scheme for civil servants. They have $350 worth of outpatient allowance that the men can use for their children but the women cannot. At the end of the year, the unused balance goes into their Medisave, which can be used to pay for their dependants' medical treatment. So, Deputy Prime Minister Lee said it is essentially the same. But it is not the same. The distinction found in the old scheme is still found in the new scheme. The men can use the $350 worth of outpatient allowance for their dependants and the women cannot. In dollar terms, the distinction may be very small but, in symbolic terms, nothing has changed. It is still unequal benefits for equal work. It is still unfair. Sir, on Monday, when Deputy Prime Minister Lee extended the procreation tax rebate to divorcees, he said, "It is not a lot of money, but it is a matter of fairness." Exactly. This is also about fairness.”
“The conditions under which work is performed, the livelihood it provides, and the solidarity shown by those doing well in this new economy towards those who are displaced by it - these are all measures of a decent society. Sir, I want to take this opportunity to also lend my voice and support to Halimah who asked for a review of the medical benefits scheme for women. I had intended to raise this as a Budget cut which I put under the Prime Minister's Office but I just want to say that it is an outmoded policy and it definitely needs to be reviewed. Sir, in his Address, the President called on us to remake Singapore together so that we will continue to thrive and prosper in an uncertain world. The world may be uncertain but we have to be certain about why we are embarking on this difficult journey as a people. It cannot be only for economic growth. In this globalised economy, growth rates can zig zag up and down very rapidly, as we have all found out, and if that is what we hitch our destiny and happiness to, we will be quite a sick people. Nausea cannot be a driving force. In facing these difficult times, we must equip and engage our people as citizens in shaping their future. This economic downturn will be worth all the troubles and problems they give us if they show up the areas which we need to work on, and teach us that the true worth of citizenship lies not in waiting selfishly to be helped, but in helping ourselves and our fellow citizens. We will need, in larger measure than before, the help and encouragement that the strong can give the weak. Thus helped, we all should rise to the path that leads to the objective we have all pledged ourselves to: "Happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation."”
“I am not saying that we should not help the middle-income families but I am saying that we should help them, but to help the lower-income more. They are the ones who are finding it hard to cope and they are the ones who should deserve our special attention. Sir, the fundamental task of every legitimate government is to secure the good society for its citizens. A good government has to discern the true interests of this country to invent and pursue policies that transcend the self-interest often revealed in public opinion. Another thing which worries me is how quickly despondency descends on the public mood when faced with bad times. The danger is that it can paralyse required efforts to turn retreat into advance. And this mood does not only affect the vulnerable groups, such as the lower-income and older workers, it seems that they are also spreading to the younger generation. In an Asian survey conducted last year for Coca-Cola, young Singaporeans are found to be the least optimistic among young people surveyed in eight countries. Asked if they agree that the future always offers more and new possibilities, only about 65% of Singaporeans say yes. This is compared to 84% in Malaysia and 91% in Thailand. One possible reason for this could be the trend towards more unemployed graduates. The latest labour force survey showed that the number of graduates unemployed rose from 6,600 in 1997 to more than 20,000 last year. The Government must give hope that the restructuring will yield jobs for the mass of Singaporeans and that it will indeed translate into a better Singapore with opportunities for all. Sir, employment is not just about numbers or a line on a chart.”
“It was with an eye on this widening gulf that Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had last year stressed the need to forge a new social compact. One prong of it is to pay particular attention to the needs of the lower-income Singaporeans. But going by the handout given by the Finance Minister, the table which says "Impact of Economic Restructuring Package on representative households", it would appear that those who gain most would be those in 4-room and 5-room flats, mainly because of the ERS. Unlike previous redistribution of budget surpluses, this time the allocation is not skewed in favour of the lower-income. Under the NSS scheme last year, the lower-income receives seven times more shares than the top earners. The Economic Restructuring Shares will be redistributed more evenly, with more than 90% of households receiving the maximum, 1,200 shares each and the rest, half of that. This does not help very much to narrow the income gap. In a sense, this focus on the middle-income is fair. The middle-class is also hit by restructuring, and in some cases, even harder, as they have to bear higher financial burdens than the lower-income. Middle-income families, as we know, now form the bulk of Singaporeans. About 60% of HDB owners live in 4- or 5-room flats. So perhaps it is right that they get attention this time round. On the other hand, unlike those without the skills to cope in the new economy, the middle-class Singaporeans have more resources and abilities to fall back on. It is this resilience that we need to encourage. There is a danger that all the welfare and wealth-sharing mechanisms and schemes will be taken for granted and that everybody would begin to expect them as a matter of course.”
“If a society becomes too thoroughly marketised, where everyone is an economic entity or else irrelevant, if the principle of private pursuit of personal gain becomes too dominant, then people become greedy and selfish. I fear that we might run that risk. Already, I hear that Singaporeans are not talking just about the 5Cs. They are now talking about promoting the need for the 5Ks - Kaki Ko Kaki. That is Hokkien for "to each, his own." If we go down that road, it undermines social relations that make life worth living. It treats people as things with an expiry date. It breeds alienation and rootlessness. It is crucial that we reinvigorate families, community groups and VWOs which stress responsibilities, duty and sharing, to counterbalance the ethic of private self-interest. The Government is trying to give a balance by raising public spending significantly on social development and by providing the ERS package. It is well aware of the need to promote a sense of community and to spread the benefits of growth across the board. I applaud particularly the tax measures to promote the spirit of philanthropy in individuals and corporations. Sir, no one disputes that faster growth is necessary to reduce poverty and the income gap between people. The more challenging question is whether economic growth itself is enough to achieve our social goals of creating a better home and a better future for all Singaporeans. The Government has long subscribed to the world view in which the rising tide lifts all boats, including many at the bottom. But increasingly, this world view is being challenged. The poor do get richer, but at a far slower pace than the higher-income group. This leads to a widening income gap. The latest measures to cut tax rates will widen this income gap further.”
“Most older workers seeking employment today want part-time work. However, new types of jobs suited to the older workers are still too scarce. Presently, only about 3% of workers work part-time in Singapore. Sir, I must declare my interest. I am working on a programme to give part-time work for older residents at my ward in a non-profit elderly centre in my constituency, Tampines-Changkat. I hope that such grassroots effort will receive the support of Government in terms of funding. The Government should consider providing funding to new businesses or projects that promote legitimate employment and training opportunities for these workers. They may not yield high-growth rates for the economy but it will give residents some useful pocket money and a greater sense of belonging. We should also provide incentives for VWOs and CDCs to expend employment opportunities for this group. In Africa, to help its older workers cope, the Government in Zimbabwe has given rural headmen in some areas to set aside one plot of land to be farmed jointly by the community. Private charities, such as HelpAge Zimbabwe, are also trying to set the elderly up with small businesses and collective farms. We do not have land to set up farms, but we can take the lead by running useful businesses and projects which involve older workers. These issues facing us today are not just technical economic issues. They are also moral and ethical ones. Those urging ever more tough market measures use the language of economic efficiency and individual enterprise. They tacitly assume that people stay the same regardless of the kind of social structures that surround them. This is not true.”
“First, redistribute the overall gains from free trade through subsidies to employers who hire and train such workers. The first step in this direction could be a tax credit. If tax credits prove insufficient, the Government should consider cash subsidies to firms that hire and train lower-skilled and older workers. Our People for Jobs Traineeship scheme should be expanded further. This is a better option than giving direct handouts to those hit by restructuring. It fosters self-reliance and self-respect. Second, review the effectiveness of the training programmes. There are many training programmes. There is no doubt that the Government has put a lot of thought and effort into rolling them out. The issue is how effective are they in securing better jobs for displaced workers in a fast-changing environment. It is a cause for worry that many of the places on the various training schemes still go unfilled. But we cannot expect hard-pressed workers to go for training just for the sake of it. They must be confident that it can reap some tangible benefits for them and their families. What is the point of going for retraining if at the end of it, jobs are still elusive. While I welcome the Finance Minister's assurance that the Government will not stint in its support for workers to upgrade themselves, we must ask, given our scarce budget resources, how high are the returns on this slew of programmes. We must identify the effective programmes that can lead to better jobs for workers, rather than roll out many programmes with minimal returns. Third, we should address the issue of quality of work for older workers. This means modifying the organisation of work, working hours and working life in general to the needs and abilities of the older workers.”
“This is often because the jobs that are created are way beyond their skills level or in entirely new high-tech fields. Their problem is one of structural unemployment. This is a problem confronting many developed countries and many countries in transition. In Singapore, the problem is being felt on the ground. I see a steady stream of older workers and lower-skilled workers coming to my meet-the-people sessions begging for jobs. The success rate of job matching at the North-east CDC does not give much cause for cheer. Despite its best efforts to find jobs for 1,220 job applicants from January to March this year, only 41 of them were successfully matched with a job. This is about a 3% success rate. The main reasons cited for the low rate: shrinking vacancies in the job market, more retrenchments, the mindsets of employers and job seekers. Sir, it is not helpful for us to keep lamenting that they are choosy about work or have unreasonable pay expectations. Some, especially the older workers, tell me that they are prepared to take lower pay but employers just refuse to give them a foot in the door. Companies are also reluctant to send their older workers for retraining and upgrading programmes, preferring to invest in their younger workers. All these biases and practices against the older workers, including the skilled ones, must be overturned, especially given the fact that Singapore has an aging population. Will the lower-skilled and older workers have a place in this new Singapore? If the Government can go out of its way to save and conserve marine life in Chek Jawa, surely, it should expend even more effort in saving and preserving the economic shelf life of our lower-skilled and older workers. To this end, I would like to make four suggestions.”
“Sir, the Budget this year is hard-headed, yet compassionate. It is hard-headed in its determination to restructure Singapore and at a time when unemployment is hurting some 100,000 Singaporeans. Put them together, and that is more than three-quarters the population size of Tampines GRC, my constituency. Indeed, the restructuring process is likely to cause more blood to be spilled in the job market. But as the Finance Minister pointed out, this decisive move to restructure the economy is this country's best hope of staying ahead of the race and creating jobs for our people. This hard-headedness is balanced by compassion, with the close attention paid to those who will be affected by the restructuring process. The Government should be commended for working out a generous Economic Restructuring Package, including the ERS, and for promising that all lower-income households will not be worse off with the hike in GST rates. However, I have several concerns. They revolve around the kind of society that we are building. First, the measures are said to be aimed ultimately at creating jobs. But jobs for whom? Most likely, for the skilled and nimble workers who are able to compete in the new economy. But if there are not enough of them, we say, "bring in the foreigners". Let me make clear that I am not against this policy. It is good for Singapore that higher value-added jobs will come in, such as in biotechnology and in the life sciences. It generates growth for this country and helps to secure our economic future. But where does that leave our lower-income, lower-skilled and our older workers? Figures show that they are often the first casualties of the restructuring process.”
“I would urge the Government to ensure that the quality of future NMPs is not compromised even as it widens the groups to be represented here. Presently, the selection process is not transparent. Can the Minister assure us that the selection process is rigorous enough? We must keep high the entry bar. At the end of the day, the usefulness of the scheme depends on the quality of the NMPs. They must be intellectually honest, pro-Singapore and offer useful views that will make for a better Singapore. I am glad that we have this debate, if only to remind the NMPs that if and when they sit among us, it is only at the pleasure of a strong Government and the individual elected MPs in this House. On that note, I urge my fellow MPs to vote for the motion alongside with me.”
“This scheme provides an easy alternative to be here. They just pop up in Parliament, all nice and neat, make a speech and the next day, they appear in the newspapers. Whereas, the rest of us have to slog it out on the ground, hair dishevelled, pumping hands, staying at MPS late at nights, attending countless grassroots meetings. And for my married women colleagues, they go home and they have also to meet the needs of their families. Often, we do our best work as MPs out of the limelight, championing the causes of our residents conscientiously. Hence, the concern that, if given a choice to women, they would probably go for the NMP scheme than to join politics full-time. I share this reservation. But I am also pragmatic. Politics, the election kind, is still seen as a male-dominated field in Singapore today. Indeed, I have heard reservations expressed that if a strong woman candidate were to contest in a single seat against a weak male candidate, it is very hard to say whether the female would win even though the merit is with her, even though she is a superior candidate in all aspects. Our society is still a patriarchal one, I am often reminded. So, given this patriarchal system that we are operating under today, I would say that if the NMP scheme will help bring in more women and for them to share their valuable perspectives with us, then let them in. With more female voices in Parliament, we can work better towards our vision of a society where all citizens, including women, live their lives experiencing justice and equality as a right and not by grace or favour. I started my speech by saying that I supported the scheme because previous batches had proven its usefulness.”
“Recently, I was involved in two dialogues with two separate groups of young Singaporeans. One group was undergraduates, the other group was Secondary 3 and Secondary 4 students from the Gifted Education Programme. Some students in both groups expressed scepticism about how ready the PAP was to accommodate alternative views. I pointed to the diverse slate of the PAP MPs, especially the new ones, as a sign of PAP Government's openness to different views and to the easing of the Party Whip. I also pointed to the NMP scheme as another example. This is not just a case of the Government being open to alternative views. This is a case of a Government going out of its way to consciously make room for alternative views. How many governments would initiate a scheme that allows non-elected MPs to speak up in Parliament, and even a non-elected Opposition Member to be here with us? It must be a strong Government, confident of the ability of its MPs to hold their own in the House as well as on the ground. Therefore, the NMP scheme should not be seen as an indictment on the quality of PAP MPs in the House. On the contrary, the NMP scheme is the by-product of the PAP's success. The third reason I support the NMP scheme is because it could help to increase the number of MPs from under-represented groups, such as women. It is true that the number has increased in this latest batch to 10 - but we are still under-represented. It is a fact that we have a hard time finding good women to stand for elections. It exacts considerable sacrifice in both their personal, family and professional lives, as many of us have found out. Some of my women colleagues here have expressed their worry to me that this NMP scheme would only make it more difficult for us to persuade women to stand for elections.”
“Nearly every political philosopher, from Aristotle, Confucius to Max Weber, has agreed that the provision of a good or just society is the end purpose of government. We cannot always agree on what defines a good society, but at the minimum, the people from a very wide spectrum society can all feel that they all get a fair hearing here. This gives a sense of legitimacy to a dynamic and complex society. This will also increase their sense of belonging to the country. When I stood for elections last November, I said that the younger generation wanted a greater say in policy-making, and that they wanted a more transparent and accountable system. I saw one of my roles as an MP as furthering this cause. This brings me to the second reason for supporting this scheme. It opens the door for more Singaporeans, who are credible, to have a greater say in policy-making in all areas, and at the highest levels. To that extent, it does make for a more accountable and transparent system. Recently, it was announced that the door will be opened wider to usher in a greater variety of groups. The number of functional groups will be doubled from three to six to reflect a wider spectrum of society. Besides business, unions and professional groups, they now include representatives from social and community service organisations, as well as the media, the arts and sports organisations. This is to be welcomed. It encourages active citizenship, which is one of our mantras in Singapore 21. It also reflects our seriousness in remaking Singapore, to go beyond the 5Cs and to nurture our budding civil society, as well as the arts and the sports. It would also send a signal that this PAP-dominant Parliament is a dynamic and bold one.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. I support it for three reasons. First, since the NMP scheme was introduced in 1989, the NMPs in each cohort had justified the usefulness of this scheme. By and large, they had contributed to a lively debate and, as the previous Members have said, to our constant search for better solutions to the many complex problems facing this country. I have a confession: when I was a political correspondent sitting up there in the Press Gallery, I would often look forward to hearing some NMPs speak. They included Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin and we know the work they have done here. Their views were often refreshing. They added different dimensions to the issue being discussed. I think Parliament debates would have been the poorer if they had not been present. They easily outshone the Opposition. This is not to say that the PAP MPs did not make refreshing speeches. Many did. But as we have said so often, nobody enjoys a monopoly over wisdom. And the fact remains that some NMPs did add to the debate in constructive and meaningful ways. That conclusion, which I made when I was a journalist, does not change just because I have migrated down to the Chamber. On the contrary, because I am a PAP MP, I feel it is incumbent on me to support this scheme. The PAP is the dominant party in the House. One reason it is dominant is because it is a party that is constantly evolving to stay in tune with the times and that is always searching for ways to secure a better future for Singaporeans. To keep NMPs out, just because we, the elected MPs, came in the hard way, is to lose sight of the greater good. We must take the moral high ground that what is good for society must be the foremost concern.”
“Singapore's position is that it has no impact on shipping lanes, no effect on the environmental situation in the Straits. But given Malaysia's position that it has an impact and that it has indicated that it will send a note, looking forward, how do you see this being resolved, or would it be yet another issue in our tangle of problems?”
“It will also be determined by how well we stand together as one nation, with full confidence and trust in each other, so that we can respond with unity and quickly to any crisis that may befall us, just like before. The more successful must help the less successful. We should give the slow developers and the underdog a chance to catch up. We must provide them the opportunities to try and encourage them to succeed. We need to imbue greater passion and compassion in our way of life. A less materialistic outlook and a more forgiving culture would contribute to mutual trust and building bonds. These values, to me, are pre-requisites for any attempt to remake Singapore successfully. I am confident that Singaporeans have the will, and will find the way to succeed again!”
“Perhaps Government departments should take the lead on some of these efforts of reintegration by consciously giving them employment as well as relaxing the rules and regulations governing the issue of permits or licences to these people. Similarly, for bankrupts, it is a real social stigma in Singapore today to be a bankrupt. It is associated with failure. Genuine attempts by individuals resulting in failure have to be recognised and accepted by society, if we are to progress to be a more entrepreneurial and enterprising nation. I therefore propose that the Government reviews all relevant policies, rules and procedures with a view to make it easier for this group of Singaporeans to be accepted back in society. Similarly, Sir, there is another group of Singaporeans who require help and I am referring to those who want to marry foreigners or work permit holders. Many have no choice. They have neither proper education nor 'As' or 'Cs' in their lives. They cannot find Singaporean wives. They have a genuine desire to love someone, play their role as filial sons or daughters, set up a family and do their part for the community. We should encourage them, instead of denying them to get married. I propose that the Government reviews its policy on contract marriages, and suggest that civil servants show more compassion and make it easier for this group of Singaporeans to marry foreigners. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, the measure of our success as a nation hence is not just about being able to navigate the rough seas and unpredictable tides that we will face with the new skills and technology acquired, or new attitudes and perspectives.”
“Those of you who have seen the popular local movies "I Not Stupid" and "Money Not Enough" will agree with me that they clearly show that the average Singaporeans struggling to earn a living or raising a family can themselves be capable and creative. They can achieve far beyond what our society judges them by the number of 'As' they have or have not, or the number of 'Cs' that they have or have not collected along the way in life. To get there, our society has to be warm, forgiving and nurturing, rather than judgmental, cold and just plain competitive. We need to imbue passion and compassion into our way of living. This reminds me of another local movie production, "Chicken Rice Wars", where it shows that passion and compassion unites the community, the family and even couples. Sir, in this exercise to remake Singapore, I suggest we seriously look into collectively changing our attitude towards a group of Singaporeans, often called the underdog, and they are not small in number. They are the slow developers, the under-performers and the less fortunate in our society. We need to help them. We have to show greater sympathy and compassion in helping to solve their problems. Sir, our experience as Members of Parliament tells us that it is very difficult for Singaporeans who are ex-prisoners, ex-drug abusers or any person convicted of an offence and having to spend some time in jail, to seek re-employment or be integrated back into society. All the efforts to rehabilitate these individuals will fall flat if our society cannot accept them back. We need to be more forgiving to these people.”
“The more successful must continue to help the less fortunate in our society. Sir, going forward, although different Singaporeans may follow the beat to different drums, the general direction for all Singaporeans must be one of improvement in the quality of life for everyone, such that no one group is left behind. Indeed, in facilitating the next stage of promoting economic opportunity and growth, our core Singaporean values of diligence, meritocracy, honesty and integrity, have to be blended with more risk taking and creativity, so that the Singapore brand is preserved and enhanced, and not abandoned. I hope our Economic Review Committee and the Committee looking into Remaking Singapore will bear this in mind. Sir, to me, remaking Singapore is not just about economic growth and material success. To be successful as a country, we have to develop a heart and a soul. Our cultural attitudes and mindsets ought to be less focussed on material success measured by the number of 'As' we get in school, or the number of 'Cs' one owns. There is a need to be more flexible, less structured in our expectations of ourselves and of our children, in terms of where they should be at what age. Different individuals of different talents and capabilities will progress down different paths. We should enable them to be the best that they can be, without the social stigma associated with banding, streaming in schools, jobs, etc, putting a lid on budding talent. I am sure many of my colleagues in this House will agree with me that "ITE" cannot be "It's the End".”
“Whilst we should indeed revisit some "sacred cows", which may no longer be relevant in this day and age, we should not throw out the "baby with the bath water". There is a need to recognise certain core values and tenets of our success, and ensure that in our attempts to redefine our goals and priorities, we do not abandon and lose our heartbeat for what is good and fundamental to our society as Singaporeans. Of immediate relevance in the post September 11 world would be the precarious hallmark of racial integration and harmony that we have built up over the years. Whilst there is a need to liberalise and enable greater diversity in ideas and culture to flourish here and to stimulate creativity, this should never be at the expense of damaging the bonds built up over the years between our different ethnic and religious groups. Sir, one need not look very far to be inundated with media reports on the daily human tragedy in the Middle East, in India, in the Balkans and amongst some regions in our neighbouring countries on the cost of racial and religious intolerance and conflicts. We have to continue to ensure that in remaking Singapore, avenues to foster better relations and build closer bonds remain a basic building block of our society. Likewise, we have to ensure that Singaporeans as a whole continue to progress, so that no one group is left behind. Our traditional building blocks of family and community should continue to have a relevant role to play in the future. For example, in order to avoid the hardship and problems that large disparities in income have caused in many other countries, we must remember that our success will continue only if the successful continue to contribute back to society and the community.”
“These are my two clarifications, Sir. Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I join my colleagues in this House in rising to thank the President for his Address at the Opening of this Parliament. Sir, having been in Parliament since 1984, I feel privileged to have been intimately involved in the transformation of Singapore for the last 18 years, both economically as well as culturally and socially. Over the years, many committees were formed to remake Singapore in varying degrees. And over the years, we have shown that we were able to plan ahead and change to better our economic prospects and improve the lives of our citizens despite being just a "tiny red dot" in an ocean of much political and economic uncertainty. Sir, we are once again at the crossroads to remake Singapore - in all respects so that we can ensure that the success that is Singapore today will continue for our children and many generations to come. It is inevitable that if we are to continue to succeed and prosper, we will have to make changes to our policies and even to our way of governing Singapore. Change is necessary and desirable in so far as it allows for progress and improvement in this increasingly complex global economic environment. I am therefore in full support of this national exercise involving many communities and many younger Singaporeans to redefine our goals and priorities and remake Singapore. Sir, I am of the view that this exercise is of paramount importance, and that we should not rush to complete it. By all means, take time to debate and build up consensus among Singaporeans on what we want Singapore to be and how to get there. However, I would like to add a word of caution to my younger colleagues and fellow citizens involved in this project to remake Singapore.”
“Another clarification I wish to make is that I did not also advocate laws where employers are compelled to employ on the basis of gender distribution. That would be against the ethos of meritocracy, and I did not advocate that. But what I did advocate was a level playing field for women. I am also heartened by the assurances of the Manpower Minister ---”
“Sir, may I make a point of clarification. I feel that some of my points were not interpreted correctly earlier. When I advocated equal opportunity laws, I made it clear that I was actually advocating mediation and not a legalistic approach. In fact, I stated that I was not advocating that the legal whip be brandished at every point. I would think that the fact that only 0.2% of the cases in the US resulted ---”
“It is a personal and national investment in a future that we hope to create for ourselves and our children, with a national character we can be proud of and can call our own. But more importantly, it must be because we want to realise our hopes and ideals as Singaporeans - one united people, regardless of race, language and religion, building a democratic society based on justice and equality. Sir, on that note, I support the motion. 1.30 pm”
“It was because of these principles that Singapore separated from Malaysia and we are today an independent country. Sir, these principles strike a deep chord in me. I left Malaysia for Singapore when I was 16 because this country offered me the opportunity to live my life based on these principles. I became a Singaporean because I wanted to be a part of a country that upholds these principles. Its ideals have become my own. And I became an MP because I want to contribute to a country that pursues these precious ideals. I know only too well that they cannot be taken for granted. We need to institutionalise them. Leaders may come and go, but institutions stay. In his Address, the President called on us to remake Singapore together, so that we will continue to thrive and prosper as a country. Sir, the Government also needs to remake itself, to respond more readily to the genuine concerns of the people. I have met too many Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans who wonder, somewhat sceptically, whether the Government really listens. They say, "Why bother to speak up when the Government has already made up its mind?" But to take this attitude is to throw in the towel even before the bell rings. "Why?" a young Singaporean might ask, "Why should I get involved in this difficult process of remaking Singapore?" To answer that it is for this country's survival is only begging the question, because why is this country's survival so important? The earth is a big place. When the going gets tough, we can disperse and leave for other lands as our forefathers did. I would answer that Singaporean this way - because this is the very essence of being a Singaporean! It is about overcoming adversity.”
“The principle of equality and non-discrimination is. Sir, if I may turn to multi-racialism. We stand for multi-racialism and gradual integration but presently, we lack national institutions to promote it in a coordinated and concerted way. We have the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, but it is preventive. It prevents matters from escalating and creating tensions and conflicts between different religious groups. We also have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. Its role is also preventive. It is to review and draw attention to any Bill or to any subsidiary legislation that, when put in practice, might discriminate against any racial or religious community. They serve important functions, but neither is set up to promote multi-racialism positively and to push the multi-racial agenda forward. The Prime Minister has recently set up a new National Steering Committee on the Inter-Racial Confidence Circles to foster confidence between the different races. This is a promising step forward. But I would argue that it can and should go further. We should build on this gradually. In time, it should be the umbrella body for all the ethnic-based self-help groups and be the institution to promote a multi-racial approach to solving problems. I hope we will eventually also see a Minister in charge of multi-cultural affairs overseeing this crucial area, just as we have a Minister in charge of Muslim Affairs overseeing the Malay community's interests. Sir, it is important to institutionalise our founding principles because they define who we are as a people and as a nation. Our founding fathers had fought long and hard for these principles of equality and multi-racialism.”
“Women in Singapore have made great strides in Singapore over the years, yet they are still under-represented in the upper echelons of power in society. Women have a particular interest in ensuring that our social and economic policies are sound. Women are often combining several jobs at one time - as a mother, a wife, a caregiver to elderly parents, a volunteer in the community, and as a worker. They know that issues like child care, access to healthcare services and to training programmes are closely connected to their ability to participate on an equal basis in the labour market. To ensure that the voices of women are heard at all levels and that their potential is maximised, the Government should set up a national body to promote their full participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of the country. Why not set up a Women Affairs Ministry or department for this? Or at the very least, a National Women's Council, on par with the National Youth Council which is headed by a Cabinet Minister? Many countries have entire Ministries or departments to promote the status of women and their full integration into the national development process. These countries include the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Sweden and Fiji. In Sweden, its Minister for Gender Equality Affairs works with the Equal Opportunity Ombudsman to promote gender equality in working life. Not surprisingly, many of these countries have produced strong women leaders. In Singapore, it has been said that we are a patriarchal society and some of our policies have to reflect this, such as medical benefits for civil servants. But the last time I checked the Constitution, Sir, I did not see patriarchy being enshrined as one of its founding principles.”
“It is time that we considered setting up an agency such as the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC), found in countries such as the United States, Britain, Hongkong and Australia. It enforces all the laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender or national origin in their countries. The laws include the Equal Pay Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as the Age Discrimination Act which protects individuals who are 40 years or older. We do not have such provisions. In recommending a version of the Equal Opportunity Commission for Singapore, I am not advocating that the legal whip be brandished at every opportunity. Even in the United States, its EOC has placed increasing emphasis on mediation, rather than taking employers to court. In Australia, its Commissioner for Equal Opportunity investigates and tries to conciliate complaints. The Commissioner refers the complaints to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal only when the conciliation process has failed. The Equal Opportunity Tribunal is an independent statutory body in Australia. Some may be concerned whether this mechanism will introduce job rigidities and affect economic growth. It is an unnecessary worry. There is little evidence of this in the countries that have the equal opportunity laws. Indeed, one can argue that it strengthens the job market as it ensures transparency and meritocracy; the best person for the job. But having an EOC alone, I submit, may not be adequate for the challenges ahead. We need more. We also need to build institutional pillars for specific areas. If I may, I would like to focus on two areas: gender equality and multi-racialism.”
“In this respect, we need to examine if our social structures and institutions are adequate to ensure that our Constitutional principles of non-discrimination and equality are protected and promoted. If a woman is discriminated at the workplace because she is pregnant, where can she go to seek redress? If a company discriminates at the workplace in terms of its recruitment and promotion by race, nationality or age, where can the aggrieved workers go to seek a fair hearing? Members of Parliament, unions and the Manpower Ministry can and do occasionally take up such complaints. But they tend to be piecemeal, ad hoc affairs. And let us face it - they lack the time and resources to investigate each case thoroughly. The Employment Act does give some protection to those who have been sacked unfairly because of discrimination. But its effect is rather like a band-aid plastered over a crack on the wall when gaps are opening up from beneath our feet. The right to equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination are entrenched in our Constitution. But Singapore has yet to establish a body with teeth to enforce these principles. It prefers to use "the persuasion, moral suasion and promotional way'' to nudge employers down the path. I question if this is good enough, especially in this increasingly stressful environment. If we do not give people a legitimate avenue to seek redress, the gaps will become political traps. Instead of working positively to find solutions, people will politicize the issues and political opportunists, both at home and abroad, will jump on the bandwagon gladly. This will do greater harm to our social cohesion in the long run.”
“The women's unemployment rate rose from about 4% in 1999 to above 6% in 2000. The increase for their male counterparts was lower. Finally, the ethnic divide. While all ethnic groups have enjoyed good income growth over the years, the Malays continue to lag behind the other races. Still, they have made tangible progress - more Malays are better-educated and better-skilled today, and more are taking on professional, managerial and executive jobs. However, since the September 11th terrorist attacks, there has been some concern among the Malay-Muslim community if employers may now treat them differently because of their increasing religiosity. Their concern may well be unfounded, but still, they persist. We need to address these divides and these genuine concerns. Meritocracy is one of our founding principles, so is the principle of equality of treatment and non-discrimination. We must make it clear that discrimination based on race, religion, gender, age or national origin is not tolerated in Singapore. We must give each individual and each group the confidence and hope that they have equal opportunities to realise their aspirations, even if unequal outcomes are the result. We cannot guarantee success, but we must guarantee equality of opportunity. The progress may be uneven, each person or group sometimes gaining, sometimes losing, sometimes climbing, sometimes stumbling, but always treated fairly and with respect. And above all, always given a fair hearing. When this process is working, even those who have the least success in realising their objectives will conclude that the system itself is fair, just and legitimate.”
“Mr Speaker Sir, I support the Motion of Thanks to the President. In his Address, the President stressed on the need to maintain and strengthen our social cohesion. I see this as the most pressing issue facing us today. Sir, I would like to highlight four insidious divides that threaten us from within. First, there is the nationality divide, as Singapore pursues its policy of attracting international talent to sharpen its competitive edge in the global economy. While this is a sound policy, some Singaporeans are increasingly concerned that they would be treated as second class citizens in their own country. Many continue to harbour misgivings that employers are hiring foreigners for jobs that they can do just as well themselves. Second, there is the age divide, as older Singaporeans find themselves left behind by the new economy and increasingly disconnected from the aspirations of the younger generation. Many older workers complain of age discrimination in the workplace and in the job market. And this is despite all the incentives and persuasion by the Manpower Ministry for employers to hire older workers. Third, the gender divide. Despite making up 54% of the workforce today, women earn only about 78% of what their male counterparts earn. There are still pockets of sexual discrimination, such as unequal benefits for equal work at the civil service. While there have been advances for women in some areas, they have not kept pace with the massive influx of women into the labour market. As a consequence, women run a much higher risk of being poorer than men. They are also more vulnerable to retrenchments. Census 2000 found that women in their late 30s and 40s had relatively large increases in unemployment rate compared to their male counterparts.”