Janil Puthucheary
Singapore
“Sir, I thank Ms Lee for her two supplementary questions, which address what are our targets and what is it that we measure. Indeed, the issue of how we should think about recycling and waste disposal will be at the heart of our review of our Zero Waste Masterplan.”
“Another strategy that we are embarking on is the strengthening of the reuse of waste residue and treated toxic industrial waste before and after they are landfilled.”
“Sir, about half of our recycling material is exported. It is processed overseas. There are business arrangements between businesses here in Singapore and businesses in the region or overseas, to be able to handle the recycling of waste and recycling of material, whether domestic or non-domestic, already today.”
“Sir, I thank Ms Poh for her questions. Indeed, we do have to shift behaviours. The incentives and disincentives around recycling and waste disposal are an important part of it. We will consider her suggestion on looking at the fees.”
“The heat advisory that goes out is clearly defined. In my original answer, I explained what a heat wave was. There are clear definitions that we have been using in Singapore since 2016, if I recall. It was then last revised in 2023.”
“Sir, in the planning of schools, the Ministry of Education ensures that our students can access a primary school near their homes. Except for a small number, 15 of Special Assistance Plan schools, all primary schools offer the three official mother tongue languages.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,326 lines we hold for Janil Puthucheary, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 27.
“Such children are actively identified and the focus at the preschool years is then on providing high-quality language and early literacy instruction, without rushing to make a diagnosis for a problem that may be temporary. The literacy support and interventions can still be carried out and are effective. As I had updated the House last year, MOE has expanded the Focused Language Assistance in Reading (FLAiR) programme to support more kindergarten children who have difficulty learning English. Since 2007, FLAiR has benefited more than 21,000 children. Mr Louis Ng had asked how MOE acts against negligent parents who do not ensure that their child attends school. He mentioned the Compulsory Education Act which holds parents responsible for their children's attendance at school. Imposing penalties, as provided for under the Act, does not necessarily solve the root problems of non-attendance. MOE takes a holistic approach by working together with parents, schools, the Family Service Centres (FSCs) and relevant agencies to counsel and support the family and help all students attend school. Legal enforcement should be the last resort, considered only if all possible interventions and counselling efforts have been exhausted. To date, we have not found it necessary to resort to prosecution. Beyond formal curriculum hours, Student Care Centres (SCCs), as Dr Lim pointed out, play an important role in providing a conducive after-school environment for our students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Over the last five years, we have increased the number of school-based SCCs to 147, supporting more than 18,000 students.”
“But we do hope to go beyond disability awareness to encouraging our students to appreciate different abilities and to show care towards all. Our schools are also involved in "Values in Action" projects, or in Satellite Partnerships with SPED schools, which allow our students to directly engage and interact with peers of different abilities. Madam, MOE believes in the importance of quality education, starting from the preschool years. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Dr Lim Wee Kiak had asked about our MOE Kindergartens (MKs) which provide quality and affordable preschool education. The fees are comparable to the Anchor Operators, and eligible children receive assistance from the Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), To attract capable educators, MK teachers are remunerated competitively. Children from MKs have been able to transit well into the primary schools. The experience from running the 15 MKs has been valuable in establishing good practices and in developing teaching and learning resources and for sharing these with the rest of the preschool sector. As Minister Ng announced last month, MOE will open another three new MKs in Punggol to serve the high demand there. We will continue to assess the progress of our pilot MKs and review our plans as part of the Government's overall efforts to strengthen the preschool sector. Assoc Prof Daniel Goh had asked if MOE would implement early detection of dyslexia at the preschool level. Every year, there are some very young children who need more time to develop fluency in oral language skills, as a result of a number of problems with literacy, including but not limited to, dyslexia.”
“In the post-secondary space, our Post-Secondary Education Institutions (PSEIs) have SEN Support Offices to support students in securing internships and jobs. Our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) also work with SG Enable to provide internship opportunities for students with SEN to build up their professional network and gain practical job-related skills. MOE has also broadened the use of the Post-Secondary Education Account (PSEA) to include approved training courses under SG Enable. This will support persons with disabilities in continuing training beyond their school years. The House would be familiar with the School-to-Work transition programme, a collaboration between MOE and SG Enable for work-capable SPED students. The outcomes have been positive and we look forward to more students benefiting from this programme. I should highlight that such positive outcomes for our students would not have been possible without strong support from our community and industry partners. Their open hearts and minds have made a big difference to the lives of our SPED students. I will encourage more partners and employers to step forward and play a part in enabling opportunities for our students. In response to Mr Dennis Tan's question, MOE currently employs 80 persons with disabilities. MOE tries to be an inclusive employer and is working with SG Enable to explore opportunities to recruit persons with disabilities into more suitable positions. Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about disability awareness, which is an important element of our Character and Citizenship Education curriculum. It is useful to set aside time for students to discuss such issues face-to-face with their teachers and peers.”
“Mdm Chairman, MOE will work with parents and the community to build up strong academic fundamentals, healthy living habits and a resilient mindset. MOE is also committed to helping those in our schools who may need more attention and support to access these opportunities. I assure Ms Denise Phua that MOE is committed to supporting the education of all our students with special educational needs (SEN). Three-quarters of these students are supported in our mainstream schools and are able to access the same curriculum and opportunities which equip all our children with skills and knowledge for the future economy. These students are supported by our Allied Educators and a core group of teachers in each school trained to support children with special needs. Ms Chia Yong Yong asked about how we train our professionals. There are key service providers delivering structured training programmes for our school personnel. MOE works with the National Institute of Education (NIE) to provide both pre- and in-service training in special needs for Allied Educators (AEDs) and teachers. Voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) are also involved in providing in-service courses and professional advice. Besides training, MOE also facilitates the sharing of evidence-based practice and strategies that work well amongst school personnel. We have always been working closely with our partners to improve the quality, accessibility and affordability of MOE-funded special education (SPED) schools and to enable our students to realise their potential for independent living. Mr Perera asked about the challenges faced by schools in engaging bus contractors. We will work with other Government agencies to explore how best to encourage more bus operators to serve SPED students.”
“Rather than see threats and disruption, we must continue to see the world through the eyes of a startup, full of promise and full of opportunity. Similarly, we need to be committed to keep learning, trying and striving. It is with that attitude, and with the Government, businesses and people coming together, that we will become the best place in the world to incubate the next big change, a Smart Nation at the leading edge of the digital technology revolution.”
“De Bao is hearing-impaired and has designed an app for the hearing-impaired which transcribes conversations in real-time. In order to use an app like this to transcribe natural language, you would need to hold the phone with a microphone close to your mouth so that your speech is captured clearly. As the text is transcribed, it comes out on the phone, the right way up for you, the speaker. As such, it is upside down for the person you are facing, the hearing-impaired person that you are trying to translate to. So, what you have to do is to pass the phone back and forth, which interrupts the flow of conversation and makes it not an enabler, but a disruptor to the conversation you are trying to have between a hearing-impaired person and someone who is not. So, De Bao designed his own app. Very simply, it is a natural language processing engine which flips the text upside down, so you can keep it there, by your mouth, and you can have a conversation back and forth. It seems like a very simple design change, but it is very useful and has been used regularly. From there, he has now a portfolio of over 15 different applications and went on to become a software developer. He is now working at AutoDesk. With De Bao's experience, IMDA is looking at ways to better promote the use of technology amongst persons with disabilities. The disruption, innovation and ideas are here today. We cannot be planning for something in the future. They are here right now and we need to be active and proactive about embracing the opportunities that are available. Mdm Chairman, the path ahead in any time of change is uncertain. But we have never shied away from a challenge to seize opportunities and deliver results.”
“DC Frontiers had seen this coming, embraced this change and now has a proactive, structured programme in place to reskill and redeploy its own workers and analysts and keep them within the company. This willingness to be reskilled and to keep learning has become part of the company's ethos. So, now, when they hire someone into their company − and they are still hiring, despite this disruption – they are looking at the skillsets of that person not just for the job they have been hired for, but considering whether two to three years from now, that this person is suitable and adaptable to being reskilled and redeployed into a new vocation and job. 5.15 pm DC Frontiers is not brand new. It is about six years old and has gone international with offices overseas and clients across borders. It has done significant work. It is not a startup anymore, although it behaves like a startup through an attitude of bringing people in with a willingness to disrupt themselves, their business models and internal work processes, and redeploy both themselves and their workers going forward, and making that part of the company's ethos. DC Frontiers has retained the startup mentality even as they have scaled up and gone international. This is a very useful mental model, a frame of mind for us as a nation and as we deal with digital disruption and consider the possibilities ahead of us. But it is not just about our national effort, it is not just about a single company's efforts to be disruptive and innovative. It goes all the way down to the individuals and the opportunities they have here in Singapore today, and not just the Singapore of tomorrow. I would like to share about Mr Chua De Bao, whom I learnt about when I visited SG Enable.”
“IMDA already has a variety of programmes in place. We are expanding the Home Access Programme, which provides low-income households with low-cost broadband connectivity at home and a tablet, to benefit a further 16,000 households, in addition to the existing 8,000 households on the current programme. We also partner private sector organisations in these efforts, such as the Post Office Savings Bank (POSB), the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) FairPrice Foundation and NetLink Trust. I hope that among these types of outreach efforts and the examples provided by some of the members about volunteerism for our young, that more organisations and more youth volunteers will step forward and come on board to work with us to make sure that everybody in Singapore has an opportunity to participate in the digital age. Mdm Chairman, we have talked about the transformations we need to make to respond to the rapid technological changes. But this is not something only for the future. Disruption is here and companies are already transforming to respond to it. DC Frontiers is one such company. It has applied natural language processing and machine learning technology in an innovative way to analyse corporate financial data and unstructured text from public domains. Its programme fuses this data together with their clients' own database to provide strategic intelligence that their clients can use to make decisions about their strategic investments. And it can do so in a shorter amount of time and get better and sharper all the time. But DC Frontiers itself has faced an internal disruption. The artificial intelligence (AI) programme that it has built has now taken over the jobs of their own analysts who were making the AI machine faster, sharper and better.”
“We are committed to making it easier to access Government digital services. Currently, we have trained staff at 27 Citizen Connect Centres island-wide to assist less tech-savvy users in accessing Government digital services. At these Citizen Connect Centres, you can perform many Government digital services, such as requesting for your Central Provident Fund (CPF) statement, applying or renewing Housing and Development Board (HDB)/Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) season parking tickets, online registration for SingPass and more. It is important that we enable our seniors to keep up with these changes and, hopefully, become IT-independent. One way we are doing so is through the Intergen IT Bootcamps and the Silver IT Fest Mass IT workshops. Through these, IMDA has been collaborating with primary to tertiary-level schools to provide opportunities for the younger and older generations to come together and learn about IT. Seniors can also learn about IT at any of the 29 Silver Infocomm Junctions and People's Association's Senior Academy Centres available island-wide where affordable and customised IT classes are available. IMDA will continue collaborations with schools and organisations and regularly review the curriculum to ensure seniors are equipped with applicable skills, such as using social media apps and accessing Government digital services. Interested youths can sign up to be Friends of Silver Infocomm volunteers to help seniors at such events and participate in the Silver IT Fest classes as well. Given our libraries enjoy a wide reach among our citizens, they can also play a bigger role in the future in assisting citizens with Government digital services. There are other ways to support more families in benefiting from connectivity.”
“For example, a Developers' portal was introduced last year to provide data users and developers easier access to real-time data via application programming interfaces (APIs). DIPO will also work with Government agencies to release more economically-useful data through data.gov.sg. I encourage Members to investigate that uniform resource locator (URL) as well. Central to this is the trust that citizens have about the use of their data. I thank Dr Teo Ho Pin and Mr Saktiandi Supaat for their questions on data protection. As companies innovate with data, we also want to make sure they know how they may use personal data, in accordance with regulations. This is increasingly important with the rising use of smartphone apps and e-commerce websites. The PDPA has been implemented for over two years now and we have seen greater awareness among organisations of the need to protect the personal data in their possession. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) will be actively reviewing the Act in light of the lessons learned over the past two years and the needs of the industry today. PDPC is also committed to improving the data protection ecosystem and will put in place additional measures to ensure businesses know how they may use personal data responsibly. PDPC will develop Data Protection starter kits to help SMEs kickstart their data protection practices within their companies, engage SMEs through the TACs and sector-specific forums, and provide more affirmative guidance to give certainty and clarity on what is permissible. It is important, Madam, that everyone has a chance to participate in the digital age. I thank Ms Sun Xueling, Mr Chen Show Mao and Mr Darryl David for their comments and suggestions.”
“Industry and academia must come together to develop deep capabilities. We do not know what skills will be needed in 10 years' time. So, we must come together across these different domains − Government, industry, academia, private enterprise − and work together to ensure that we are resilient. We have the infrastructure in place to support a digital economy, and an immense amount of digital activity is already happening here. This means that businesses have all the tools they need to participate effectively in the digital economy at the higher end of the value chain here in Singapore. However, many companies lack the awareness of the possibilities. In particular, with data science, companies cite a lack of good data, awareness, expertise and some concerns about regulatory clarity. Mr Zaqy Mohamad's question on how we can drive quicker adoption of technology, such as data analytics, is extremely relevant. IMDA will establish a Data Innovation Programme Office (DIPO) to lead this effort. DIPO will address industry concerns by facilitating data-driven innovation projects and the development of the data ecosystem in Singapore. One of the ways DIPO will do this is to introduce a Data Sandbox, which will provide a neutral and trusted platform for companies to share data securely without threatening their individual interests. The Data Sandbox will also provide data analytics tools to help companies build expertise in data science. To encourage co-creation of solutions using data by citizens and businesses, GovTech has been actively improving data.gov.sg, focusing on quality, instead of only quantity, of data.”
“''Ask Jamie'' is one example. It is a Virtual Assistant service that GovTech has developed in collaboration with various Government agencies, and is currently live on 32 Government websites, including the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Ministry of Health (MOH). The public can "Ask Jamie" questions using natural language. Essentially, it is a chatbot. You can ask questions and get answers instantly. Using algorithms, it searches through data and gets better over time as the public asks it more questions and refines the way in which it interacts with the public. I would encourage Members to try out the service. GovTech is also looking at how messaging platforms, such as Facebook Messenger, can be used to perform transactions with "Ask Jamie", for example, to register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) for an overseas trip. It is possible that in the near future, engaging Government services will be as simple and as convenient as messaging a friend. This digital transformation of Government will rest on the right expertise and talent. GovTech has and will continue to take the lead to build ICT and related engineering capability in the Government. GovTech will build up ICT capability centres in a variety of areas, focusing on data science, Government ICT infrastructure, software development and the Internet of Things. GovTech will put in place a series of talent development programmes, such as the Smart Nation Fellowship Programme, and use its national projects to provide on-the-job training to its officers. I agree with Mr Zaqy Mohamad that an ecosystem must provide opportunities for cutting-edge tech application and research. To become a truly Smart Nation, the Government cannot be the only player.”
“These can yield meaningful analysis and applications for the Government to better deliver key public services, such as transport, utilities and much, much more. Citizens can also be much better informed and make better decisions through the applications and the data analytics available, often through their personal mobile devices. The next area that GovTech will play a leading role in is to build capabilities, such as data analytics. Ms Sun Xueling asked about how GovTech has led the Government's efforts to embrace innovation. One recent example was in solving the Circle Line breakdowns last year. Data scientists from GovTech solved the problem through a very innovative application of data science. The full details are available on their blog. The value of data we hold is enormous, especially when correlations can be drawn between datasets, rather than just analysing a dataset on its own. This was so in the example of the Circle Line, where the specific rogue train was identified by correlating video footage of train movements to data on breakdowns. However, the video footage was originally collected for very different purposes. This is the case for much of data; sometimes we are not aware of the full utility possible at the time of collection. So, we want to enable data to be shared across domains and agencies so that we can harness the greater value of data and unlock a greater future potential from the data. As a result, GovTech is building an API Exchange (APEX) to facilitate such data sharing. Third, GovTech will use technology to deliver anticipatory, integrated, data-driven, well-designed digital services, predictive services. Ms Sun asked also about what is being done to systematically integrate new applications to existing Government services.”
“Mdm Chairman, Singapore has been through change and uncertainty time and again. Each time, we bounced back stronger, more resilient. We must be equally adaptable in this time of disruptive technology and innovation. Fortunately, we start from a position of strength. We have never been more highly skilled, more globally reputable and more digitally connected. How then will we deal with the very real anxieties expressed by Singaporeans and Members of this House in this time of disruption? Firstly, GovTech will lead the charge towards a more integrated and technology-enabled Government. Secondly, we will support efforts by industry and research institutions to build deep technological capabilities. Thirdly, we will help our people seize opportunities in the digital age. The Government will take the lead in Singapore's efforts to build a Smart Nation, and I thank Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Ms Sun Xueling for their questions. Indeed, we will innovate with technology and data to deliver better public services. The establishment of GovTech last year is key to giving these efforts a push, and GovTech will lead in several areas. First, to develop national platforms which make it easier for individuals to access services, and also for the Government and businesses to deliver those services. One example is the Smart Nation Platform, which GovTech is working to enhance. This common sensor and communications platform facilitate the collection and sharing of data across the island by multiple agencies. Through the Smart Nation Platform, large amounts of data will be generated by a variety of agencies through a wide mix of sensors.”
“Mdm Speaker, with respect to the first supplementary question, MOE provides broad guidelines around the principles of how tattoos are to be managed. But schools have their own specific ways of administering the counselling services, administering discipline, engaging with the parents and the students to enforce that. So, there are no strict absolutes in that process. If there are specific cases where perhaps the process is not working, the Member could let me know about the details and I could follow up. With respect to the second issue, the process of tattooing happens outside the school environment, so there are some considerations about how that might be taken forward, but it is something we could explore.”
“Mdm Speaker, the National Institute of Education (NIE) does conduct a basic diploma in special education, and then, going on to a Master's as well. We do have some ability to do some training here in Singapore, but we also do tap on the skills and training available overseas or returning Singaporeans for people who want to come and work in special education. So, there is a good mix of backgrounds and skills within the educators and professionals that serve in the special education space.”
“I do not have the exact numbers for the Member's last part of the question, Mdm Speaker. I would reassure him on the point he made that there is a place available within the SPED space. A large part of the issue for the waiting lists currently is the choice the parents have and assert, with respect to which of the SPED schools they would like to place their children in. In terms of total capacity, the spaces are there, the facilities are there. But it is really looking forward towards the timeline of the implementation of compulsory education for special needs children and ensuring that we have the skill ability and the manpower ability across the various schools to make sure that each child has an appropriate place and, hopefully, to reduce the anxiety that some parents may have about finding a particular place in a particular school, when there are several schools that can manage that child's needs.”
“Mdm Speaker, indeed, we do work closely with Pathlight and all the SPED schools to learn the best practices from their approach, to customising curriculum to providing specific intervention and support for the children. Certainly, while the total capacity within the SPED schools is more than sufficient to cater to the children, we do have to pay some attention to the skills and facilities to ensure that each child will have a place appropriate to their profile of needs and challenges. That is part of the panel that is looking at the implementation of compulsory education for special needs children, going forward.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for the feedback and I appreciate the difficulty that some parents may have, especially if they have to travel a significant distance. The issue for the SPED schools and the children that they serve is that the expertise is quite profile-specific. For some of the children with certain types of profiles of disease and disability, their numbers are not large and so, the centres which have the expertise are effectively serving the entire nation. Going forward, in planning, we will look at the skills-mix as well as the staffing mix of all the SPED schools to see what we can do to optimise the delivery of these services for these children.”
“Mdm Speaker, I do not have the exact numbers in front of me. If the Member would like to file a question for that, I would certainly have them ready for him. The increase in ASD is a phenomenon that is being noticed around the world in all types of communities. We are no different.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his questions. With respect to both issues, the needs of the children are very diverse and the label "ASD" is insufficient to adequately describe the complexity of the needs these children may have, from the mild to the moderate to the severe, as well as the co-existence of other challenges, other diseases and other disabilities that the child may have at the same time. So, there is no fixed planning ratio that you can apply across the whole spectrum of diseases, needs, children and disability profile. The different schools have developed different expertise in particular needs, particular profiles, particular disabilities and particular diseases. They have their own norms to cater to the functional outcomes of executing their curricular plans and serving the needs of their children. This also applies to the manpower planning issue. As we can imagine, the two are very closely related. There is a difficulty in hiring and identifying staff that have the appropriate aptitude and skills, as well as the enthusiasm for this type of work. But we are confident that we will be able to do so, going into the future.”
“Indeed, Madam, if I can give an example, there is a programme between Temasek Polytechnic and the Singapore National Employers Federation. Through this, the students will have experience in the Ministry of Manpower, Industrial Arbitration Court, National Trades Union Congress, the Workplace Safety and Health Council, and the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices. So, through a variety of processes and interactions, the students can learn about the different agencies, offices and activities that contribute towards the outcome of tripartism.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Member asked about the trend. The total number of complaints in 2013 was 39, followed by 2014 with 37, and 2015 with 48. If we compare 2013 with 2014, the number was slightly down; 2014 to 2015, it was up. The total number was 124. Is there a trend? I think it is a little too early to say. Possibly. It may be so with the increasing amount of activity in the media space. We will watch the space and we will do what is necessary. It is not the total number so much as those that are particularly egregious, particularly demeaning or derogatory, that need to be dealt with in a way that allows people to understand what are the standards expected of the industry. It is this point that addresses the Member's second question. Some of the complaints are really as a result of mistakes and misunderstandings. The industry needs to then learn and improve. Some are because of issues of racial sensitivities or egregious comments that were made. For that, we do take enforcement actions. So, it is a combination of engagement, education and enforcement. It needs a lot of ongoing work, within the industry and in engagement with the industry.”
“This House is the final arbiter of which of those recommendations should go forward and it is the Government's duty to take those recommendations and put them together in a Motion that should stand before the House. We have followed that process through over the course of this year. There is no abrogation of responsibility, there is no short-cut, nothing has been hidden. And, in contrast, that is what I am saying the WP has been doing. I think we have batted the points back and forth. I am not sure we will come to a complete meeting of minds but I hope my position is clear. If I can understand your position, you are supporting very much a symbolic Presidency with a devolution of all the custodial powers and, Page: 124 hence, the electoral process to a Senate, the eligibility criteria of which would be an approximate to the eligibility criteria of our current President and there will be an exclusionary process at 16, where you feel that somehow this is better than our current system. I, fundamentally, disagree and that is the separation between us.”
“I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker, to rise above my human nature. The issue of saving the Presidency is a false argument because the Presidency that you are proposing is a fundamentally different Presidency from what we have today and what we are proposing in the future. It retains only its symbolic nature. So, you are saving the Presidency by removing the opportunity for an electoral mandate because he or she will no longer have a custodial role. So, substantively, where the electoral process is concerned, it is mapped to the custodial role. Substantively, this role now is played by the Senators. So, the possibility for the Senatorial role to be politicised, given that is where the electoral process will now sit, stands. That has not changed. The issue of the consultative process and rushing to referendum. To have a referendum, you would need to debate in the House a Motion and a whole bunch of Government processes. To go forward, you have to have that agreement, it is not just something that you put out. But if I could take the process a little bit further, if I could address the issue of why we did not ask the Constitutional Commission, again it is a false argument. The problem was set before the Constitutional Commission as laid out by the Prime Minister in his original speech and in his direction to the Commission. It is the Government that constituted the Constitutional Commission and said, "How do we address these series of issues?" It is not that we have bypassed them or ignored them. They took in information from a wide variety of sources, a wide variety of people, a wide variety of ideas. They synthesised down a series of possible recommendations. They are not the final arbiter on which of those recommendations should go forward.”
“This is meant to be the final lap of an extensive consultative process, an extensive engagement process and, at the eleventh hour, you throw this in here and you expect that it is done seriously and taken seriously by the Members of this House and the public, which would be fine if you had done the homework. Frankly speaking, if you understood how the CPA works currently and what the actual proposals that have been in print under the White Paper for a good long period of time and then debated those and what you think those changes are, we can take that forward. But you have not done so. You kept silent; you kept quiet; you kept your cards in reserve. You play politics with this issue which I do not blame you for. You are politicians; we are politicians. But that is not how we take an issue like this forward. I hope I have answered your questions.”
“There is an extraordinarily high bar set for the types of things that Page: 122 you put forward as a referendum to the public. That bar should be high. But it exists and the option is there. Below that bar, we are elected into this role to serve the public and not return to them the responsibility for making laws for this country, for strengthening our democracy and for strengthening our processes. That is the responsibility that we have been elected into this role for. And so, therefore, a GE becomes a proxy for the voice of Singaporeans. They have appointed us as lawmakers. Now, we do not take that absolute approach and, in between a proposal or a discussion, we have an extended period of public scrutiny and public session, which is exactly what we have done – nearly a year of public hearings, a Constitutional Commission, debate in print, debate in person, engagements. We have not rushed this. And I contrast that again with your proposal which you have come here to the House. The details have not been worked out. Fundamental details of whether this will actually in any way address your concerns have not been worked out. What you are asking to do is to immediately go out and put it to a referendum. How can that be seen as responsible politics? You have not submitted this to the Constitutional Commission where you would have had independent legal experts and all the various minds that applied themselves to this series of problems that you have highlighted to examine your proposals. You have not had your proposals out there in the public for debate by a variety of commentators, from the lay public to renowned experts and academicians. All of which has happened. We have had an extensive public debate and then we have capped that off with a debate in the House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that the possibility of politicisation of the Senatorial race is not a red herring. Actually, that is the key. There is absolutely no reason not to politicise this. You have every reason to politicise this. If you believe that the Presidential race can be politicised, and now you have the opportunity to insert eight candidates into part of your political system, why is this any different? So, I think to brush aside the concern of possible politicisation of the Senatorial race and yet say it is still valid for the Presidential race, you are not making a logical argument there. If it is possible for the Presidency race to be politicised, it is just as possible, if not more so, for that politicisation to apply to the Senatorial race. The WP did not put this proposal on their 2015 GE manifesto either. I am not suggesting that it was in 2015 where this was part of the public consciousness. This was settled long before I came on the scene, but the issue before us is not about whether we have the Elected Presidency. It is not of that nature. We have had one referendum: should we merge with Malaysia? A referendum should be reserved for fundamental issues of sovereignty, of the kind of the nation that we want to be. This is a Bill before the House to strengthen our political, democratic and constitutional processes. It is complex. You heard the Deputy Prime Minister's speech yesterday. How many Articles and issues and all the various clauses? You hear the confusion in this House today. How is this going to be reduced to a "yes", "no" referendum? So, the issue of whether referendum exists or do not exist, they exist as part of the system.”
“If you wanted a referendum by proxy, it would be very simple for the WP to then stand in the next GE and articulate every single point of how they would operationalise a non-Elected Presidency and set up a Senatorial body as part of their electoral manifesto. And that would be a referendum if the WP became the government and the PAP Government did not. But I return the question to you. If you feel that a referendum is important and people have exercised their choice, then do you not respect the choice that people made in the previous time when they did so, where they chose the PAP Government that stood on a platform of Elected Presidency? That was the choice of the people. So, I return to the idea. The idea of an Elected Presidency has been settled. What we need to do is to debate and take it forward. Taking it forward is: how do we operationalise the Elected Presidency?”
“But under your system, it is not that you have come down to 0.2%; you have come down to 16 individuals across the whole of Singapore. You cannot have a 17th person Page: 120 standing. So, the proposal you have would be more politicised than our current system. More politicised than our proposal. It will have an increasing dilution of the vote share and it would be increasingly exclusionary because fewer people would potentially be able to stand for elections. So, I fail to see how you articulated that it is a better proposal than what we have currently or what we are proposing on the grounds of the concerns that you yourself have raised. That is my position. I hope I have explained everything. On the issue of a referendum, history and the world around us have demonstrated that referendums need to be crystallised into simple issues. Pressing, urgent, simple issues. Is this pressing? Well, it does not need to happen today, it does not need to happen tomorrow. You could not justify that you have a referendum tomorrow, next week or next month. But the reality is that this is a complex issue. In this House, amongst us, we are debating the intricacies of how that Senatorial Electoral process would occur. How do you convey that on the ballot box? How do you convey exactly how you operationalise one complex system versus another complex system? Fundamentally, this is exactly what happened in Brexit where two very complex proposals were reduced to a referendum. And, as has been admitted repeatedly, many people who voted had no idea what they were voting for. There is another proxy for a referendum. It is called the GE. That had been done before where the PAP Government put up its manifesto proposals for the Elected Presidency as part of the electoral process.”
“Yes. On the issue of a unifying figure, the Member is absolutely right that it is not easy to be a national unifying figure. But were not all our past Presidents national unifying figures, including those that had gone through an election? The issue of a unifying figure is not automatic to the process. It is something that you have to discharge in your duties. And that judgement as to whether someone can fulfil the role, is that not something that the public of Singapore are in a position to make a judgement about? Secondly, if you have a concern about one election being politicised, how is your Senatorial election any less politicised? And in actual fact, because you have to put up a slate of 16 candidates, surely that opens up a can of worms in terms of the opportunity for politicisation amongst those 16 candidates. Any one of the elected candidates, by definition, is going to have lesser of the vote share than any Elected Presidency who ‒ well, depending on how many Elected Presidents are under our current system ‒ but you will have one-eighth, right? Because your vote is divided across eight people. So, the issue now is, in your Option B, whether you see the Senatorial process as equivalent to what we have currently as the Elected Presidential process, and I am putting it to you that those eight people are equivalent to our single President now, for two major reasons. The custodial powers that are currently vested in our President will be vested in them. Secondly, the criteria for becoming a Senator are as stringent ‒ but I would argue, even more stringent because of the exclusionary process that you have proposed. Under the system currently we are proposing, there is no maximum limit on the number of people who can stand.”
“Yes. And your second question is about the previous President as well?”
“If I may begin with your last one, I did not imply that our President would be an autocrat. I suggested that the use of an appointed body in the process of the Senatorial Electoral Commission, a non-elected body, to then prevent people arbitrarily from standing for election on a moving target year-on-year ‒ because you have a different pool of candidates ‒ amounted to an autocracy, that you would not then expose the 17th and downstream candidates to the scrutiny of a vote and for the public to make their choice. So, that was your last question. The first question was about politicisation and the second was the misuse of?”
“The President is meant to be an office that rises above politics, that acts as a symbol of national unity, that takes a long-term view, and that protects our national interest over and above anything else. This debate will become part of our historical record. Imagine how the record might demonstrate that, in this House, we might have had a real engagement of ideas where people are open to what is being said and not just who is saying it. A real discussion of policies and proposals, where sometimes we are persuaded by the debate, that this is not just merely the transmission of a prepared speech, that we are listening to one another and engaging in a contest of ideas. And a contest of ideas requires people to be open to persuasion. Demonstrate in your actions tomorrow by voting for the Bill to strengthen our system and our country. Vote and demonstrate the spirit behind the words, "Mari kita bersatu, dengan semangat yang baru." Show that sense of unity, show that sense of purpose in support of a strengthening democracy here in Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. [Applause.]”
“Symbolism is important not just in terms of words, flags and badges or a person, although all those are important. But perhaps, more importantly, in the symbolism of our actions. One of the most memorable images for me in this in this debate was the image evoked by Minister Yaacob Ibrahim of his whole clan turning up at Paya Lebar Airport to send off his brother. And you can imagine the joy, the celebration, the fun that they had coming together as a family. And family, being very loosely defined, the whole clan turned up. We instantly, instinctively understand his description. We smile. We wish all of our families could behave in that way all the time. We know what it means and why it is important. But why? Why is this important? The plane is not going to fly any faster. The journey is not going to be any safer because the whole town full of people turn up. Your well wishes can be written on a card, your goodbyes can be spoken on the phone. Loving words can be said at home, you do not have to go all the way to the airport. But no, it is the action of accompanying that Page: 118 person, that action of going together as a family, of coming together as a family, and standing there and waving through the glass. We understand this matters, and it demonstrates something, in a symbolism far more powerful than any words or expressed wish might demonstrate. They stand together as one even though some of them may be very distant relatives. The action says, "We are one, and together we are here for you." Today, here, and tomorrow, we have a Bill to strengthen our Presidency and our nation.”
“First of all, you need to understand and you need to convince people within your party and your core supporters that the Bill before you is not about whether we should have an Elected Presidency or not. You can continue to hold that line and support this Bill. The matter before us that we are debating is, given that we are going to have an Elected Presidency, what kind of Elected Presidency should we have? This is the reality of political progress and political compromise. There is no point having an extreme absolutist view and refuse to engage on what is the reality in front of you. Having an absolutist, an extremist view is never going to be productive in politics. We need progress, we need some compromise. The matter of whether the President should be elected, we have talked about why and how. That has already been settled. So, by voting in support of this Bill, you can still hang on to your party's principled position and accept the reality of today. And the reality is that Singaporeans want to vote for the President. Your constituents, the vast majority of all our constituents, whether they voted for the WP or any other Opposition candidate, they voted in the Presidential Election. They may have supported different candidates, but they expressed a democratic voice. They support the idea of an Elected Presidency and they will not accept having that democratic voice removed. Could you not consider adapting to that world view after 25 years? Could you not demonstrate the ability to change, just as you expect other people to change? I have suggested why the Opposition could vote for the Bill with a clear conscience. I hope they will. We have heard several times now how symbols matter, and I think this could be one the most important reasons why I believe they should.”
“It stands in the same vein that we have an Auditor-General and an Attorney-General that does what it has to do to uphold the law, to uphold the best principles of our Constitution and integrity and not to serve a political agenda. It does all these and more. It strengthens the role of NCMPs and gives voice to people who perhaps have not had a voice before. It strengthens the diversity in this House. It allows our first Malay Elected President after many decades. And it guarantees that we will have an Elected President with representation across all the races. It does all these and more. And in its mechanism for that multiracial Elected Presidency, it has a natural sunset where, over time, that mechanism may no longer be needed. And, so, you have built in into this Constitutional amendment. I believe one of the first times we can identify when we might truly arrive in the future as that ideal multiracial state. Not when we Page: 117 have an open contested election of various races. That would just be the start. We need to have a few of those. We need to have a minority candidate that loses and loses gracefully, not because of his or her colour of the skin but because he or she was not the best person for the job. And, finally, we will need in this House, standing at one of these podiums, someone from one of the political parties to stand up and propose a Constitutional amendment to remove the five-term hiatus and the reserved election mechanism. And then we will know that there is political confidence that we can do so because there are no votes at risk, and we will have arrived at that ideal state as a multiracial nation. For all these reasons, you should support the Bill. But how could you support the Bill, given the position you have taken?”
“So, on the issue of the five-term hiatus and the reserved election, I have changed my own mind since I first heard about it and I fully support the Bill for all the various reasons that have been described by the Members of this House. So, with an understanding of why the Opposition does what it does – you may or may not agree with me – an understanding of the opportunities that there are in this House to make lives and things better for Singapore and Singaporeans, and I believe you do agree with me, which is why you serve here. Embracing the possibility for change that I have just described, I want to propose a radical idea – I have a proposition – a proposition for the Opposition: I propose that the Opposition support the Bill. Change your mind, lose and leave behind your intransigence on this matter that has lasted more than 20 to 25 years. Tomorrow, we will need to vote. This is a Constitutional amendment. We will need to vote and the process is called a division. It does not have to be divisive. What if in this one instance, we could have a demonstration of unity? You may ask: how could you possibly vote? How could you possibly vote to support this Bill? You may also ask why you should possibly vote. Well, let me tell you why you should possibly vote "yes" to support this Bill, why you should stand with the "ayes". This is a Bill that strengthens our democracy, this is a Bill that strengthens our processes. It stands in the same vein as those processes that established a separate Civil Service that works for all Singaporeans without fear or favour. It stands in the same vein as our Armed Forces that swear loyalty to the Constitution and the President, and will do what is necessary for our country regardless of politics.”
“We have had a clear demonstration in recent times, of how a government and a political party can change its views, change its position, change its policies in response to the needs and aspirations of the country and our people. In the short time since I was elected in 2011, I have seen several examples – Pioneer Generation Package, MediShield Life, compulsory education for special needs kids, maternity leave, changes to provisions for single mothers, many others – each one of those welcomed with applause in the House, welcomed with cheers outside. Because there is a recognition that our policies and positions need to adapt to best serve our country and our people. Just as our own views can change, our own personal views can change. As was alluded to, perhaps Assoc Prof Daniel Goh's views have changed, perhaps the WP's views have changed. Page: 116 Just as my own view, on the mechanism for the minority representation on the Elected Presidency has changed since the proposal was first published. The need for any kind of safeguard in our electoral and political processes, it reminds us of the less-than-perfect human nature that we have to deal with. As the Prime Minister mentioned in his quote of James Madison about angels, the need for safeguards reminds us how imperfect we are. We wish that it was not so. We wish that it was a much nicer world where we would not need such a mechanism. But we have to deal with the reality around us, we have to decide if we are going to hold a position as a marker of an ideal for the future, or deal with the reality here and now – deal with what our people face and the issues that we have to help them with.”
“It is a hard, difficult choice to make in your life and you do it for good reasons. Why then? Frankly speaking, it is merely the product of the adversarial nature of the Westminster system that we have inherited and that we have here today. It is the product of electoral politics. It is the natural outcome of contestable politics. They are doing what they need to do to attack, take issue with the Government and, if possible, take down our proposals. This is precisely why there is a need for a process that stands outside and above this House. They have demonstrated in their approach, in their ability to try to obfuscate, to add confusion, to misdirect and imply malice on our part. They have demonstrated exactly why we need a process and an office that stands apart and stands above. For the Opposition to do otherwise – to not oppose, to not attack, to not question – frankly speaking, would be difficult. It would be especially difficult from an electoral viewpoint because any difficult Parliamentary issue can potentially risk votes. It takes great courage, confidence and determination to support a Motion or a Bill that goes against the expressed views of your core party supporters. It takes courage and vision to put the interests of the nation first. It takes courage to identify and go against any facet of human nature. And it is difficult to change your mind once you have stated your position, especially if you have stated your position publicly. Once you have had a firm stance and you have engaged in battle – whether in word, in print – how to change it? But this House, this Chamber and its predecessor have repeatedly seen examples of such courage, confidence, determination and vision.”
“Do you support more electoral processes or do you support less electoral processes? Do you want the Malay President to have custodial powers or only have a symbolic election? Do you want the power to rest in the people ultimately or do you want an appointed body? The misunderstandings about what the CPA does have been brought up again and again. The implication that the CPA can step forward and block Parliament, when it is for Parliament to put matters up to the President in the first place. Parliament becomes the initiator of the process, and Page: 115 the President does not. And the CPA, as proposed, only advises the President. And the decision-making – whether it is four, whether it is one extra casting vote, is only about the bar that is then set for Parliament, and ultimately Parliament then has to make the legislative decision. These are falsehoods or misunderstandings or implications, but they are not true. The proposals need to be studied properly. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have alluded to and highlighted a number of inconsistencies and problems with the positions and statements of the Opposition. What could possibly be the cause, the driving force that led them in this direction? It could be suggested that there is a lack of understanding, incompetence. I do not believe so. I absolutely do not believe so. They have a bench with lawyers, economists, academics, people who have served in our uniformed services, people who have served in academic institutions, people who have served running organisations and run Town Councils. It could be malice but I do not believe so. These are not malicious people. People do not step forward and give of their time to serve in politics with the intention to be malicious.”
“We are being asked to consider the difference in their Option B versus our Option A, the difference between a strengthening of our democracy and the assignment of an autocracy to an appointed body, where an appointed body can keep people out. How will this strengthen the multiracial fabric of our nation? I have a direct question for Mr Faisal Manap who is not here. A direct question: does he or does he not support the reserved election for a Malay candidate? It is a straightforward question. If he cannot answer a yes or no, how do you expect a referendum to be constructed around this? Yes or no, do you support the proposal that there will be a reserved election for a Malay candidate after many decades? It is a very simple question. Or does he prefer for that electoral mandate and for that custodial power that our next Malay President could have, to be removed, and so our next Malay President will be, by his direction, a symbol only with no custodial power? What is going to be better for the Malay community? What is going to be better for all of us, regardless of our race and the colour of our skin? For that President, that Malay President, to have only symbolic powers, or to have a combination of symbolic and custodial powers, and to have stood in an election, even if it is an election against another Malay. It is still an electoral mandate that will be handed to the winning candidate by the people, and not by the WP, or whoever has been appointed by Parliament. It will not be an autocracy. It will be a strengthening of our democracy. These are serious issues, serious proposals and, frankly speaking, serious problems in some of the proposals that have been put up by Option B by the WP. There are a number of inconsistencies.”
“If you are the 17th person, whether you ran a $100 million company, whether you are someone in the people sector, whether you ran a $1 billion company, for whatever reason, under their proposal, the Senatorial Electoral Commission can exclude you. We have had some back and forth about whether the criteria are similar to the existing Presidential candidate criteria, but if the pool of candidates that come forth every year change, if you had to select 16 out of 24, versus 16 out of 100, then those criteria are going to change year on year. Where is the transparency there? It is going to be arbitrary for a non-elected body to then decide who will be elected in. It is not the public. Under the existing system, the Presidential Electoral Commission can put anybody who meets the criteria forward and it is the public then who has ultimate scrutiny over the process. Whether there is one, two, three or 100, it is the public then who decides about the integrity of this person who stands. It is the public then who makes the decision about what are the values that are expressed and how did this individual demonstrate those values in the conduct of their duties, whether it was a $100 million company, whether it was a $500 million company, whether they are a community volunteer or whether they were in the Public Service. It is for the public to make those decisions! If you have an exclusionary criterion where a non-elected body keeps people out, that is the complete opposite of democracy. It is an autocracy. That is what the proposal put before the House today is about.”
“The issue of being humble if you are making a radical change, I take Mr Chen Show Mao's point absolutely. We should be humble and not suggest something so completely radical when the proposal before the House is an amendment to strengthen and adjust the existing system. The Bill before the House is not about whether we should have an electoral process. The Bill before the House is not whether we should completely upend the system. The Bill before the House is how do we strengthen the existing Elected Presidency. The lack of clarity extends to this issue of inclusion versus exclusion. They seem not to actually fundamentally understand what it is that the Presidential Electoral Commission does. And, repeatedly, the issue of the financial criteria, the number of people who are available, the types of businesses that are available, are brought up. The assumption is that if you do not meet those criteria, you are excluded from being a candidate for President. That is not the case. This is an inclusive process. If you meet those criteria, the Commission is required to then pass you through. There is still a deliberative track where candidates who do not automatically qualify can put themselves forward and a case has to be made for why those candidates should be allowed to stand. In contrast, what they proposed as a Senatorial Electoral Commission is an exclusive criterion because there is a hard stop at the 16th man or woman who will stand. What separates out at 17th Page: 114 person from that 16th person? That is an absolute exclusion criterion.”
“This is an issue, perhaps, of labelling. They say they do not support the Presidency but yet they are taking the custodial powers of the President and devolving it to eight senators. Realistically, these are now eight Presidents. These are the same custodial powers that were vested in the President that have now been divided across eight Senators. So, they are taking one Elected President and are now saying that we need to have eight elected Senators. Or I am going to call them eight elected Presidential Senators; we can make up the names. This is confusing. They fundamentally believe that the custodial powers should go with an electoral process. We believe that is so. And yet they believe that having those custodial powers divided over eight people is somehow better than having it in one person. The only reason they had given is this "wisdom of a crowd", I believe it was the phrase that was used, or "the collective wisdom", that somehow, automatically, collective wisdom is better. This is not a small change. It is an extraordinarily radical proposal. It is a major overhaul of our entire Presidential system and, possibly, our political system. And yet they are accusing the PAP Government of rushing this through when, in fact, this has been debated and discussed in public and in this House repeatedly from our side of the House. But they did not put this proposal forward, they did not submit this proposal to the Constitutional Commission, they did not submit it for public scrutiny or public debate. At the last minute, when the vote is tomorrow on this Bill before us, we hear of this extraordinarily radical proposal to take apart our President, make it symbolic and elect another eight people who are effectively the custodial Presidents.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill but I must say I am rather confused by some of the statements that have been made by Members of the Opposition. And the answers that they have given for some of the clarifications that have been sought have not actually provided any degree of clarity. Firstly, I would like to address the issue of the NCMP, which Mr Dennis Tan brought up. The NCMP does have a mandate. There were people who voted for the NCMP. The NCMP can serve in a Town Council, they are not required to, unlike an elected MP, but all kinds of people can serve in a Town Council and can be appointed by MPs, including NCMPs from the same party. The opportunity is there. And in service, that is how we define ourselves for all the people that we serve. We do not serve just the voters who elected us. We serve our constituents. And the same is true for the Elected President. Yes, the process of an election can be divisive, it can be contestable, it should be contestable. But, afterwards, we choose to come together. This is a principle that is not unique to Singapore. It actually happens in many, many systems around the world and people expect that after the election there is a reconciliation. And part of the Page: 113 reconciliation is a recognition from the people that the person occupying that office serves everybody, and a recognition from the person elected that his or her duty is to serve everybody, regardless of the electoral choices in the first instance. Elections are difficult. They are potentially divisive. The details are vital to get right. But I am glad that the WP, the Opposition, has repeatedly enumerated their support for the electoral process. Again and again, we hear about the elections for a Senate, the senators.”
“Mdm Speaker, maybe I did not explain my points to the Member. The PEC today does not prevent people to a given number. It is to look at those applicants and to see who are suitable for going forward. So, they do not have a mandate to say, "You stop at one, two, three, four." It is merely to assess the suitability of candidates going forward and it is for the people Page: 73 to decide which of the suitable candidates are elected. But if I understand the Member's proposal, a key point of the role of the Senate Electoral Committee would be to prevent more than 16 people standing forward. So, the 17th and downstream would have been prevented from being exposed to public vote. So, my question then is, on what grounds does the Senate Electoral Committee decide that the 16th person is good enough and the 17th person is not good enough for the public to make up their mind?”
“Madam, I am still confused. The Senate Elections Committee is not itself elected; the members would be appointed, I presume by Parliament. So, how do they then prevent – in other words, actually, the key point is that if you have a pool of 24 or 36 candidates, how does the Senate Electoral Committee and what mandate does it have to prevent somebody standing as a Senator, and restricting that list to 16 people for the public to decide? Would they be given strict criteria by the House to decide upon, such as age, financials? What is the nature of that decision? What is the mandate for that decision? That is what I am asking.”
“Madam, I did not quite understand the Member's last point. Is he suggesting that out of a possible pool of applicants, that there would be a set of shortlisting criteria to derive 16 individuals that the Senate Elections Committee would then forward for the general public to select from? So, what would the Senate Elections Committee use as criteria to suggest who could and could not stand as a Senator?”
“Thank you, Madam, and my apologies to you and the Member for having to take up a bit more time. The Member had asked about the breakdown for teacher resignations for two dimensions. One was the teaching training programme that teachers were on, and the second was at which point in their career they had decided to become teachers ‒ if I understand the questions correctly. [Please refer to "Retention of Qualified Teachers in Schools", Official Report, 7 November 2016, Vol 94, Issue No 26, Oral Answers to Questions section.] The overall rate is between 4% and 5%, and there is no significant difference in the resignation rates of those who have teaching as their first career and those who are in teaching as a mid-career switch. There is no difference when we analysed the data. If we look at the teacher training programme that teachers who resigned were on, there is a slight difference. The Member had asked about the Diploma in Education, Teaching Award holders, those on the BA/BSc programme and for scholars. Those who are on the Diploma in Education and Teaching Award holders have a slightly higher resignation rate, and those who are on the BA/BSc programme and scholars have a slightly lower resignation rate. But the overall resignation rate remains about 4% to 5%. I hope that clarifies. My apologies for having to come back to the Member on this.”