Kuik Shiao-Yin
Singapore
“Northlight's model contains so many wisdoms and insights that mainstream schools can learn from and it is a beautiful symbol of what is possible if we care enough to make things happen not just for ourselves but for others who we do not want to leave behind. 2.25 pm”
“Currently, there is no requirement for a company to accommodate the employee’s changed situation, such as redesigning a job or offering an alternative role.”
“I think the United Kingdom (UK) manages that by saying that leave should be taken in weeks rather than days. Similarly, the same amount of adoption leave that is available to mums should be available to dads. Or alternatively, a longer quantum of gender-neutral adoption leave can be offered for parents to share as they wish.”
“That certainty can only come from the promise of a new story, a story of a "Who" and a "Why" that is bigger than the sum of all of our fears about "What's" and "How's". Our youths need to hear the greater story of all the things that we want to do for love, not just fear.”
“I want to say that I see the heart of the Minister for Finance for the people. I believe in his openness to find new ways forward and I trust his courage to make hard choices.”
“I guess we may differ in our thinking about how much is enough help for people. I speak especially for children with single mothers and foreign mothers. We have talked a long time in this House about the differences of views about why they cannot get adequate housing and all that. I think more help could be given.”
The complete record
Every one of 212 lines we hold for Kuik Shiao-Yin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“Northlight's model contains so many wisdoms and insights that mainstream schools can learn from and it is a beautiful symbol of what is possible if we care enough to make things happen not just for ourselves but for others who we do not want to leave behind. 2.25 pm”
“Character Education there already makes up 50% of its first two years of curriculum and is a major part of the way they assess student development. The kids there are focused on discovering their values and what work they would like to do and not just mug before an exam. The content, pedagogy, assessments are learner-centric. They are 70% experiential learning. By the end of their programme, they would have all gone for an eight-week industry attachment. And, yes, they have achievement records, not report cards, and their kids are so proud to show them to their parents. And, yes, there are protected times there for educators to just reflect and learn. And, yes, this is a school that gives support to its neighbourhood community and receives a lot of support back from its community. And, no, this is not a school for the elite; this is just the opposite. It is a school designed to support kids who failed PSLE two or three times, as well as those who dropped out of the system. This school is Northlight and it was an idea floated in 1997 and dismissed as before its time and made real only in 2005 when Mr Lim Chuan Poh, a Permanent Secretary at MOE, had the curiosity to find an answer to one student's frustration about why he had to repeat PSLE so many times. That Permanent Secretary's leap of faith allowed more leaders and purpose-driven principals and teachers to come and put their own skin in the game and it was all of them combined together – their collective courage to live out their highest ideals of education that made Northlight happen. Northlight is a school that makes me damn proud to be Singaporean. Honestly, I would gladly send my own child there.”
“That is why we buy books for our kids though we also have access to public libraries. So, we allow these kids to initiate the request for their own mini-library and own their own customised cargo of books. They might be far more likely to see books as part of their life. If the Media Development Authority can consider working with these successful ground-up literacy movements to co-create a solution using media or technology that could help sustain their impact, that would be great because kids need plenty of repetition and audio-visual recordings of these books for them to play back at their own time might prove really helpful. Second, can the Government provide better support in housing, education and employment for migrant mothers who are struggling to improve the lives of their Singaporean children? A stable home environment and literacy-related support for these parents will help the child's educational progress and more deliberate and pre-emptive outreach from the Government to help these migrant mothers care for their Singaporean child in the short run could stave off far more expensive problems in the long run. Community groups like ReadAble, working directly with such migrant mothers, hope for much greater public dialogue on how they can partner the state to help more migrant mothers and their Singaporean children progress in the education aspect. Sir, I would like to conclude by affirming that despite the issues I brought up, I have seen greatness in our system and that there are lots of innovations and innovators already waiting to be tapped if we so choose to see them, learn from them and partner in supporting them. There is, in fact, a school in Singapore that manifests so many of the things I talked about in this speech.”
“In this, I want to raise our attention to an especially vulnerable niche group of kids: those who grow up under the care of single migrant mothers. This is a group that was highlighted to me by ReadAble, which is a wonderful ground-up movement of young professionals who partner lower-income families to close the literacy gap. For the last four years, they have been running literacy classes in Jalan Kukoh, not just for the kids but for their mothers as well. These kids are three to 14 years old. They do not speak English as a first language at home. Many still cannot name all the letters of the alphabet. This means, without any early intervention, many of the kids would have begun Primary 1 with no or little reading skills. This puts them way behind the starting line. Research very clearly shows that early intervention in the lives of children from low socio-economic status (SES) households would reduce the learning gap significantly in the following years of their lives. All the kids who started attending these ReadAble classes regularly before the age of six actually started reading at Primary 1 or above grade level. In fact, some of the kids who attend their preschool class currently read better than children who joined them at primary school-age. So, there is a trickle-down effect as well. As the kids grow in confidence, they started to influence their siblings to read. I hope the Government can partner community groups to intervene as early as possible in the literacy gap. For instance, can the National Library place a personalised mini-library in every low-income household with a child that requests to have one? Every parent in this room also knows there is a huge difference when children grow up in a literacy-rich environment.”
“There is also a section in the achievement file where teachers ask parents on the spot to not only put in the parents' assessment of the achievements they have seen in their own child at home, they are even asked, very subtly, to assess what they have done for their own child. In my recent meeting at my daughter's preschool, I had to fill in how often we were reading to her, talking to her, showing her new places in Singapore. That message sent by the achievement file was compassionate but very clear: I, the parent, was part of the process of my child's growth. This co-created achievement file, while much more costly in investment of time, can change the relationship between parents and teacher from an adversarial, consumeristic one to a collaborative and empathetic one. The second thing that parents raised was how principals were rotated in five- to six-year cycles, preventing neighbourhood schools from deepening their commitment to a unique set of strengths and interests. They felt that, sometimes, new principals would try too hard to establish their own flavour and uproot directions set in place by the previous principal. This constant upheaval in direction not only prevented a strong identity and culture from forming but it broke trust with teachers and disheartened parents who believed in the previous vision. Culture and identity are not built overnight. It takes 10 to 20 years. If more principals were allowed to commit two cycles to building culture, schools would have a stronger foundation to design those alternative development paths that are wholly unique to the school and suited to particular students' interests. The third amendment asks us to enable Singaporeans to improve our lives and pay special attention to the kids from vulnerable families.”
“I do not have an answer about whether we should or should not abolish the PSLE because I recognise it takes a lot of political risk to make that change. So, this is all easy for me to say because I am not a politician and I am just speaking as a parent. This particular parent's naive hope is that we will someday dismantle the PSLE because I would rather give more time and space for our teachers to develop our children's thinking without fear of messing up a high-stakes exam. Moreover, I think a 16-year-old is far more cognitively prepared to deal with the psychological impact of a high-stakes exam than a 12-year-old. And this also gives us more breathing room for primary-schoolers from lower-income families to catch up. The second amendment Ms Rahayu Mahzam raised is about recognising the ability and talent of every student and offering developmental paths which are unique to them. When I talked to parents, two things were brought up. The first is on whether we can reimagine our report cards. I know we have already shifted our report cards from just listing grades and sharing more on their personal development; but I still think they do not present a rich enough picture of the unique journey of progression that every student takes. So, right now, the burden of assessment is placed on teachers alone. But what if students and parents helped to co-create the report book? Many preschools today actually do not use report cards and they show parents a well-curated achievement file instead. The file contains very rich visual artefacts like photos of key moments or outstanding pieces of work that help everyone appreciate how far their child has come.”
“So, I do wonder whether abolishing PSLE could be a psychological Gordian knot that needs to be cut. I can understand the Government's resistance to abolishing PSLE because to take on the barrage of trouble involved, the win must be significant and something the majority of the electorate must show that it is willing to support. Because abolishing PSLE will set off a chain reaction of very uncomfortable changes. Without PSLE, there might be much less reason to stream in primary school or upon entering secondary school. Primary school teachers will be challenged to up their game and compelled to design and deliver a curriculum that is no longer about preparing kids for a standardised exam. And MOE would have to devise a whole new way to assess the quality of teaching in primary schools without data from PSLE results. Abolishing the PSLE also opens up the question of how then should we level the playing field for secondary schools? Do we want to ensure all secondary schools are funded, resourced and governed the same way by MOE? If so, then we have to remove all other kinds of admissions, such as the DSA and even end the special status of some schools. This would be a very difficult change for some elite schools to swallow, because nobody wants to give up their elite identity. If we do abolish PSLE someday, these teething issues would take probably a painful decade to iron out, but once a steady state is reached, there would be much less difficulties. So, the question for us today, the Government and the people, is more about whether that steady state of greater inclusivity for all learners represents a future we think is worth suffering for. Sir, I do not think it is an easy path at all.”
“Which means if the teacher wants to do anything interesting, he only has four weeks in a term. So, 40% of the school term is taken up by exam preparation. Where does the teacher have the time to go find out about what is happening in the world or in different industries?" When that same parent told his child's teacher that he would rather the school not focus so much on exam preparation, the teacher told him, "It’s not that I do not want to do all the interesting stuff. I want to, but if my students do not do well at the exams, it affects my appraisal and it affects my bonus. I do not have a choice." MOE has been plagued for years by public outcry about excessive levels of stress in the system. And while many stakeholders want the education system to change, many are still looking at other stakeholders to change first. So, it feels like everyone is a bit stuck in a psychological impasse. I have been of two minds with the issue of abolishing PSLE. It is hardly a silver bullet solution and abolishing it will definitely generate many new problems and fail to resolve some old ones. It will force many other policies to change together with it. However, I also see that the ground does not seem sufficiently convinced so far by the little tweaks being made to PSLE grades. We know this because they are not changing their behaviour in any significant way. Mothers are still quitting their jobs to prepare their kids for PSLE. The billion-dollar tuition industry is still not pivoting their business models to help kids grow in character rather than in grades any time soon. They are quite confident that they know their customers are not going to shift. The "arms race" kiasu culture seems to be eating all our strategies for breakfast.”
“Is it for helping learners get progressively confident and independent in their thinking? If so, primary school class sizes need to get much much smaller to help teachers work with their learners' high dependency. Is it for helping learners just swallow large amounts of information? If so, I can understand why huge class sizes are still tolerable because it is a bit like raising battery hens. You can cram a lot of them in one room because you feed them all the same thing anyway. But, of course, my hope and personal bias are that we go for smaller classes, because I think we should be raising more free-ranging, free-thinking independent learners because I am not sure battery cage learners will be ready to out-think and out-run the rest of the world. Having smaller class sizes across the system is a very huge investment but if it would allow teachers more time and space to train learners in thinking, then it is a luxury worth investing in. The concerns about costs are real. So, why not take up Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Leon Perera's suggestion in 2017, that MOE consider conducting a small trial to find out if reduced sizes could improve students' results? I support that request and agree with Prof Gopinathan's opinion that "more work can be done to look at the pros and cons of reducing class sizes before dismissing the idea. Without a local knowledge base, we can't say it doesn't make a difference based on international research". Which brings me to the high-stakes exam issue. A bewildered parent explained it to me this way: "There are 10 weeks in a school term. The teacher typically takes Week 1 to do administration and settle the kids in. And then Weeks 6 to 10 are all about exam prep and taking the exam.”
“I see that we currently have smaller-size classes at the JCs, tertiary and university levels, but not at the primary and secondary school levels. I suggest that we explore our assumption that the tertiary level students need more individualised attention than younger students. If education is about helping learners gain in confidence and ability to manage and own their own learning process, then should not the smallest classes and the greatest availability of teacher support be with the youngest children? An 18-year-old should be sufficiently independent as a learner and more capable of taking care of his own learning than a seven-year-old learner who is just beginning to "learn to learn" needs a lot more individual scaffolding and personalised attention. So, it does make more sense that a primary school teacher should be given a smaller class, compared to a JC teacher. If our education system was designed as a process of cognitive apprenticeship, then, technically, by the time you are 18, you should be able to begin teaching and learning by yourself while in teams. However, if our education system was not about cognitive apprenticeship and more about subject downloading, then what I have said is irrelevant. Some of us might say that the average 18-year-old in our current system might still be exhibiting signs of great dependency on his teacher for instructions and still asking people to spot questions and compile model essays on his behalf. In fact, you might say some of our working adults still display similar learning habits and overdependency on authority to spoon-feed solutions. If so, then this is feedback that we are still not doing enough cognitive apprenticeship. So, to me, the class size issue is a bit linked to the intentions of our education system.”
“Right now, our primary and secondary schools still average at 33 to 34 students per class. Primary 1 and 2 average at 29 pupils, which is still way above the average Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) primary and secondary class sizes 21 and 24. I know MOE has argued that teacher quality matters more than class size, but the sheer volume of work to be done with such large numbers of students will constrain even the most talented teacher. Adjunct Prof S Gopinathan at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and former dean of National Institute of Education (NIE)'s School of Education said in an interview with The Straits Times that even the best-trained teacher will find it difficult coping with a class of 40 students in an era where we want children to be more inquisitive, explain their insights, have more applied learning. And those are more complex processes, compared to the direct transmissive teaching of the past. So, no matter how good you are as a teacher, you only have a fixed number of hours in a workday. Even really good teachers are telling us that the only way they can cope with giving individualised attention to everyone in a large class is to sacrifice time from their after-work hours to prepare, mark, answer questions and meet up with kids. This is a price that many good teachers are willing to pay because of their personal convictions, but it does come at personal cost to their own mental, physical and emotional well-being. With declining birth rates and schools closing, we can take the opportunity to adjust our class sizes to a more sustainable number to address some of our teachers' longstanding concerns.”
“So, we need to work together on this. I thank my fellow parliamentarian Rahayu Mahzam for the amendments she has introduced. I will focus on three of her amendments and make my recommendations along those lines. Her first amendment asks that we build an education system that gives each student the best possible support. When I talk to educators, three big things recur on their wish list of what “best possible support” could look like: (a) more time to focus on teaching and learning; (b) reduction in class sizes; and (c) abolishing the high-stakes exams. All teachers who take their work seriously will tell you that school calendars are over-stuffed and it is a constant struggle to claw back time to just focus on teaching. Teachers do appreciate the need to expand their work scope beyond teaching to broaden their skill sets. However, there is a breaking point when they start to question how much time in their job is spent on mastering their craft versus managing projects, marking, doing administrative work, running co-curricular activities (CCAs) and organising events. Many educators actually express some guilt that they spend more time teaching and managing other people's children versus spending time on their own kids at home. In fact, some educators express double guilt for sending their own kids to private tuition because they have no time or energy left for their own kids after a full day of teaching. We must stop piling on more new initiatives and programmes onto schools because the constant cry I hear from teachers is "enough". We need to do a lot less so we can do a lot more of what is significant. Part of the reason why teachers feel so strapped for time is the number of learners we expect them to give individual attention to.”
“One medical team shared with us that their conviction to put more emphasis on empathy in their curriculum came after a disillusioned medical student revealed to them that she was quitting the profession after she witnessed two surgeons she was supposed to be learning from execute a surgical procedure with flawless expertise, while simultaneously making the most vile and derogatory comments about the unconscious patient. And though the two surgeons had saved a patient in body, they had killed a young doctor in spirit. Those kinds of stories make me reflect: when did that bureaucrat learn that schools had nothing to do with thinking? When did those surgeons learn that their medical education had nothing to do with feeling? Did they learn it from their parents, their teachers or society? And barring how great their results were in the exam hall, are we satisfied with these results of their education in real life? The kids we teach today grow up. The first 18-year-olds I taught are 34 now. And some of them probably work for you. Our kids become our bureaucrats deciding what to approve or not approve. They become our doctors and bean-counters deciding who is worth saving and who is not worth saving. They become our customers and entrepreneurs deciding what money can buy and what money should never ever buy. They become our voters and politicians deciding who rules and who should be ruled. The future of our country is already being written in our classrooms. I do not know if that thought assures you or scares you. I choose to let that thought convict me to figure out how can the people continue to partner the work of our public schools so that we can all win, for our country can go only as far as our classrooms are willing and able to go.”
“His response, without any irony, was this: "What do schools have to do with thinking? School of Math, yes. School of English, I understand. But thought? How do schools teach thinking?" He did not sound uneducated or unwilling, just genuinely perplexed. And I remember having a very surreal, one hour-long conversation with this Government officer about why schools had a lot to do with thinking, that the name was a pun and, still, he would not be moved. Finally, I asked, "What if we just call ourselves School of Thought Learning Centre?" And he said, "Oh yes!”, with great relief. "That's fine. Because then it's just a name, not an intention." I do not take that very odd exchange as representative of the whole-of-Government. That was just one bureaucrat's worldview. Also, 16 years have passed and times and attitudes have evolved since then and I am more optimistic that I would not get that response today. Still, I do not wish to brush off his remark as an aberration. Because his remark to me is a signpost that there could be many more individuals out there who were taught an incomplete or mistaken lesson about the purpose of education and that gap in their learning does have consequences on us all at a systemic level. In the last few years, I have been getting more enquiries for training from healthcare organisations. When we asked them why there was a surge of interest in social and emotional development from their sector, they shared with us their challenges in teaching some of their staff to see their patients as not just diseases to treat, but people to care for.”
“Mr Speaker, before I begin, please let me state my professional interests upfront. For the last 16 years, I have been part of the teaching and learning ecosystem in Singapore. I am a co-founder of a purpose-driven tuition centre. I am a publisher of current affairs magazines sold directly to schools. I am also a coach and trainer of working professionals, helping them develop the social and emotional skills they need to become better architects for cultural change. Some of my clients have included principals, vice principals, teachers and administrators. My interest in education began when I was 25. I had started an experimental tuition group with my friends because we were curious about two questions. The first was: "Why are so many young Singaporeans graduating out of our local education system uncertain about who they are and indifferent to bigger problems in Singapore and the world?" And the second question was: "What can we do about it?" We experimented with General Paper tuition as a strategic medium to help 18-year-olds consider their individual and collective responsibilities and we found that if you help kids get curious about who they are and what they care about, they get naturally more curious about how their individual choices connect with broader systemic issues. We started off with 20 kids from neighbourhood JCs. But by the end of that same year, the group ballooned into 100 kids and we realised we should officially register as a private tuition centre. So, we applied to the Registry of Business (RCB) calling ourselves School of Thought and, soon after, an RCB officer called me back to tell us our name could not be approved. I asked him what was wrong with the name School of Thought. And for as long as I teach, I do not think I will forget what he said.”
“Singapore is as bold, and as kind, as inclusive, as original, and as vital as we make her to be. Our country is us, the sum total of all our choices. And that is the power of a people. The Prime Minister quoted Ecclesiastes yesterday. It made me consider, much as we love our Pioneers and admire the times our country came from, we cannot go back. For they say, “The past is like a foreign country: they do things differently there." Where it was their time to plant, perhaps now is our time to uproot. Where it was their time to tear down, perhaps now is our time to build up. Where it was their time to keep silent, perhaps now is our time to speak. There is a time for everything and a season for every one of us, under the heavens. This is our time. And we must make of it what we will. We are not Lee Kuan Yews, Goh Keng Swees or Rajaratnams. And we need not pretend to be. They were who they were and they were who they had to be. Those times and their times are past, but our time is now. We each must learn to be bold enough to live out who we are and dare to challenge who we could be. We need only be the best of ourselves, seizing the most of our times, steering our country our way. And if we are scared, then let the words of Mr Chiam See Tong, Singapore's longest-serving Opposition Member, give us courage. When people praised him for being brave in stepping up to serve despite being perceived as too ordinary, he said, "I am not actually a brave man, but I love Singapore and I love Singaporeans." So, let our love find the way forward out of here. I support the Motion and the future of our country. [Applause.]”
“There are, currently, a few alternative indicators out there in the world: Bhutan's Gross National Happiness, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Better Life Index. And if we think these indicators or others like Gini coefficient are flawed or not applicable to our Singapore context, then why not create one of our own? A uniquely Singapore system of meaningful measures for well-being would help the people and the Government better communicate where we are and where we want to go. We can raise our collective level of well-being if we knew which metrics mattered most. We manage what we measure. We chase what we measure. We get what we measure. What we do not measure will always be treated as something lesser. We can criticise Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index, but we cannot dismiss the effect it had in kickstarting the world's thinking for years about what it means for economies to work on the things that matter most to people. Canada's Well-being Index chooses to measure things like community vitality, culture and time use. But we can base our well-being index: on what we believe reflects our unique values: unity between different races and religions, democratic participation, justice, equality, happiness and, of course, economic prosperity and progress. The third and final question the youths had "What is Singapore to you?" is a provocative question to pose not just to leadership but to ourselves as an electorate. Who do we want Singapore to be? For our country is in our hands. The votes we cast, or do not cast. The positions we support, or do not support. The donations we give, or do not give. The risks we take, or do not take. The people that we serve, or do not serve.”
“The power gap is entrenched in policies about housing, healthcare, education across Ministries, because policy is, after all, power frozen in place. For instance, when policy declares, you and the child that you gave birth to cannot be officially defined as a family nucleus even if logically that is what you are, you are frozen out of the system and quite powerless to access certain good choices. You depend on access through more powerful individuals like a Member of Parliament or social worker to advocate for you on a "case-by-case basis". How much better would it be to go for a policy change that can let power thaw, flow and refreeze into a new, hopefully more empowering place, one where the previously disempowered can now help themselves and independently access the options they need to move ahead in life. There, but for the grace of God, go we. Who is to say one day we, too, may not come into a similar station in life? Is it that unthinkable? Because if we lost it all and became the powerless ones, how would we want the system to work with us? I hope, some day, we can consider looking beyond just Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of our success and implement a companion measure of holistic progress along. Income is a vital and necessary indicator of well-being but it is not all-sufficient nor is it conclusive. In 2012, economists Yeoh Lam Keong and Manu Bhaskaran talked about how GDP growth must not become the be-all and end-all for Singapore. They proposed alternative indicators, such as measuring income inequality, the proportion of citizens’ "out of pocket" healthcare expenses and the breadth of outreach of our public hospitals.”
“" As we zero in on meeting the needs of children from lower income homes, I hope we do not neglect their parents' needs. We must not operate from a subconscious mindset of "save the children because the adults are a gone case". Because a child's well-being is tied to their parent's well-being. Children's needs are tied to parents' needs, children's problems are tied to parents' problems. And that is how family works. That is how country works. Everyone is linked up, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer. Parent and child are a package deal. If we want to help the child, we help the parent too. Their children would say the same thing, because that is what love says. We want to be in this together. So, as we provide education subsidies to support a child at school, let us simultaneously provide secure affordable housing to his unwed mother. Stable housing with longer term tenancies and less crowded rooming conditions through the child's crucial schooling years will give these kids a fighting chance with kids from the richer households. There should be no favouritism. The same dignities we accord to middle- or upper-income families should be accorded to the lower income. If we do not think it is culturally dignified or politically viable to tell two single, unrelated upper income individuals or a middle-income family of five to share one HDB room together, then let it be just as inappropriate to tell lower income people that they have to do so, and still achieve great outcomes. Inequality has to be approached on a whole-of-Government examination of policy. Because it is never just about income but power disparity as well.”
“This applies as much to arguing with your family as much as it does to arguing with stakeholders. When you prioritise retaining relationship over being right, what you gain is new ground to work together towards doing what is right anyway, towards the results you care for. Together is the superior end-game. We can avoid unnecessarily adversarial relationships with our dissenters if we choose to be slow to speak and quick to listen for the truths our naysayers are offering. The purposeful inclusion of more thoughtful voices who are unafraid of challenging establishment views will make our system stronger. So, can I suggest that we intentionally seek out more non-establishment types to participate in our national level focus groups, committees, boards, Ministries and Parliament? If we want our system to be resilient, we need to boldly open up our echo chambers and learn to ask both friends and detractors, “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And help me distinguish which is which.” And if we have power, let us be aware of its silencing effects on people so that we can learn to lay it down purposefully to help others feel they have permission and safety to share their truths. As the founding Minister S Rajaratnam once said, “Don’t tell me things you think I want to hear; tell me things I should hear even if they make me feel uncomfortable.” I will now move on to my second point on income inequality. Mdm President warned of dire consequences if we do not deal with it "vigorously". In their letter, the youths echoed: "We are very worried that social inequality is becoming an issue that is dividing Singaporeans faster than we can mitigate it.”
“Must it always be a zero-sum game in dealing with dissenters or can we work towards a win-win? And these are not simply questions they are pinning onto political leadership alone but questions they are reflecting for themselves. Because many of them are leaders, too – from non-profits, corporations, public service. They do work that does require them to work with dissenting stakeholders. So, they are always looking for inspiration and role-modelling. One of Mdm President’s most memorable observations in her speech was about how the new leadership “will need to listen to the views and feelings of the people, and by their words and deeds, show that they have heard…And this is how they will earn the right to lead…In each generation, the people and leaders must work with one another…and forge their own bonds afresh”. The student’s letter shows us how a new generation of voters would like to work with the new generation of leaders who desire the right to lead them. They say, “We want you to trust that we do not disagree for dissent’s sake and that we can find unity even in the face of our differences with you…Disagreement is not weakness and your appointment is a chance for a new way for our differences to be received. We truly believe that it is only in facing our differences together openly, honestly and fearlessly that our discourse can be strengthened, outcomes can be sharpened and our relationship can be deepened.” I train people in how to build trust through conversations and we have a simple rule of thumb. In every argument, we really only have two end-games to play: you can either prioritise being right, or you can prioritise retaining the relationship and the results that come through that relationship.”
“And if they’re not, then you’ve got even more serious problems.” So, I do worry when I read surveys that seem to present too positive an assessment of public opinion on controversial issues like transport or water prices. I believe such polls may cause an unintended widening of the communication gap between leaders and the ground. In a recent Straits Times interview regarding whether the ground cared about the six-hour questioning of Dr PJ Thum by the Select Committee, I saw this quote, “We went to the grassroots, into the constituency, door to door, and nobody asked about it, nobody wanted to talk about it and nobody was the least bit concerned about it.” And perhaps, but I respectfully offer you my observation that this has not been my own experience of the ground. In my work, I do get to talk to a considerable number of youths and white-collar working professionals. There were definitely some people asking about it, wanting to talk about it and showing concern about the general handling of dissenters. So, I do not think it is a case of "nobody" cared. Many of these lay observers, even those who were more establishment-leaning, did express their deepening discomfort with watching the establishment go for, what they perceived, as over-kill when it came to dealing with naysayers from the Opposition, from civil society and even from within the establishment’s own ranks. And now, these observers were not saying let us go soft on dissenters who are clearly professional agitators. But they were asking: how far do we really have to go to bring down people with political opinions that may be different from our own? What do we gain and what do we lose when we win the argument but display clear contempt of the other person?”
“To ensure he always had a clear picture of the ground, Powell said that he made his staffers stick to four simple rules: “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And always distinguish which is which." But even so, those four good rules still could not prevent the issue of withheld dissent which caused him, and his country, to make an astronomical mistake. He recounted, “There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn’t, don’t tell him that he doesn’t. I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the United Nations in 2003 about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes was not based on facts, though I thought it was…A number of senior analysts had big “don’t knows” that they never passed on. Some of these same analysts later wrote books claiming they were shocked that I had relied on such deeply flawed evidence…So, why did no one stand up and speak out during the intense hours that we worked on the speech?…It takes courage to do that, especially if you are standing up to a view strongly held by a superior or to the generally prevailing view, or if you really don’t want to acknowledge ignorance when your boss is demanding answers. The leader can’t be let off without blame in these situations…He has to relentlessly cross-examine the analysts until he is satisfied he’s got what they know and…what they don’t know. At the same time, the leader must realise that it takes courage for someone to stand up and say to him, “That’s wrong.” “You’re wrong.” Or: “We really don’t know that.” The leader should never shoot the messenger. Everybody is working together to find the right answer.”
“And lest we brush aside these dissenting young people as just part of a “vocal minority” that can be ignored, I find their youthful opinion matches the sentiments I hear from a number of 20- to 40-something professionals from the quieter middle ground. My own sense of the ground, and I could be wrong and you may disagree with me, is that there are more people who have dissenting views about what is going on in our country than Government-commissioned opinion polls reveal. This is partly because many people in this segment are unlikely to answer such polls in the first place. They do not like registering their dissent openly, be it on survey or social media or any form of record. The reasons why these people keep their dissent to themselves vary. Some honestly assume that their opinion is unimportant or unqualified; some like getting along and fear that their honesty will invite an open rebuke or a cold shoulder from the establishment; and others say it is just self-preservation based on their past experiences. Whatever it is, their quiet dissent is real and such withholding of views may give the leadership the wrong impression that all is quiet on the western front. The shock at the electoral results in the UK, US and Malaysia has shown that some leaders can live in an unfortunate bubble and, sometimes, it is not one entirely of your own making. It is a well-known phenomenon that one unintended effect of being in a powerful leadership position is that people surrounding you may start to presume, wrongly or rightly, that their job is to tell you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to hear. One of the most poignant reflections I read about this problem was from former US Secretary of State General Colin Powell.”
“” This echoes Mdm President’s concern about the future leadership’s ability to listen to, trust and work with the people, particularly those with dissenting views. Their second and third questions for their future prime minister are: “How will you unite Singapore?” and “What is Singapore to you?”. This ties in with Mdm President’s call for leadership to deal with social inequality and cast a more inclusive future vision that can “fire up…the spirit of young Singaporeans”. I will explore the questions and make suggestions that I hope are respectful enough of Mdm President’s call for bold changes versus marginal tweaking. First, “How much do you trust us?” In their letter, the students shared their uncertainty about whether their voice in the public square would be welcomed if they did not share pro-establishment views. They wrote: “Do you see us as equal partners, leaders you want to empower, or as citizens you need to govern? What kind of role do you trust us to play? We are prompted in school to think critically and voice our opinions, but we see some naysayers being treated negatively. We are encouraged to push boundaries…yet, those of us who write articles online are reminded to respect existing boundaries. And we are taught it is important to learn our history, but are certain narratives preferred over others?” The youths believe that having dissenting views does not mean they are any less passionate for Singapore’s good or less loyal to Singapore’s interests. They speak out because they care and they want to see their leaders model curiosity and compassion in their engagement with divergent views.”
“Two months ago, Prof Tommy Koh invited me to speak on a panel at Tembusu College, discussing Singapore’s hopes for the next Prime Minister. The College had also selected a student leader to speak on behalf of his cohort. And to prepare, this student leader spent a whole month running focus groups and surveying his peers. That night, he read out an open letter addressed to the future prime minister that summarised the themes emerging from his research. Prof Koh, who chaired the discussion, and the rest of us panelists recognised it as the best speech of the night. You might have already seen that speech online that went viral and, if you have not, here is the printed version. Three weeks ago, those precocious students hand-delivered 16 letters to my office – one for each of the fourth generation leaders – hoping that I would bring them to Parliament on their behalf. I will keep that promise and pass these to the Clerk for the team. Many have already weighed in on this letter online and some praise it for being inspiring but others have slammed it for being naive. And whatever your inclination, it is worth a read because it reflects the perspective of a new generation of voters that will be making themselves heard, regardless, at the ballot boxes in the next few years. I was nominated into Parliament to give insight into youths’ concerns. So, I will thus orient what is probably my last major speech around the three big questions in the students’ letter for they resonate with the themes brought up by Mdm President last week. The students’ first question for their future prime minister is, “How much do you trust us?”
“Currently, there is no requirement for a company to accommodate the employee’s changed situation, such as redesigning a job or offering an alternative role. Can the Ministry require or assist employers to provide reasonable job accommodations for employees who acquire disabilities in the course of their employment so that they may continue in their current role, wherever this is possible or appropriate? Economic Growth and Jobs for Locals Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon): Mr Chairman, the Singapore economy grew by 3.6% in 2017. This is better than the economic growth in 2015 and 2016. On the employment front, we were informed of a drop in Singapore's total employment in 2017. This was due to a larger drop in foreign employment, although local employment grew. I would like to ask the Minister: has the economic growth in the past few years benefited Singaporeans, in particular, the growth in PMET jobs? Workforce Restructuring and Productivity”
“On FDWs, according to a March 2017 Singapore Law Review article, the Ministry of Manpower's (MOM's) "Employer’s Guide" is a good step. But some of the language used in there is still a bit ambiguous. Right now, words like "should" and "must" are used interchangeably in the guide. But "should" is an aspirational goal whereas "must" sounds like an indisputable requirement. For instance, the guide uses "should" for "your foreign domestic worker should not sleep near any dangerous equipment or structure that could potentially cause hurt or harm to her, and "You and your foreign domestic worker should mutually agree on which day of the week she should take the rest day". But it uses "must" for: "You must provide your worker with three meals a day" and "you must minimally provide your worker with a mattress, pillow and blanket". But if we believe in workers' safety and workers' rights, then surely our domestic workers must sleep in safe quarters and must mutually agree on their rest days. So, can the Ministry replace "should" with "must" in the guide wherever appropriate? This would help lessen public misunderstanding about what is MOM's tolerance level for abuse that an employer can get away with. Lastly, on people with disabilities, the EA does not define what unfair dismissal is, leaving room for misunderstanding. People with disabilities have been dismissed without explanation by their employers. Can the Ministry amend the EA to provide a clearer definition of what constitutes an "unfair" dismissal and set out legal remedies for unfair dismissals? Since our workforce is rapidly ageing, acquired disabilities, such as mobility issues and sensory impairments, will become a growing challenge. Some employees also acquire a disability while working for a company.”
“" What is troubling about this story to me is that if a relatively well-resourced and legally trained employee with the support of a well-resourced and legally trained parent felt that helpless in the situation, how much more difficult would it be for an employee with less power and resources to seek help? Can the Ministry consider two ways of enhancing protection of women from workplace harassment? First, the Tripartite Advisory to Manage Workplace Harassment is useful but there is no awareness about who is actually meeting those guidelines. Can the Ministry consider having a public register that actually tracks which companies are adopting the measures suggested in the Advisory? 10.15 am Second, because it is usually too complicated, expensive and ultimately pretty awkward to get a Court order against a colleague or boss, most victims do not bother with getting a protection order. Some victims also rather not immediately escalate their situation to the Police because they are uncertain about the impact on their personal safety and professional reputation. Harassment victims could benefit from having a safe and trusted third party with institutional authority to help them deal with their situation. Currently, the Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices (TGFEP) is an educational body and the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management (TDM) and ECT deal with more straightforward claims like salary disputes. Can the Ministry consider empowering either TGFEP or the other two bodies to deal with workplace harassment grievances, or have its hotline for reporting labour infringements be extended specifically to workplace harassment as well?”
“There are three groups of vulnerable employees I will cover in this cut: women, foreign domestic workers (FDWs) and people with disabilities. First, women. In November 2017, The Straits Times interviewed a 28-year-old female lawyer whose former boss repeatedly harassed her. After she rejected him again and again, her boss shifted her work away from legal work to menial tasks. And though she reported her situation to all the appropriate levels of power, she was met with cultural roadblocks: a female senior colleague who told her to stay silent, a founding partner of the firm who brushed it off as "such things happen when you are a pretty girl", and a human resource (HR) department which advised her "not to make a fuss". After a year of feeling trapped, she confessed her story to her father – who was also a lawyer – who insisted that she make a Police report. Scared for her future career prospects, she chose to inform the firm of her intentions to go to the Police. The firm finally dealt with the matter by getting her to sign a non-disclosure agreement prohibiting her from reporting the matter to the Police. In exchange, she received a year’s salary and had to leave the firm immediately. The article said nothing further about the boss. So, for all we know, he is still out there harassing his employees. The female lawyer told the reporter, "I am not someone who doesn't speak her mind. But when I spoke up, I was told I'm a liar and I made things up. I hope that more people don't have to feel all alone and they can find some support.”
“I think the United Kingdom (UK) manages that by saying that leave should be taken in weeks rather than days. Similarly, the same amount of adoption leave that is available to mums should be available to dads. Or alternatively, a longer quantum of gender-neutral adoption leave can be offered for parents to share as they wish. I will end my cut with a request. At the 2017 COS, then Senior Minister of State Josephine Teo announced that the Government was undergoing a three-year pilot where Public Sector officers and their spouses would be given an additional four weeks of unpaid infant leave per parent. She mentioned that the length of the pilot was necessary for the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) to test the impact of longer parental leave in a variety of work settings and that NPTD will be using this experience to get a clearer idea of whether a nationwide rollout was feasible. So, I hope the Second Minister can give an update to the House of any useful insights that have already emerged from the pilot. Paternity Leave Usage”
“I find this really troubling because they have nothing to be ashamed about and they are doing really noble work with long intergenerational impact and it is the same work that women have been doing for years, by the way. What can we do to further recognise the gifts that fathers are to their children, and how can we help to affirm that men are just as powerful, impactful and necessary a caregiver to their children as women are? I hope we can offer a longer quantum of parental leave for parents to share as they wish. This would help families to make the decisions that are most appropriate for their context. I was going to actually just push for having working mothers share up to eight weeks of their 16 weeks of paid maternity leave with their husbands. But my fellow Nominated MP, Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan, in the tea-room just now, who is a new dad, said, "Eh, why not push for more?" So, okay, on his behalf, why not 16? Allowing more flexibility of leave to be shared between husband and wife would be really useful for working couples who are in this scenario where the woman has a better-paid job and better career-advancement prospects than her spouse. If they prefer that she remains in full-time employment while he goes part-time or leave the workforce for a season, then they should be allowed to make that decision rather than be forced into arrangements that are just dictated by gender. This will help couples feel a lot freer to manage their families and finances as they wish and this will also have an impact on the overall output contribution and productivity of our labour force. To reduce disruptions to the labour supply, maybe there can be restrictions placed on how this additional leave is to be taken.”
“Last year, the Government announced that working dads would finally get two weeks of paid compulsory paternity leave where they used to be entitled to one. The Government also legislated for working mothers to go from sharing just one of their 16 weeks of paid maternity leave to sharing up to four weeks with their husbands. This is one area where the gender gap is skewed more in favour of women than men, so I am quite glad we are making strides for the rights of men. I hope we can make things fairer for fathers because that would definitely make things fairer for mums as well. The Centre for Fathers' Chief Executive Peter Quek has said that today's fathers are a lot more hands-on in raising their children and they are the beginnings of a cultural shift and more men actually want to step up to the plate to be more participative caregivers to their kids and also to their elders. Some men are actually even choosing to be full-time caregivers because it comes down to a simple decision between husband and wife about who can drive the car and who cannot, or whose parent is the one who needs care or who has a greater chance at being fast-tracked in their career and who does not. Full-time male caregivers are particularly courageous because they know what they are doing runs up against the grain of predominant assumptions about gender roles. Though these men are clear and have no regrets about their choices because they see the impact they are making on their kids and the elders in their care, they still feel hesitant and some even say they feel ashamed about letting other people know what they do for work.”
“I thank the Finance Minister for the extended explanation he has given on taxes, borrowing and Reserves, I will definitely be referring to the Hansard when I prepare for future General Paper (GP) lectures. I have a request and a clarifying question. The request is: can I request that slides be made available to the public and that MOF engage with youth educators, specifically for GP, Social Studies and Economics, to help them facilitate a deeper conversation with young people about this? Because I think it is a conversation that is going to come up again and again. Many teachers actually feel very inadequate at explaining this and may give a wrong understanding. For the clarifying question, I understand that the full size of the Reserves can never be revealed for strategic reasons, but the absence of public information about the size of Reserves and the rate of return makes it quite hard for the average lay person, especially the educators, to have a meaningful conversation about it. The problem with the vacuum of information is alternative narratives are filling the gap – some are obvious, deliberate misinformation and some are just different from the Government's story. I read an Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) Economist's suggestion that we could split the Reserves into two parts: one as a base for generating the NIRC that can be publicly disclosed; and the other that is used to deter currency speculations can be kept secret. I was wondering if the Finance Minister could give his take on this suggestion.”
“I do not want to hold up the debate. I am quite happy to discuss with the Member in the Members' Room later about inequity and inequality.”
“Could the Member redefine "inequity" and "inequality" in your point of view?”
“I guess we may differ in our thinking about how much is enough help for people. I speak especially for children with single mothers and foreign mothers. We have talked a long time in this House about the differences of views about why they cannot get adequate housing and all that. I think more help could be given.”
“I think in the speech, I said quite clearly I was a terrible economics student and I do not really know much. I really would appreciate the Government's clear and easy-to-understand response to that because I did not know how to make sense of it.”
“I have no idea what the Member is asking. So, could the Member clarify that again? I am sorry, it is me. I could not hear what he wanted to ask.”
“I want to say that I see the heart of the Minister for Finance for the people. I believe in his openness to find new ways forward and I trust his courage to make hard choices. So, my hope is that he and this Government can work together with a new generation of idealists and pragmatists to help them dream of a better future that they will all be so very proud to call their own.”
“That certainty can only come from the promise of a new story, a story of a "Who" and a "Why" that is bigger than the sum of all of our fears about "What's" and "How's". Our youths need to hear the greater story of all the things that we want to do for love, not just fear. And the story needs to come straight from the heart of every leader in the land about all of the meaning that money can buy, not just for ourselves, but for one another. At some point, we have to decide when to stop just operating in fear that the bottom will fall out of Our Singapore Story. There is a time for fear, and there also is a time for courage ‒ courage born from the fire of fighting for our ideals ‒ to simply say, in the face of fear, that "That is enough. We have enough. We are enough. And it is time to let more of us have enough, too." And in that space of sufficiency, we shall find our satisfaction.”
“They are there. Singaporean children of low-income moms, single moms, and foreign moms. They are all our children and they and their mothers are part of the "We" that we are pledged to serve. So, give them the housing and the education and the possibility of rising into positions of power so that they, too, can play their part in our country's success story. We are a nation struggling with infertility. Why should we not take any and every child born into Singapore with equal honour and belief and blessing? Our young Singaporeans get it that we are a small and vulnerable nation and they get it that we need a monstrous amount of money just in case a perfect storm of horrors truly hit – and they are so many horrors out there: sea levels rising, global economy tumbling, silver tsunami, total fertility rate flatlines. I mean, they get it; they have heard it. We are a nation so well-versed with fears – a motivating force. We have come very far in surviving as a country by not ignoring our fears. But it is not the only emotion worth listening into. Fear alone cannot bring us past that space of survival into a space of true thriving. When I live-poll young people in junior colleges (JCs), polytechnics and Institutes of Technical Education (ITEs) about what is that one word they associate with the future of Singapore, do you know what word consistently emerges as the biggest on their word cloud? It is the word "uncertain". So, yes, I think we have succeeded in engraining in them the message of our vulnerabilities. They got it. And the emotion of fear, while useful, can become uninspiring and paralysing as a mood. Our youths are hungry for a new kind of certainty.”
“" With the help of a resilient and loving mother, supportive friends and teachers, she ended up not just excelling at the GCE "A" levels, but she even joined Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS), interned at MSF, did volunteer work and reconciled with her father. This girl is amazing, she is phenomenal and she is now looking for a way to fund her university studies. I share her story to have us first consider, not just her amazing achievement but her mom's achievement as well as an individual beating the odds, but second, I would have us to consider all the multiple points in her story where we would have wanted to know whether the system did come alongside to aid this mother and child's heroic journey. Why is it that we recognise this girl's story as an exceptional story, rather than the norm? And do we want stories like hers to be more of a norm? And if we do, what are we prepared to do at a systemic level? Can we believe there are actually more children out there who are capable of having a story like hers if we choose to believe in them and invest more systemic state support to care for parents and children who do not quite fit into our checkboxes of assumed indicators of future success? Do we believe that the child growing up in the worst circumstances has just as much to offer our country as the child who grew up in the best? I have met children growing up in rental flats with potential to live up very big dreams, a girl whose ambition is to become a criminal lawyer, an articulate boy who learnt public speaking because he binge-watched Technology, Entertainment and Design (TED) videos. I met a neighbourhood school teenager who floored me with his serious conviction that someday he will enter Parliament to be, in his own words, "a voice for the voiceless".”
“The lower-income youths welcome the $300 but they know how fast it disappears in a few bill payments. So, no once-off voucher can truly soothe the blow of a GST increase that hits them with every transaction on a day-to-day basis. And meanwhile, they know, in the land of the rich, many treat the $100 as just chump change. For the short-term and disproportionate impact that they have, ad hoc packages are not cheap. Seven hundred million dollars is a substantial sum that could have gone into, say, a Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) programme that focuses on making a more significant, long-term difference. So, are our well-intended ad hoc transfers drawing resources and attention away from dealing with challenges in a more sustained and structured manner? Every year, after the GCE "A" level results, the media loves highlighting stories of kids who excelled in their examinations despite the most challenging of circumstances. This year, I came across a story of a 19-year-old Singaporean girl who grew up under an alcoholic Singaporean father who constantly abused her Indonesian mother. And in primary school, she witnessed her desperate mother attempting suicide. Her parents divorced and her mother had to take care of her and her brother on a cleaner's salary of less than $1,000, the bulk of which went into paying rental for a two-room flat. This girl lived on a daily allowance of $2 and survived on loaves of bread and treats from friends. She studied in school all the time so she could help her mother save on electricity bills. She recounted that the temptation to join gangs was always present, but she had the presence of mind to ask herself, "Is that what I really want to be in the future, and is this how I want to define myself?”
“It is the difference felt by the young intern every lunchtime when she struggles over how to tell her colleagues that she has a very different idea from all of them about what is an affordable place to dine. Even some of our more privileged youths are not comfortable with the growing divide either and they are driven to do something different about it through the system. They are well-acquainted with how money can buy through tuition classes, college prep coaches, yearly overseas trips and diverse life experiences for someone else in their generation who is taking that same national examination, fighting for that same national trophy and going for the same interviews that they are. They, too, want to jailbreak this pragmatic arms race of "every man for himself" meritocracy. The Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), Eddie Teo, made a speech in 2015 where he shared his insights from his yearly interviews with the 350 young people vying for scholarships each year. He said of these potential future public sector leaders that they "think critically and question what is happening in Singapore…our socioeconomic disparities, our educational policy and system, and our political environment…And when they worry about social inequality and the lack of social mobility, some may have already moved away from one cardinal belief that our founding fathers had, that social welfare should be discouraged because it breeds a poor work ethic and a dependence on Government handouts….they believe that the Government should do more for the poor because they feel it is just." So, the young recognise the goodness of ad hoc help like SG Bonus, but they are also clear that such help is short-lived and unlikely to create deep satisfaction.”
“A sociologist, Teo You Yenn's book, "This Is What Inequality Looks Like” is sold out and I have seen dog-eared copies already making their rounds among thoughtful young Singaporeans and some of them are buying one copy to keep and another to loan. Because what she is saying in there about a need to deal with inequality through a systemic lens is resonating and connecting with them. The Straits Times' journalist Chua Mui Hoong cited it in her own article, "Inequality is a threat – name it and face it", recommending it as a must-read for every politician and civil servant. I am really glad that the Prime Minister himself is making inequality a "critical" issue to look at. In his written response to a Parliamentary Question this month, he said, "If we fail – if widening income inequalities result in a rigid and stratified social system, with each class ignoring the others or pursuing its interests at the expense of others – our politics will turn vicious, our society will fracture and our nation will wither." A recent Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study on Social Capital in Singapore concluded that the sharpest social divisions here may no longer be race or religion, but class. Our youths who have lived in public housing, gone to neighbourhood schools and depended on public transport all their lives will say that they did not need an official study to tell them what they have seen for a long time. They can sense-make the class differences in everyday, ordinary interactions because it is the difference they feel at the doorway between the teenager who gets to order from Foodpanda and the teenager who rides through the rain to deliver it to him.”
“We would probably take out a significant percentage of the investment returns of our own savings – while prudently protecting a baseline sum, of course – in a heartbeat if we believed doing so would make a significant and immediate difference to the well-being of our children in the present, particularly if it would help save their life, because no point saving for their future if they die in the present, right? It is human to be much more liberal when it comes to spending on our own children and much more conservative when we choose how to spend on other people's children. I deeply admire the Government’s devotion to long-term strategic over-planning and I get the deep anxieties we have around under-planning. I appreciate that we cannot afford to get the mathematics wrong, but we cannot afford to get the meaning under the mathematics wrong either, because people do not listen to mathematics, they listen to meaning. If we hope to galvanise the support of the young idealists who make up our future tax base, we have to give them a braver and broader vision that warrants the bigness of our Reserves. Otherwise, they can mistake it to be a story that is just about growth of Reserves for growth's sake. So, I hope that the Government can help us understand what is the real story better. Inequality is a deeply emotional issue for many young Singaporeans and I dare say it is one of the biggest issues they care about. So, now is the time to really go talk to the next generation of Singapore taxpayers before 2021 hits, and to listen in to what really matters to them.”
“I want to admit I am a terrible economics student, so I do need help in making sense of all of these. I struggled to understand the International Monetary Fund's (IMF's) surveillance of member states' foreign exchange reserves adequacy because in IMF's assessment, it says we are excessively prudent. IMF's opinion is that a good enough amount of reserves would be 27% of our GDP or S$113 billion. I do not know the size of our Reserves but I read that the Monetary Authority of Singapore's (MAS') foreign exchange reserves alone are around S$369 billion or 88% of GDP. So, that is about three times over IMF's recommendation. And I want to stress again that I am not assuming that IMF is right and the Government is wrong. I am certainly not saying let us just take whatever a foreign institution says as gospel truth because I am sure as heck I do not know enough to make any kind of proper assessment. I think it is helpful for the Government to provide a thoughtful and easy to understand response to the IMF's assessment because it does open up an important and deeply profound question for us to consider. How much then is enough for us? What is this final number we need in our Reserves that will make us feel complete and secure? And who would we be prepared to re-examine that number for? When we build up our own family's savings, how do we decide when is a good time to tap into it to spend on our children now, versus storing it up for them to use for their future children? And we might say, well, that really depends on how urgent are the needs of my children now, is it not? Is it life or death? Is there a golden opportunity they need to seize?”
“She is really cutting, but I can concede that she has a point. Thanks to the prudence of our forefathers, we, of all nations, indeed, have a unique chance right here and right now, to set an example once more to the world of how a small nation can effect real change, impacting real people in real time. And this substantial gift is given unto us for a reason and maybe it holds a meaning larger than our present imagination. So, we have quite a First World problem on our hands. Should we spend more to help the people we have with us today or store more so we can help the people of tomorrow? And it is a hard choice, because both are equally good choices. But it is healthy to ask ourselves if we notice that we are in the habit of overestimating for the future. Could we also be underestimating what we can do in the present? Every reasonable Singaporean believes in protecting our Reserves, and I am totally not supportive of any willful call to squander this once-in-a-lifetime inheritance on populist promises and things that would not last. So, I agree with the Finance Minister's argument that using 100% of NIR is not a good idea because "the principal sum of Reserves will stagnate over time and the NIRC, as a share of GDP, will consequently fall as our economy grows". But I can also appreciate economist Donald Low's perspective that "the current rule of spending only up to 50% of NIR means that the Reserves are still growing quite considerably every year… and just because 100% is not prudent does not mean 50% is right either." We would still be adding to the principal of the Reserves, even if it was at 60%. The choice is really about whether we believe in growing our Reserves faster or slower.”
“And the decision to not implement capital gains tax or raise more wealth taxes as yet another alternative has also been justified as a pragmatic decision to maintain our attractiveness as a wealth management hub. And every tilt towards the side of pragmatism is simultaneously a tilt away from the side of our ideals. And I want to stress I do not presume pragmatism to be bad and idealism to be good. Every healthy individual learns to hold both options in tension within their mental construct and make their hard choices. But I believe our idealistic young professionals and students who make up both our current and future tax base have the right to question us. When will it ever be the right time to tilt our balance just a little more towards our ideals rather than always towards what is pragmatic? And, if not now, while we have substantial surpluses, then when? If not later, then are we saying never? I came across an article online called "The Limits of Ideology: Lessons from Singapore" by an American CEO called Margaret Heffernan. She concluded her article like this – "What Singapore holds in reserve…is an asset western leaders would give their eye teeth for: a national surplus accrued over many years of fastidious economic management. How will this wealth be used? And while western leaders use insolvency as a perennial alibi for their failure to make coherent strategic choices, Singapore's Government has the money and the power to effect real change. And should it fail to do so… no politicians in Singapore will be able to claim they did not see their chance. If, with the freedom to spend that most western leaders lack, Singapore cannot address its problems, then the principles it espouses will be discredited for good." And I get it.”