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 3 of 5.
“I have read that HDB sets aside about 740 flats for the scheme as of December 2014, but the take-up has been slow and only 130 flats have been booked. So, I am not sure if that is because of the eligibility criteria. To qualify, applicants must have sold their matrimonial flat before their divorce. However, anecdotally, many single parents sell their matrimonial flat after their divorce, disqualifying them for the scheme. Can the Minister verify and update us on the take-up rate of the ASSIST scheme? I hope he can also explain the underlying principle of why only applicants who sold their flat before the divorce need apply and whether this scheme can be expanded to include those who sold their flat after their divorce. Second, allow divorced single parents with split care and control of children early access to subsidised housing. I understand that divorced couples are subjected to a three-year time bar where only one of them is allowed to own a subsidised flat. If both of them cannot agree on which one of them will get that privilege, only the parent with care and control of all the children can be exempted from the debarment period when buying a second subsidised HDB flat. Some of these lower-income divorcees ordered by the Courts to split the care and control of their children thus feel trapped in between the three-year debarment for HDB home ownership and also being denied rental housing options simply because they do not have care for all the children. Can the Minister share whether it is possible to lift the three-year debarment period for access to subsidised housing for financially-challenged divorcees with split care and control of children, especially those who do not have kin who can house them?”
“I tell the story of HDB's beginnings to the students that I teach with real pride. I remind them that we were once labelled by the British as having "one of the world's worst slums" because so many of us here were living in squatter conditions. I tell them also about a man called Lim Kim San who was so affected by the struggles of the poor that he volunteered to chair the HDB and power his way through bureaucratic red tape and rigid regulations to ensure that low-income Singaporeans could gain quick access to low-cost housing as soon as possible. The foundations of the HDB story were one marked by an urgent compassion and an ambition for social impact, and that is why it is regarded as one of the most successful social housing schemes in the world. And I do see the continuation of Lim Kim San's extraordinary legacy whenever I hear stories of compassionate officers in the Public Service working quietly and ambitiously to help every housing challenge that comes their way, especially those of single parents who have fallen through the cracks. My cut is about how we can help financially burdened single working parents, be they divorced, widowed, unwed or those with incarcerated spouses, to allow them to consistently experience HDB as a compassionate and trusted guide in their difficult journey of finding stable housing for themselves again. So, I will focus on four interventions that I believe can help. First, expand the terms of the Assistance Scheme for Second-Timers (ASSIST) scheme so that more single parents can qualify. I understand there already is a priority housing scheme for divorced or widowed single parents since 2013.”
“Though the industry still maintains good trusting relations with the public sector partners, many still wish that the process was done a little bit differently. Both the people and the Government want each other to not just understand but empathise with the complexity of the issues they are dealing with and the trade-offs in decision-making. So, I have two suggestions to make community engagements better. First, conduct consultations earlier before policies are set in stone. Give people a real chance to have their views shape policymaking. If their views have been taken into account, inform them or, better yet, celebrate them, because such trust-building goes a very long way. Second, compose the dialogues and focus groups with more obvious diversity in viewpoints. Prof Tommy Koh said that including challengers who are subversive and who have alternative points of view make Singapore stronger. Member of Parliament Louis Ng suggested that public servants work more closely with civil society activists and not to be afraid of them, because these are people who speak up because they care. The people we engage less with may be precisely the people we need to engage more with. My hope is for both the people and the Government to approach the consultation process as an exercise in compassion, a space to listen and share each other's passions, pains and interests. We often forget that compassion is not a fluffy word − passion means suffering, compassion means suffering together. Trying to do good work for our country involves plenty of suffering enough. I hope we do work towards finding new ways of solving our sufferings together rather than apart.”
“Online strategies are really good for downloading facts and messages but only offline face-to-face engagement alone can do the most significant work of communication, which is communicating and building trust, not just between different groups of people but between the people and the Government. I think there is a place for consultation sessions to be used by the Government to share with people the difficult trade-offs involved in policymaking. But if a session becomes more about a download, then the consultation is no longer perceived as a consultation but a presentation. Once people feel they are being presented to rather than consulted, they will either choose not to show up anymore or, if they show up, they will stay silent or offer only surface answers that they may think you want to hear, rather than the deep views they really hold, which is precisely the kind of high-quality deep data that you need to formulate decisions that connect with the ground. One example of a missed opportunity was with the private outdoor adventure education industry. Many were surprised by the announcement last year that the Government was going to provide outdoor adventure education to students. They were consulted but so late in the process that there was very little they could do to counter-propose a decision presented to them that would impact their businesses quite significantly. Many in the industry shared the Government's ambition to help young Singaporeans become more resilient and an earlier consultation could have allowed them to not just share their concerns but offer their combined years of expertise and pave the way for maybe a more win-win partnership.”
“There seems to be an occasional disconnect between the Government's genuine confidence that a full public consultation has been carried out and the ground's equally genuine consternation that they were not consulted. 6.00 pm So, I asked people for views about whether they would turn out for a Government-organised engagement to share views or issues they said they cared for and, if not, why. I would only focus on the answers of those who currently feel less inspired to show up because I believe their specific feedback will help us design engagements that reach beyond the usual choir. These are just two ad verbatim answers: "Yes, if there is real interest in engagement and opposing views"; "Yes, but only if it feels like there is a genuine interest in what we have to say, not just defending certain policies or positions that have already been decided on. It will be nice to have a session where whoever is conducting the session just ask questions and listens." Mdm Chairman, these are subjective points of view, of course. But I do want to revisit a point I brought up in the Budget Debate on the role of facts and feelings when it comes to effective communication between the Government and the people. I said that we are missing a big point if we say people must deal with the facts as they are, not where they feel they should be. But most people make their choices according to their feelings about the facts. So, if we care about making sure people hear us out on the hard facts about our country's situation, we must start all our communications with connecting with people where they are, which is how they feel, even if the feeling is disagreeable or irrational to us. If not, we have to accept that our words will never impact anyone outside our echo chambers.”
“So, I believe that this will help Singaporeans who wish to pursue the call to go out to learn from the best in the world on how to innovate and internationalise and quite willing to use their own money to do so.”
“So, there are cases of potential founders at a crucial peak of their leadership development period who put off going for training not because they do not think it is important or urgent, but they simply cannot spare liquidity for the moment. Many of them are definitely not looking for a handout from the Government, but they would like access to more liquidity, especially from their own resources. I understand that the CPF Education Scheme was originally designed around members of lower-income families who want to further their education but did not have the liquidity to do so. So, many of the controls written into it currently are designed around those intentions. I understand that this is why the scheme currently only supports loans for full-time, subsidised diploma courses or degree courses conducted locally at approved educational institutions. Can the Minister consider broadening the loan scheme, so that it can enable working professionals to have another liquidity option to tap on if they want to pursue a short but costly cutting-edge modular international course or conference? This will be really helpful for professionals in the people sector organisations, social enterprises and SMEs which do have less resources to tap on than professionals working for large public sector or private sector organisations who are better able to tap on their companies' sponsored learning. I am well aware that there is a legitimate worry about the jeopardising of retirement funds. But I believe controls similar to those existing ones in the schemes, such as a cap on the amount of withdrawal or duration of return of funds can be factored in.”
“Many of our 30- to 40-something-year-old working professionals already take seriously the call to upskill or be left behind. This is particularly true of those who are founders and entrepreneurs running small to medium-sized private sector or people sector organisations. I speak as one myself. Many of us founders hit our skill ceilings as our organisations scale from small to medium to large and, at each inflection point, many of us quickly realise that the only way to survive is to get exposed to worldclass level training and mentorship to keep our organisations resilient and relevant. I ask working professionals and organisation founders online for examples of what courses some of them would definitely go for, if they could use their CPF to do so. Some answers included the Cambridge Advanced Leadership programme that costs about $30,000, Organisational Development in the US and UK that costs $13,000, Intensive Language and Cultural Immersions in Lebanon and Beijing, costly tech conferences in Silicon Valley and so on. For some for them, the problem that gets in the way of going for such learning courses is simply liquidity. A white-collar working professional, especially 30- to 40-something-year-old founders and entrepreneurs heading their own small to medium organisations, can face surprising crunches in both personal and organisational resources. Some may find themselves caught between having to provide financial support for ageing parents and young children, while having to put in significant personal resources to support their own organisations during a long economic crunch. So, paying for their own personal learning is sometimes a struggle and put off as the last priority.”
“I want to thank the Senior Minister of State for his care. First, I want to affirm what I said yesterday. I actually do not believe that it is all on the Government and that everyone has to work together to solve all these issues. I want to affirm that I actually do not believe that the Public Service has lost heart, as some reports have said. I personally know of many deeply compassionate civil servants, especially those who work for people in rental housing, who actually go out on a limb to make things work out for the needy. That I really want to state. The story that I mentioned yesterday, as I said in my speech, is also not based on a single story. It is based on a composite of a few stories of single-parent households. So, it is entirely possible also for some of them that they slip through the cracks − as the Senior Minister of State has said − and they could have also met the wrong person who gave the wrong advice. So, I am more than glad to link you up with each of the organisations working with each of these women for their cases to be reviewed. I would also like to take the opportunity to state that I am also aware that, for some, they do not actually look for help because they believe mistakenly that nobody cares about them in the civil service and I think that is a mistake because that stops them from actually getting their needs met. Thank you for the question.”
“But allow me also the space to hope that each new Budget you bring will be one that finds new ways to bring ever more help and ever more hope to the drowning ones and the ones in the basement that need it most, because this is their city, too.”
“Is it for certain that if we uplift our poorest through more generous welfare, we will see the decimation of Singapore's culture of hard work? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. We do not know without engaging in honest conversation with everyone, especially the ones who respectfully but deeply disagree with us. There are Singaporeans out there who ask hard questions. There are Singaporeans out there who even live out their hard answers to those hard questions, and some of them are still here, still open, still pushing the boundaries, but some of them have already reached their breaking points where they have decided they are done with this city. They are done with trusting, done with trying and done with the heartbreak of putting up with those who passively accept the unfairness. They may still be here in body but, in spirit, they are already walking away from their Omelas. I do not know how and, certainly, I know I sound naive, but I will always hope that we can be that country where more of us are able to say to the ones who walk away: "Stay. Help me see what you see. And permit me to share what I see as well". Because in a world threatening to grow apart, our small city needs more ones who walk towards than ones who walk away, more than ever. The ones who dare to go where few want to go − towards one another, towards the conflicts, towards the problems, towards the solutions and, most profoundly, towards the children in the basement who still long to be free. Our city needs us. It has always needed every one of us, perhaps more than we will ever know. Finance Minister, I do support the Budget.”
“And the narrator tells us to accept that, in some mysterious way, should this child ever be set free, the whole city's success will be utterly compromised. We are asked to accept that all the freedoms the many enjoy above is wholly and inarguably dependent on the oppression of the one beneath. And the most disturbing part about Omelas' secret is that it is not a secret. We are told that every citizen there who comes of age has been ushered into this very room to see the truth for themselves. Though all get upset, most eventually accept that life is just about terrible trade-offs. And so, the status quo continues. The tale ends on a mixed note, talking about a small handful of citizens who choose to walk silently away from the city, towards an unknown destination that the narrator warns may not even exist. The story is disturbing because everyone who reads it knows instinctively how true to life that story is for every city in the world. Every city has a child in the basement and a nagging feeling that they all share in the complicity of keeping that child there. I have always wondered whether the narrator of the story was meant to be an unreliable narrator, pushing out a narrative that deserves to be challenged. When I think about the parallels to Singapore, I see narratives that need to be constantly questioned, rather than casually accepted as sacrosanct. Is it really true that once we give mandatory off-days to our foreign domestic workers, we will see the instant collapse of our work-life balance? Is it for real that if we free our children from the tyranny of early streaming and high-stakes exams, we will see our future workforce become that much less rigorous?”
“It is easier to say moving words about the equal rights we want every Singaporean to have, than to say the challenging words about the equal responsibilities those rights do require every Singaporean to take on. But if we who request for those rights are not prepared to take on some measure of the correlated responsibilities demanded of us − through taxes, donations or volunteering − then our request feels that much less honest and much less powerful. So, just as much as I wish for the state to stay open to radical solutions, I also see we the people have to stay equally open to the radical responsibilities that those solutions may place on us. If there is a need to pay higher taxes someday, as the Minister hinted, in order to build a better system that moves everyone forward together, I think many Singaporeans will be prepared to bite that bullet because we are a far more generous people than we give ourselves credit for. But that is the catch. Trust has to be very high for that to happen. I believe there are many taxpayers and voters on the ground who will still need to be more honestly engaged and deeply convinced that this system's story is genuinely about moving everyone forward together and not just moving some of us forward together. We need more open and honest conversations on that front. Let me close with a story. American author Ursula Le Guin wrote a provocative little parable called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas". In that story, an unnamed narrator guides us through the fantastical city of Omelas, taking us on a dizzying tour of the city's amazing technology and wonderful people. But the journey takes a dark turn when we are led down into a basement tucked beneath this beautiful city. Imprisoned in that basement is a weak and wretched child.”
“Taking up a lower paying job to at least get a rental flat of her own where her kids can study in peace, suddenly feels like the smartest and safest decision in the world. Are you tired even just listening to that story? Because she sure the heck is tired living it. And you have to appreciate that for many of the poor, they believe that they will never not feel tired. All she wants is to move her life forward again, together, with everyone else she sees around her, but there are all these structural hurdles that keep coming up her way. What is the Singapore of her experience? What is the Singapore we want her to experience? What is the Singapore story we hope she will pass down to her children? Does this user experience of the Singapore system matter to us enough to form a strategic team and warrant a complete overhaul of her customer journey? Is her trust, and her children's trust, equally worthy of winning as the trust of a university graduate or a corporate high-flyer? If she still stays resilient all the way through, and if she still maintains her high trust in our system despite every trouble she has endured, is that not more of a testament of strength on her part, rather than ours? And should she lose trust in our system, whose job will it be to help her find it again? I do not believe the answer is the Government alone. That is the easiest answer. The hardest answer is that it is all of us. It always has been, and it always will be. They say you become an adult the first time you realise that nothing is truly free and everything worthy comes at a price. Everything good costs someone something. We just seldom want to be the one footing the bill. In every request for a right, there is always a correlated offer of responsibility.”
“Consider just one kind of life story, a composite based on real stories familiar to our local social workers: a woman gets divorced, she gains custody of her three kids but no promise of maintenance. She applies for a rental flat. The frontline officer tells her that $1,600 monthly salary disqualifies her under the $1,500 income cap. She is advised to beat the system by stopping work, applying for a rental flat and starting work again. But she does not quit her job because she loves her work, she needs her work. Giving up her salary even for a month is not an option. Her sympathetic MP advocates for her but after 20 letters back and forth, back and forth, and hours of Meet-the-People (MPS) sessions, no one is any wiser, not even her MP, about why an exception cannot be made for her case. She cannot afford the downpayment for a flat. None of her relatives or friends has room to spare her little family. She rents on the open market but rents are high and leases are short. She moves four times in five years. Her savings drain down. When her boss offers her a higher paying job opportunity, she has to turn it down because she cannot work far away from her child's preschool. She knows she can never pick up her child on time. Not by bus, which is all she can afford. Plus they need her to work nights when she has zero childcare options. And then the health issues crop up. First, her kids. Then, her parents. And then that damn electrical fuse box has to blow up, forcing her to choose between paying for the lights to come back on or buying better food for her kids. And some nights, at the end of some very, very, very bad days, she considers just giving it up. Because why try so hard?”
“But I will, nevertheless, go on a limb to state my assessment that if we do not want our system to slide into the levels of toxic distrust we see elsewhere, we must move away from safe, small, incremental steps and take larger paradigm-shifting changes on a systems level to help the least in our land. And we should take those steps sooner rather than later. Because right now, we still have time. All I want us to just consider is this: knowing what they know now, seeing what they see now, what would Washington's elites have done different for their poorest states if they could time-travel just four years, two years or even just one year back? If Downing Street could time-travel, what would they have done different for their most depressed regions to prevent Brexit? Some decisions that looked too high-risk, too ridiculous back then, I am sure, suddenly look well worth investing in now because they finally see the high-stake consequences at last. But they cannot go back. They can never go back. Their time for intervention has passed them by. But ours has not. What can we do? What will we do? What must we do to stave off a future shock scenario of our own? The Budget Speech declared, "We can aim for quality growth of 2% to 3%…if we work hard to help everyone who wishes to work find a place in the labour force". It also said, "On the social front, Budget 2017 supports families who wish to buy a home, experience the joys of parenthood and help their children towards post-secondary education." So, what can we do for our working poor, especially those in single parent or sandwich class families, so that they may feel included in those statements as well?”
“Because all of these interventions go a long way to create bandwidth, a space for the drowning to feel like they can breathe again. We are missing a big point if we say, "Well, people must deal with the facts as they are. Not where they feel they should be." But honestly, nobody understands their life just according to facts. It is an intellectual's fantasy to believe we are perfectly rational, fact-driven beings. Most people make their choices according to their feelings about the facts. If we care about making sure people hear us out on the hard facts about our country's situation, we must start all our communications with connecting with people where they are: which is how they feel, even if that feeling is disagreeable or irrational to us. If not, let us just accept that your words may never impact anyone outside your echo chamber. We cannot effectively uplift our working poor if we do not connect our solutions more effectively to the deep narratives and emotional realities that they live in. We love the idea of being a Smart City that uses Big Data to solve our wicked problems. But I sincerely hope we will also fall in love with the idea of being a Wise City that looks at Deep Data as well, to make sure the policies we come up with are not just technical solutions but empathetic, human solutions that resonate with the communities they were meant to serve. I am not an economist. I do not know enough numbers to put up an elegant fight to justify a request for $X increase in Workfare and $Y increase in Silver Support. There are far more convincing experts in this House and beyond who can make that case.”
“The bottom 10% sandwich class who hold full-time jobs, who are making a real effort to support their family but still cannot seem to break their poverty cycle. The ones who feel left out and left behind by our yearly calls to "upskill", "internationalise" and "innovate". Not because they do not care. Not because they are lazy. But because they are just busy trying not to drown under wave after wave of new demands, new costs and new changes to their world. To those who are drowning, even the calmest, most reasonable technocratic explanation about why a rise in water and motorcycle prices is justifiable will feel like salt on a wound. Because when you are drowning, all you want is for somebody to just stop talking, dive in and grab you before you sink. You do not care about the facts of the policies. Debates over what makes sense or does not make sense are all Greek to you. What is most real and relevant to you is simply how those facts are making you feel: I do not have enough. I will never have enough. I am not enough. And you do not care. When you are in that claustrophobic space of anxiety and scarcity, you do not have enough mental bandwidth to deal with anything more than each day's demands. And having the breathing space to consider alternative choices or plan for the future, that is a luxury the working poor do not have. That is why compassionate communication of available solutions rather than a "don't know, go talk to your MP" approach by frontline officers matters so much. That is why finding a way to provide universal support for childcare, eldercare, faster access to affordable housing, caregiver respite across all classes of people matters so much.”
“You might be surprised to also hear that actually, in America, the level of trust the informed public had in their system was almost as high as the level of trust our informed public had in our system. But it was the mass population respondents of America that ranked their system as deeply, deeply untrustworthy. That explains the genuine shock felt by Washington and the wealthier coastal cities at the election results. In Singapore, the difference is still not so stark. Our mass population respondents still trusted Singapore enough to place it in the top five. But 2017 was also the first time when our mass population respondents slid from being in the category of Trusters to the category of Neutrals. It is a small dip but still worth paying attention to. These respondents worried most about losing their jobs to immigrants and losing business opportunities to foreign competitors. Overwhelmingly, 70% of them believed the pace of change in business and industry was too fast. I do see the year-on-year efforts by the Government to mitigate the costs of that pace of change. The Silver Support Scheme, Workfare − these are all good, progressive moves towards strengthening our social safety nets. But what I also see is that those schemes still have much further to go to help Singaporeans who are feeling left behind. The Goods and Services Tax, U-Save Vouchers, conservancy rebates, education subsidies, weekly food donations − these are all good things, and these are all greatly, greatly appreciated things. But for some of our struggling families, all these good and helpful gestures still feel like drops in a constantly leaking bucket. I am speaking especially for our working poor.”
“Globally, 53% of respondents believe the current overall system has failed them and is unfair, offering them little hope for the future. Only 15% believe it is working, the rest are just uncertain. So, how did we do on the Trust Barometer? Apparently, Singapore is the fifth most high-trust nation, outranked only by India, China, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. Compared to the global average of more than 50%, only 30% of respondents in Singapore believed the system was failing while 43% said they were uncertain. To be a country where public trust in all four institutions is still above 50% is now a thing of great value in an uncertain world. Our high-trust climate is a rare thing which presents us opportunities we can leverage on. Deputy Speaker, it is not just deep reserves of financial capital from our past that we must invest in, protect and multiply; it is our deep reserves of social and emotional capital as well. Every country that hopes to ride out this global trust crisis must not only actively shore up trust in its system, it needs to also take a hard, honest look at where trust is being broken in its system and take noticeable, decisive steps to build it up again. One of the insights in the report that struck me was the distinction between the responses from the informed public and responses from the mass population. The global gap between the level of trust felt by the informed public and that felt by the mass population has widened significantly, with the biggest disparities in the US, UK and France. So, if Edelman's findings are to be believed, we should not be surprised if the French elections see its own version of a Brexit or Trump shock result.”
“They had simply decided to play the game that they believed had been played on them. The true currency of any country is not in bills and coins. It is in trust. It has always been in trust. The value of every country rises and falls according to the legacy of trust it still possesses and the level of trust it still inspires on the individual, institutional and international levels. In a hyper networked world, trust is the most important currency. This is not a new observation. Many smart chief executive officers (CEOs) working in the new economy can tell you that. Many well-educated policymakers can tell you that. But all that foreknowledge has apparently done little to arrest the huge crisis of trust that the world is now in. The Edelman Trust Barometer has been tracking trust in four key institutions − business, government, NGOs and media – since 2012. And year on year, Edelman has seen public trust in these institutions decline across all 28 countries surveyed. The global rise of angry populism and pushback against elites that we see today are a result of unchecked erosion of trust from the past, coupled with present-day fears about the pace of change. Last year, Edelman reported the largest-ever drop in trust across all four institutions. Trust in media is at all-time lows in 17 countries. Trust in government dropped in 14 markets and is now the least trusted institution in half of the 28 countries surveyed. The credibility of CEOs dropped globally to an all-time low in every country studied. People are now more likely to trust search engines over human editors, individuals over institutions, reformers more than preservers of the status quo.”
“Finance Minister, it is very good to see you back. I was encouraged by the kind support shown to you by many Singaporeans, especially across political divides. Unity is one of the most precious assets any country can boast of. And I will always be grateful for every year that we still possess that in Singapore. It is one of the richest parts of the inheritance we have received from our previous generations and I pray we will never squander it. Budget 2017 declares that our future lies in Moving Forward Together. But what does that really mean? Deputy Speaker, Sir, Finance Minister, America's motto is "e pluribus unum" − "out of many, we are one". It is inscribed on every coin they have in circulation. It sat in the pockets of all their citizens as a daily reminder that unity was the very currency of their system. And yet, this is the very same country which just recently voted to take a massive hatchet to a system they felt was no longer trustworthy. For a large swathe of the American people, the system was not even about Republicans versus Democrats anymore. Many voters had lost all belief in the story the leaders of both sides had told them about Moving Forward Together. Forty percent of voters were so disheartened that they simply stayed at home. And many who did show up at the polls placed all their bets instead on an outsider who pitched an audacious story of "Let's just Move Only Some of Us Forward Together". A flood of articles has been written since then trying to understand why people would seemingly vote against their interests. And one common thread that was unearthed was this. To those feeling left behind, the story of prioritising Some over All was always the real story of the system anyway.”
“" A Constitution must be protected enough to ensure stability from government to government but it must also have enough breathing room to be a living, vital thing, evolving enough such that it remains relevant to the needs of every new generation. I urge our politicians across both parties to be unafraid to go deeper and wider with those changes so that they can take all of us further into the future. Because we are all in this together, for our children and our children's children. Page: 101 And please, do not despair that our youths do not seem interested in Constitutional issues. Just because they do not express interest now does not mean they do not feel a stake in it later. It is just that most of them only feel it and show it when election season hits. Our young voters want the same things as our older voters. Good jobs. A decent shot at happiness. Fair treatment regardless of race, language or religion. And they all know their access to those things has plenty to do with the state of our politics. But at the heart of it, the average young person here – as everywhere in the world – wants to just be able to say this one thing, "You know what? I live in a country where the people in charge actually give a damn about me and my future." Let us make whatever changes we need to help them say that. Let us please work together to bring down walls, protect the state of our union and find a way for Singapore to be a small but strong and powerful light of unity even in the darkness of a divided world. [Applause.]”
“I accept that the President's custodial role of safeguarding our national Reserves demands a level of financial sophistication and organisational expertise that is likely to be beyond the scope of most people-sector leaders. But what of that other equally significant ceremonial role of unifying the nation? Would not the people sector's unique strengths and insights be profoundly useful in serving that role? The people sector may currently be small and not as steeped in power, organisational sophistication and financial resources. But neither should it be seen as a lesser brother to the public and private sectors. It is a vital part of the equation in the total defence of our country and the guardianship of our national unity and it deserves equal respect. I would hope that the President, in the carriage of his responsibilities as National Unifier-in-Chief would have access to the street-level wisdom and ground-informed insights of the chief unifiers on the ground. I would hope that the people in charge of selecting potential Presidential candidates have that access, too. Can I request that in the composition of the PEC as well as the CPA, we make a space somehow for leaders from the people sector? Because our sharpest people sector leaders could well be the ground experts you need who can first spot the canaries in our sociocultural coal mines. We should hear out their intuitions. Ultimately, I am encouraged that this Government is not afraid of refining the Constitution from time to time for the sake of future-proofing our country. Franklin Roosevelt once said that a Constitution should be revered "not because it is old, but because it is ever new, not in the worship of its past alone but in the faith of the living who keep it young, now and in the years to come.”
“In the last few years, the Government has been pushing for tri-sector, whole-of-society collaboration as the best way to solve wicked problems in a volatile, ambiguous world. Thus, the absence of any reference to the people sector in this Bill really stood out to me. Going by the eligibility criteria, only experience and expertise in the public or private sector prepare an individual to be a President of Singapore. Even though there is a deliberative track, it Page: 100 would be really difficult and almost impossible to find a leader from our local landscape of voluntary welfare groups, non-profit charities, philanthropic foundations and carts or cultural groups who can say their organisations are of equivalent size and complexity as a $500 million company or a Government agency. Yet, exceptional leaders exist in the people sector with on-ground wisdom and deep experience in community-building. Beyond the world of corporations and Government agencies, there is another realm of expertise whose day-in and day-out work is all about bringing broken people and broken communities together again. They have listened into the country's most silent sufferings and they have seen where our most profound heartbreaks lie. They have walked beside the faultlines that cut through our nation's communities. And they have stood in the gap together with this country's walking wounded to help them get past anger and bitterness to unite with others again. Without these everyday warriors working on the frontlines of the people sector, you can bet there would be more national disunity than less. This is not about simplistically asking for people sector leaders to be given an easier shot at running for the Presidency.”
“And I also agree with the Commission's observations that public rallies add to the divisiveness of the electoral process and believe broadcasted presidential debates might be a less politicised way for the people to get to know the quality of their candidate. Another way to depoliticise the Presidency is to provide other democratic institutions that can take on the more interventionist role that some voters want to shoe-horn into the President's role even though it conflicts with his need to symbolise national unity. So, can the Government consider setting up the institution of an ombudsman to take that up? President Tony Tan himself suggested it on his own campaign trail – an ombudsman who can act as a respectable yet independent representative for the people, who is empowered to investigate the public's complaints against the Government as well as any public allegations about the Government will strengthen the public's trust in our democracy and add a useful layer to our system's checks and balances. I also believe that the politicisation and misunderstandings we saw in 2011 are a reflection of how much more we could invest into the general political education of our people, especially the next generation of voters. Can we start taking seriously the need to teach basic political concepts as part of civic education for our youths? Introducing young people to the value of a Constitution, the meaning of a vote and the balance of power among the executive, judiciary and legislative branches will go a long way in helping us build up the rigour of our future electorate. My third and final request is with regards to the role of the people sector.”
“I know the Government is unconvinced that reverting to a Parliament-nominated Presidency is the solution. And I agree because it would be a conflict of interest for Parliament to be tasked to choose the very person whose chief role would be to act as a check on it. Personally, I believe further down the road, it is worth reconsidering what Mr Janadas Devan and Mr Ho Kwon Ping suggested in 2011 about establishing an electoral college instead. The college should be large enough to proportionately represent major stakeholders and interest groups in Singapore. They suggest that the electors could be selected according to processes set by each stakeholder group and the college would finally nominate a few candidates from among those who offer to stand for President. With electoral college as the first sieve and either the Supreme Court or Public Service Commission holding the right of final approval, the system would get a qualified Presidential candidate drawn from a greater diversity of stakeholders. However, the present reality is that the idea of getting to elect an independent President has already sunk in with the electorate as their democratic right. So, to take that right away now would not go down well either. I do think the next best thing to do, for now, would be to establish clearer rules of engagement for the upcoming 2017 Presidential Elections. I agree with the Commission that shortlisted candidates must be held to a higher standard of understanding about the Constitutional role of the President and to be held publicly accountable for any outrageous claims or policy promises made on the campaign trail that fall well beyond the scope of what a President can do.”
“I request that we consider relooking the strictness of criteria, especially if we start to see either a recurring pattern of uncontested elections due to lack of eligible private sector candidates or a recurring pattern of elections dominated only by public sector candidates. Because I believe those patterns will reveal the onset of a dysfunction in our democracy. A string of uncontested elections or even elections with homogeneous establishment candidates harms our democracy as it only feeds into a dangerous narrative of a "rigged system" that entrenches either cynicism or apathy among the electorate. And already, we are seeing that scenario play out in the current US elections where opportunistic candidates readily ride on that narrative and exploit the sentiment to gain popularity. Especially in the case of uncontested elections, the lack of a victory won by actual votes will forever cast a shade of doubt on the authority of even the most worthy and capable of candidates. My second request is on staying open to alternative solutions to depoliticise the Presidential Elections. The 2011 Presidential Elections was surprisingly divisive and there is no reason to assume that future Presidential Elections will not take on a similar tone. We cannot hold an election for a Page: 99 politically neutral office and be surprised when politics intrudes because the medium is the message. Elections are quintessentially political and tend to attract politicised candidates who want to play the game. Only the rarest of qualified candidates from the private sector, without prior political party affiliation or political experience, will be willing to subject themselves to politicking.”
“Given how small our country is, are we running the risk of arbitrarily cutting off potentially great presidential candidates? I hear the Government's reasoning that "quantitative thresholds cannot remain fixed in perpetuity because a country's economic situation does not itself remain static." And I agree. But qualitative thresholds are not fixed in perpetuity either. A country's emotional, socio-political and cultural situation does not remain static either and is equally demanding of nuanced understanding. So, why do we not have more holistic eligibility criteria that also specifically demand a candidate display a minimal level of sophisticated understanding about the state of our nation? Should we not require candidates hoping to become the symbol of national unity to possess at least a bullet point or two on their resume in some actual ground experience in bringing communities together across socio-political divisions? I know my request might sound strange but, if unifying is such a significant and unique responsibility of the President, then would it not be worthwhile attempting to word out some criteria more explicitly along those lines? I would hope that in designing our criteria for a future President, we do not word it such that we only get applications from brilliant technocrats with the right degrees, right organisations and the right positions. All that is impressive, and it is good and necessary, but a person can have all that, carry out the custodial duties of guarding the national Reserves with immense technical expertise and still fall short in that other equally demanding, equally important duty of embodying and unifying a nation. The latter duty demands no less rigour than the former.”
“It is those divides that intersect with and exacerbate racial issues. In times to come, it is across those divides where we will most need a bold non-partisan voice of national unity to step out to be that bridge. He or she is de facto Diplomat-in-Chief not just to the world but within our homeland as well. He or she must be the centre of calm that can hold a space for not just the different races, but the elites and non-elites, powerful and powerless and establishment and anti-establishment as well. As an NMP, I cannot vote on Constitutional amendments. But I will still bring three requests today to the table. My first request concerns the eligibility criteria. I am still hesitant to support the new stricter set of eligibility criteria for the Elected Presidency. I fully understand the need to always update the Page: 98 criteria for the times. And it is not that I think the new criteria are wholly unreasonable. It is just that I am unsure whether having such criteria now will help us sieve in more good candidates or sieve out more promising ones. I am unsure whether stricter private sector criteria will end up slanting our Presidency towards more public sector candidates, especially in the case of minority candidates. And I am unsure whether if we keep setting the bar higher and higher for who gets to run for President, one of the unplanned outcomes would be a further widening of an empathy gap between an ever more elite leadership and an ever less elite electorate. How drastic is the difference between CEOs who lead $500 million organisations and CEOs who lead $100 million or $300 million organisations in terms of their intellectual competency, financial proficiency, moral courage and diplomatic sensitivity?”
“And it matters because, as a globalised city-state, we will always struggle with high income inequality. So, I do worry more about the effects of polarised elitism than racism on our democracy, especially because the former enflames and exacerbates the latter. Again, there is a lesson to be learnt from the US. Rising inequality is most extreme in America. In 1979, the top 1% in the US earned 9% of its income; today they earn almost 25%. In 2010, more than 90% of the country's income gains went to the top 1%. As the elite and less-elite become further and further removed from each other's lived realities, it becomes difficult to build the mutual understanding and wide-reaching consensus needed for effective democracy to happen. Pollsters discovered that out of the many demographic fault lines exposed by the current US elections, few divisions went deeper than that of educational attainment. Those with the most schooling clearly back one candidate. And those with the least number of years of education clearly back the other. When elite group-think settles in at the leadership level and an empathy gap grows between an elite political class and an economically and politically frustrated middle to working class electorate, a dangerous vulnerability in the democratic system is created. It is a vulnerability that can be hijacked at the right time by an opportunistic populist politician unafraid of riding upon a racist or xenophobic agenda. And what we see happening elsewhere can all too easily happen right here. To be a unifying symbol, the future President of Singapore cannot just wear the right skin tone. He or she must have the political courage and moral gumption to navigate the divides of class and partisan politics.”
“Whether they are from the majority or minority race, most youths will affirm that as long as a candidate is thoughtful, open, politically independent, equally respectful towards the powerful as the powerless and genuinely concerned for all Singaporeans, they would vote for him or her over an inexpressive, inaccessible technocrat or bland "yes man"-sounding candidate from their own race any day. Page: 97 Some political scientists have argued that the political dysfunctions we are witnessing right now in America have less to do with race and more to do with class divides, partisan politics and a divisive electoral process. And the reminder I will take from the US presidential election is that racism is a systemic problem that cannot be fixed simply by minority representation in the highest office of the land. Representation is important and useful but even two terms of having a powerful, competent, charismatic African-American as President of the US could not do enough to defuse the racial tensions that continue to divide their country. Some analysts even feel that Obama's presidency inadvertently provoked more open expressions of racism than ever before. So, fixing representation issues in the highest office of the land must be always accompanied by fixing representation issues in the lower offices of the land as well. It matters that we address how many women get a seat at the table in corporate boardrooms as much as Cabinet positions. It matters that we address how many minorities ascend the ranks in our armed forces. It matters that we address how many children from less-privileged families and less prestigious schools actually emerge victorious in leadership positions all across the sectors.”
“But the question here is: if unifying the country is such a significant and distinctive responsibility of the President, then are the Constitutional amendments built to favour candidates with that sort of particular strength and inclination – or not? Presently, the discussion of this particular unifying role of the President is centred purely on multiracial representation. And I have no quarrel with the Government's decision to go for a reserved election option to ensure that the Presidency is accessible to all the major races in Singapore. I accept the Government's argument that as long as there is a real possibility that 10%-20% of the voting population may still be swung by factors of race, we have to be realistic and put in the least intrusive short-term mechanism possible to guarantee some level of multi-racial representation. Meanwhile, I also accept that we all must share in the long-term responsibility of helping one another reach that ultimate destination where such an artificial safeguard would no longer be needed. We can go beyond community self-help groups and work towards a multiracial story of lifting one another's communities together. But I share the perspective of many young Singaporeans, that a President's ability to unify a country is not really about his race. Young people will tell you frankly that they could not care less about the colour of the President's skin as much as they care about the complexion of his politics.”
“Barely over half a century old, we still have much to learn and we are presently still living in our season of peace. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe this is now our time to fix things. And perhaps each one of us here in this House was somehow made for such a time as this. Given the backdrop of current global events, I am reminded that there is no better time than now for our own politicians to meet across partisan divides to look – to really look – at the state of our own union, to build our own system's circuit breakers, to fight for the checks and balances we most believe in. And to do all that not for short-term political gain but for long-term national preservation. Do you know what stands out to me most about the role of the Elected President? It is that he is given the responsibility to stand as a non-partisan symbol of national unity. The Government's White Paper explains that "This crucial role as a unifying symbol of the nation is unique to the President's office. No other public office is intended to be a personification of the State and a symbol of the nation's unity in the way that the Presidency is. This is a critical distinction in principle between the Presidency and other public offices…He embodies the nation itself." When I read those words, I hear them as a voter. I take them absolutely to heart. Because that is the kind of President I want. And that is the kind of President we will need. Because in times to come, we will appreciate having a Unifier-in-Chief, especially in a world where internal hostilities and growing divisions are becoming more the norm than not.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to debate about today's Bill without reflecting upon the political upheavals that democracies older than our own are experiencing right now. Both the US and the UK are going through an unprecedented public display of disunity at the government as well as the ground level. In Finland, Sweden, Austria, Germany and France, far-right parties are gaining in political traction with the electorate with uncomfortable ease, and racist and xenophobic political agendas have become normalised. It is not just about the state of the political candidates but the state of the electorate that is causing great anxiety around the world. Few leaders at the top expected that there would come a day when so many voters on the ground would become so disillusioned with the prospects of political reform that they were willing to overturn political norms, values and behaviours that everyone once assumed were foundational for their democracy. So, there has been much soul-searching in those democracies about what could have caused such profoundly wide divides to open up between leaders and their people and what could have been fixed earlier to prevent this situation. It is in such extraordinary times when the world's attention becomes focused on the rigour and resilience of each country's political institutions. Will the system fall apart or will the centre hold? In each of these democracies now, a generation of young people are holding their breath to see whether their system's fail-safes – the precious checks and balances a generation before them had designed during peaceful times – will kick in and do its work to protect the future of all that they hold dear. Page: 96 We are one of the world's youngest democracies.”
“Can I confirm that a publication made as part of a discussion in good faith on a matter of general public affairs is not contempt of Court under clause 3(1)(b) if there is no prejudice or interference or real risk of prejudice or interference?”
“But the smaller must always speak up as an expression of our dignity, a fight for our interests and an assertion of our passion for the right of self-rule. We are small in the world, but we are here and we will not go unheard and unnoticed. This is true for our country Singapore and it is a spirit that rings true, too, for every citizen who shares their Government's fight to call this place "home". I appreciate your patience, Mdm Speaker, with my use of slang. I look forward to the Minister's clarifications and fair consideration of the proposed amendments.”
“Give both the Singaporeans who work for the ground and the Singaporeans who work for the Government that same powerful assurance that as long as their statements are made fairly and responsibly, in the service of public interest, without real risk or seriously prejudicing the course of justice, they will not be held in contempt. And if making even a gesture of that exception in the Ministry's opinion is not tenable or even really necessary, then could the Minister explain fully why that is so? There is always going to be a fundamental asymmetry in the relationship between the individual citizen and the larger institutions meant to protect its interests. The inherent imbalance in power provokes a natural level of uncertainty and, thus, fear. So, no matter how well-intentioned or benign the bigger entity perceives itself to be, it must see that the smaller will always struggle with some degree of anxiety in navigating the rules of engagement with the bigger. So, whilst us individual citizens have a responsibility to own our side of the conversation and navigate our own fears and bias about the bigger institution, the bigger must take the lead to reassure the smaller that they are heard and their interests will be protected. I believe this Government understands intimately the inherent struggle of the small to communicate with the big because that is what it has dealt on the international level every day for 50 years when far older, greater and bigger countries get perplexed and even insulted at why a small annoying red dot like ours keeps insisting on a place at the negotiating table and having a say in larger matters that seem, in their large perspective, to be beyond our size and, thus, understanding.”
“Is it the Executive branch, that is, Cabinet and the President: the Judiciary of the Courts; or the Legislative branch, that is, Parliament? And will it be the single belief of an individual or the collective belief of that branch that will be the determiner of "what is necessary in the public interest"? Number two, following on from question one, some young people are suspicious about that clause I just mentioned because they see it as an example of the Executive branch of Government trying to place itself above the Judiciary's reproach and they worry that there is no check-and-balance in the system. Could the Minister address their worries directly and clarify where in this Bill or elsewhere in the law are the assurances that this is not the case? In other words, would the Minister be able to "double confirm" for them that this is not a situation of "ownself check ownself"? Lastly, I urge the Minister for Law to reconsider creating a space in this Bill for a discussion of public affairs exception for the smaller individual that parallels the protections currently given to the bigger institution. The philosopher Mengzi observed that in dealing with a small state, a large state ought to use magnanimity; and when in dealing with a large state, a small state ought to use wisdom. It is an age-old advice that can inform the dealings between any smaller and larger entity. Including this exception for public affairs discussion can be a much clearer communication of the Bill's intent to protect the common man as well as the Judiciary. It is a gesture of magnanimity that speaks volumes and, with all the right constraints, could encourage wisdom.”
“I agree with the Minister that nobody, regardless of how justified they believe they are, should be allowed to spread malicious lies, especially under the pretense of free speech, just to run down innocent people, undermine valued institutions or make money online through clickbait articles. Truly free speech is never truly free. It is a profound paradox. People can only speak freely when there is safety, and safety is always founded upon constraints. We freely choose to put limits upon ourselves to make a space for others to be free and we expect that same favour to be done for us. Like freedom, justice flourishes only when everybody accepts certain limitations on their rights and certain expansions of their responsibilities. But this rule must be seen to apply to individuals as much as the institutions of power meant to oversee them. I still seek amendments for this Bill because I see phrases within it that create uncertainty in a layman's mind, perhaps unnecessarily so, around the Bill's intentions in this regard. I will close my speech restating three requests. I apologise to the Minister in advance for having to use Singlish. I speak for youths. It is a language of their heart and they are the audience I most want your answers to travel to. First point, clause 3(4) of the Bill says "a statement made by a person on behalf of the Government about a Court proceeding that is pending is not contempt of Court if the Government believes that such statement is necessary in the public interest". Could the Minister clarify who exactly is the "Government" that is positioned as the final arbiter of what is necessary in the public interest?”
“That reputation undergirds the prosperity of our country and should never be casually undermined by absolutist ideals about free speech. I get it. And I am all for safeguarding our country against the culture of contempt as well. I reiterate the need to give people a space for their anger and protect their right to express that anger on things of public interest. But contempt is not something I support because it is distinctly and dangerously different from anger. Contempt is a dysfunctional version of anger. It is anger that has been allowed to fester, anger gone sour. Anger, at its heart, is still founded upon a desire to protect. But contempt crosses the line into a desire to destroy. Anger can drive us to right a wrong, but contempt drives us to just want to be proven right above all things, above all people. An angry person can still respect the one he disagrees with as his equal. But a contemptuous person will always denigrate those who disagree with him and see them as forever and always beneath him. Contempt does cross a thin red line, to do many injustices in the name of justice. Contempt is the gravest corruption of anger. We must never agree to allow words of contempt to flourish freely. Never. The people who most love justice can be the most angry of people. Those of us who love justice, who know the passion of righteous anger must be most watchful that we do not allow ourselves to tip into the prideful pit of self-righteous contempt because contempt is the fastest killer of trust and greatest ruin of relationships. In contempt, there will never be compromise, collaboration nor space for solutions across the divide that actually moves the course of justice forward for us all.”
“If I am thinking about what kind of political education and political will our young need to help Singapore thrive, I would say the majority's reaction of indifference should disturb us far more than the former's anger. I am not convinced it is a win for Singapore if we pass this Bill without inspiring much debate or having much discussion with the majority of our youths. Their silence may not be a sign of approval but of apathy, not a sign of consent but of conditioning. Any law that limits free speech, for better or for worse, will have short-term and long-term cultural impact, sometimes unpredictably so. The Sedition Act, for instance, gives us protection from racist and religious hate speech but it also dovetails with our country's kiasu culture and let many kiasu people to take the kiasu route of simply avoiding all talk about issues of race and religion at any deep and meaningful level in case they get into trouble. So, as a result, the public conversation on race and religion is still underdeveloped. Any law that limits free speech will have complicated side effects on the maturity level of public discourse. Already, we can hear how the Bill, as it is currently languaged, is being interpreted by some as a despairing signal to sit down and shut up. It may not have been the Ministry's intended message or mission at all. But it is clearly one of the complex outcomes that has already emerged that ought to be addressed. Minister, broadly speaking, I support the spirit of your Bill. I see the big picture you are driving at. I share your conviction that trust in the Judiciary must be protected, the integrity of the Court process must be kept and our reputation for rule of law is what makes us exceptional in the world.”
“It will be very helpful; and an accompanying youth-centric set of frequently asked questions will help. I will now move on to the reactions of the majority of young people I spoke to. Most young Singaporeans I talked to are actually completely unaware that this Bill is being passed and even when I made them aware of it and explained it, they still felt emotionally detached from it. They range from either completely indifferent or just feeling at peace with the very same issues that so deeply angered or worried the first group. When I asked them why they were not getting worked up like their peers, their answers varied. Some said public affairs were just not interesting or relevant enough to be part of their daily online conversations anyway. Some assumed they were just never going to be types who could say anything important, controversial or consequential online. And some joked that they never questioned anything because they did not want to put in effort to think that hard and that they trusted the people in the Government to do the thinking for them. What is curious about this second group is that when I finally asked them whether the passage of this Bill would change the way they spoke online, they all said something casually along the lines of "Aiyah, no big deal, just play safe and don't talk about such things lor. Get into trouble for what?" And this is precisely why I felt I have to speak up on this Bill. Mdm Speaker and Minister, I did not share about the reactions of these two groups to make one out as the good guy and the other as the bad guy. I shared them to say both groups of young people exist and both groups' reactions must matter to us because they are telling us something important about the future electorate.”
“Like this Bill itself, it is essentially about the tension between the public interest of every man's right to free speech with the public interest of every man's right to a fair trial, unsullied by someone's prejudicial campaigning in the media. It is always a hard choice to prioritise one public interest over another, and a thinking people will occasionally dispute that choice. It would be helpful if the Minister could articulate what is the best recourse then for these young people to handle a situation where they vehemently disagree with the Government's interpretation of what constitutes "public interest" in an ongoing issue. Unless we imagine that only youths uncomfortable with parts of this Bill are the angry, anti-establishment ones, I must point out that there are also some moderates and pro-establishment youths in this group as well. Because of their active participation in socio-political discussions online, even youths not predisposed to distrust the Government feel some low-level of anxiety over the uncertainties in the Bill. Even after they read it – and some of these youths are legally trained – they are still uncertain about how easy it will be for them to commit sub judice. They do not know when exactly their comments cross over from safe to being a risk. They are still uncertain about what is the definition of "prejudices" and, since the definition of "publications" is so wide, they are uncertain about whether their one single "prejudicial" WhatsApp message communicated to just one other friend could be construed as a mass publication of contempt. So, their anxieties sparked me to request the Ministry of Law create a youth-centric translation of the Bill that reads less as a legal document and more like something written for 16-year-olds to hear.”
“They just want to know that if it is, indeed, going to be the Executive branch solely determining what is necessary in the "public interest", is there a legal check and balance to protect the people from an Executive branch gone wrong? I can empathise with the Government's perspective that figuring out what is necessary in the public interest is complex territory that, frankly, not everyone is equally fit to navigate. It demands expertise on every level – rigorous intelligence, deep domain knowledge, empathy for stakeholders and just the sheer damn courage to do the right and just thing, whatever critics may say. It is not something a random guy on the street can do; it is also what we expect our highest elected officials in power to do. So, why not just give them the space and the trust to do their job? But it is deeply frustrating to these youths that the Government seems to be insisting that they are the one and only trustworthy arbiter of what is "public interest". What some of the angriest young people are asking is worth hearing and clarifying. Their questions sound like this: "But what if the guy in the Government gets it wrong? Isn't it always a possibility that those in power will get what is in the "public interest" wrong some of the time? And if one of us, regular guys, can see it and want to point it out to them, should we not get the same space to do so as well without fear of being labelled as the enemy of the Court or, worse, the enemy of the state? And would it be so hard to believe I want the best for my country as much as they do?" The trouble about "public interest" is that there never is just one public interest but many equally good competing public interests.”
“The quarrel this group of young people have with that clause is not about the reality that a responsible Government must step in from time to time to set the record straight in the face of inaccurate public allegations that are prejudicing an ongoing Court case and that the Government representative should be protected. Their contention is this: as a matter of principle, why then is there no similar exception being carved out to protect the common person? They are not naively asking for a free pass to be given to irresponsible individuals to say whatever damaging things they want to say about ongoing cases. What they are asking for is a much more obvious signal in the Bill that communicates protection will also be given for fair criticisms on public affairs made by ordinary people who may also have good reason to believe what they say could be construed by a Court as just and necessary in the public interest as a statement from the Government. Another controversy for them in this clause is that phrase "if the Government believes that such statement is necessary in the public interest". From a layman's reading, that line feels unfair and can be interpreted as the Government placing itself above judicial reproach. Their fears are largely founded upon the uncertainties of who exactly is that "Government" in the sentence who is acting as the final arbiter in determining what constitutes "public interest". Is it the Executive, Legislative or Judiciary branch of the system? And against the backdrop of freak presidential elections and crazy referendums elsewhere in the world, it is not surprising the kids worry over the resilience of our own political system in a future situation of similar nuttiness.”
“These young people actually heard about the passing of this Bill and bothered to read up something about it and they do have a strong emotional reaction to it because they can see themselves or someone they know and respect, possibly impacted by it. It may be tempting to judge this whole group of youths as cynics of the establishment who are totally prejudiced against any possibility that this law has any good in it. And, certainly, some will quite happily live up to that stereotype. But even so, that should not prejudice us against what they have to say, for it is also an exercise of our own impartiality and desire for justice that we lean into their anger to hear what needs to be heard, clarify what must be clarified and even change what must be changed. Anger is an off-putting emotion for many of us. We do not like dealing with it. But when we see an angry person, we should pay attention, especially when we disagree because anger is always a revelation of what that person loves. Without love, there is no anger, there is only indifference. When we listen into anger, we are listening into what someone cares most deeply about and what they most long to protect, and some of these youths are angry about the Bill because they, too, care about protecting the common man and about protecting Singapore. They resent what they perceive as an unjust imbalance between the protection of institutional versus individual interests in this Bill. Clause 3(4) of the Bill carves out an exception for Government representatives making statements on pending Court proceedings, protecting them from accusations of contempt of Court as long as that statement made is believed by the Government as "necessary in the public interest".”
“Mdm Speaker, the overriding interest that many young Singaporeans have in this Bill is how it impacts their freedom of speech. It does not matter whether they are teenagers or 20-somethings, conservatives or liberals, religious or irreligious, pro- or anti-establishment, politically active or apathetic. Though the range of emotions and points they raised differed widely, the common ground of our youths' concerns usually boiled down to a perception that this Bill was telling them to "sit down and shut up" when it came to discussion of ongoing affairs of public interest. I have found two groups of reactions worthy of close consideration. One is from a minority section of youths and the other is from the larger majority of youths. First, let me talk about the minority. There is a small but significant group of youths who are active participants in the world of online socio-political discussions. Some of them are active creators of online social political content, others are more like active conduits of the content. They do not create but they actively consume, share and comment on socio-political content instead. This group has a remarkably strong interest in national affairs, and I say "remarkably" because, honestly, it is not yet the norm for the average young Singaporean to think deeply about national affairs. They are our brightest young writers, editors, journalists, activists, artists and creatives. They are also our most opinionated students in political science, communications, law and other humanities. They are also a group that fundamentally cares.”
“I hope MCCY can develop a strategic roadmap that will guide the whole ecosystem of youth organisations from the public, people and private sectors to see their role in developing resilience in youths together. The sector is still fragmented and working in silos. I believe the sharing of such a roadmap will help all of us stakeholders within the youth sector to know our place in the resilience value chain and thus realise how to collaborate more effectively for our common goal. Encourage Youth to Embrace Diversity”
“Third, it goes beyond building inter-religion to intra-religion understanding as well. There is a dangerous lack of conversations between conservatives, moderates and liberals within the same religion. Religious teachers do not typically initiate engagement of leaders from their own community on the opposite spectrum for fear of looking like they are softening their standards. Such a conversation needs to be encouraged by outsiders as well as insiders. Sir, let us have the courage to learn from one another how to have scary conversations. When we create safe spaces where we can be honest about the differences that we disagree over and yet open towards the commonalities that bind, we will reap true religious harmony. Bespoke Roadmaps for Youth Resilience According to the Centre of the Developing Child at Harvard, the best way to understand how we develop resilience is to visualise a see-saw. On one side sits positive experiences, coping skills and at least one stable committed adult relationship. On the other side sits adversity. The more protective experiences, coping skills and strong relationships we provide, the more we can counterbalance the piling on of adversity on the other end. It is this holy trinity that develops resilience in a child and no singular organisation can achieve this effectively by itself. When Minister Heng Swee Keat shared about having bespoke plans for the industrial transformation of more than 20 specific economic sectors in Singapore, it struck me. Do we also have bespoke plans for the generational transformation of, say, 20 or more specific archetypes of youths? The Outward Bound School (OBS) @ Coney is but one part of what must be a whole-of-sector strategy.”