Lee Hsien Loong
Singapore
“Yes, of course, every time I sell the land, I put money into the Reserves, but I am not putting the money into the Reserves all today. I am putting it in a stream of payments, 30 years apart.”
“Speaker, Sir, I do not think it was a very difficult question to figure out, that when I spoke to MTI, I spoke to the Minister, because Mr Gan Kim Yong is the Minister for Trade and Industry.”
“" I think that would have been unjust because he has not been charged. If there is a case, the case has not been heard, he has not been found guilty or acquitted or whatever. I cannot prejudge a case based on an incomplete investigation – started recently, or a partial investigation, just entered into the formal phase.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, Mr Leong is quibbling over words. In February, Mr Tan Chuan-Jin told me, "I offer to resign". I said, "Yes, sort out your constituency first". In other words, decision taken. The moment to execute it, I will decide. So, it is quite clear. Legally, he has not resigned.”
“Sorry, Mr Speaker, to respond to Ms Poa on why not no pay leave. It is my judgement to make. The Civil Service works in one way; their basis is if you have been convicted, then you are on zero pay and other consequences will follow.”
“I am very happy to note that Assoc Prof Jamus Lim appreciates the second key and is seeking a third. And I hope that it portends a change in your attitude towards the Elected President and his custodial powers. But I think the Brazil example is a very interesting one.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,557 lines we hold for Lee Hsien Loong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 32.
“" So, you will need these symbols, these physical things, but what are they which are full of meaning and not empty? That is what we are looking for. Education is an important part of this. After the National Mourning period, we are rethinking how we can do the National Education content in the schools so that you try to get some of the same impact. Otherwise, I can write the best textbooks in the world but, between the textbook and the presenter and the listener or not very hard listener, each stage, there is attrition, evolution, dilution. Eventually, you get an empty message rather than something substantial. And, yet, if we can have one really powerful experience and it is emotional as much as it is intellectual, then I think it will bring people together. That is in the schools. On TV, we have had one week of old footage broadcasts. It took many years to assemble all that material. Firstly, to create that material – living it. Secondly, to gather it all together, organise it and present it. And I think it had a big impact. At another time, it might not have had quite so much but, at that moment, it reminded people what all these were about. We need to do more of that during this SG50 year and beyond, not in a big gush of overhauling information, but in a continuing trickle just to remind ourselves where we come from and what we should be committing ourselves to. I think, that way, we will be able to achieve our bigger objectives. Page: 57 3.42 pm”
“I agree fully with Ms Chia Yong Yong on her very sensible views. Indeed, it is the ideals and the way we live our lives which are much more important than any physical thing you build. And, yet, it is helpful to have what you might call a local habitation in a form for those abstract ideals to focus our minds to generate the emotion and to bond people. Everybody has that. The Israelis have Masada. Every recruit goes there; he is presented his rifle there; Page: 56 he remembers an event 2,000 years ago relevant to their spirit today. If you go to other countries, for instance, in Britain, you go to Parliament Square, you have got Winston Churchill's statue there; Trafalgar Square you have got Nelson's statue over there. If you go to Washington on the National Mall, it is a pilgrimage, not a tourist visit, especially if you visit the Vietnam War Memorial or the Second World War Memorial which I just visited last year. It focuses your mind and brings people together. So, too, with our week of National Mourning and the state funeral service. It is a form, but it meant something to the participants, it left an indelible mark and it changed them. We had, by chance, a choir comes through Singapore – St John's College, Cambridge – and because of the Cambridge connection, they offered to sing at the Lying-in-State downstairs. They came and they did a beautiful rendition of "Home". It was such a success that we decided we would ask other school choirs and other performing groups, including Jeremy Monteiro and his group, to come and perform during the Lying-in-State. It was a tremendous success – not just for the people who came to pay respects, but for the people who came to sing. And as one of the school children said, "It is not the performance, it is a tribute.”
“The memorial is done but there were tremendous argumentations, disagreements, bitterness and battles along the way before they built it this way. Some people, including some significant sections of the families of the victims, are very unhappy with the way it was done and the outcome. If we look at the way people honour presidents, whether George Washington or Eisenhower or Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR), from the time the person stopped being President or died, to the time when you do it, it may be – in Eisenhower's case, he died in 1969 and they are just arguing over his memorial now, they have not finished the dispute. In the case of FDR, he died in 1945. The memorial was built in the 1990s, so, it was about 50 years before it was built. Even then, there was also controversy: should he be seen in a wheelchair or not; why is it you are ashamed of his polio? Because attitudes had changed in those 50 years. I think for us to think we can settle this within the next few months or years, that is being presumptuous. If we try to do that, we would make decisions which, even if we did not regret, our children would regret. And I do not think we should do that.”
“Well, Mdm Speaker, if we go on what Mr Lee had said publicly, I think in the "Hard Truths" book, he said, "Whatever you want to do after I am gone, take pictures if you like, then demolish the building". That is on the record; his will follows that. We have to go in accordance with his wishes. I think, in fact, the building has been documented. So, it is not that there is no information about the building; and photographs have also been taken and published, Page: 54 especially of the dining room where the important meetings took place. On Mr Lee Tzu Yang's Committee, I think we have to focus the Committee because we are not able to comprehensively decide now on how we want to honour Mr Lee; neither is that Committee able to do so. We have to let time pass; we have to let perspectives emerge gradually over the years and decades. What we can do is to focus on one possible promising direction, which is a Founders' Memorial and an education gallery somehow linked to it, perhaps co-located, but anyway linked to it. And how do we conceptualise that so that it is something which is meaningful and which achieves our future-oriented purpose? That, itself, is a very big task. To go around adjudicating as to which other things you want to do would be hard to achieve. Even for the Founders' Memorial itself, it would be necessary and very helpful to involve historians, people who have worked and lived in Singapore, ordinary Singaporeans, people who have expertise, who have seen how such memorial ideas are developed and gradually brought to reality and fruition over many years. It is a very difficult process. You look at the 9/11 memorial. It is now 13 and something years since 9/11.”
“Mdm Speaker, these are things which we can consider.”
“Madam, multiracialism was one of the most important fundamentals on which Singapore was built. In fact, multiracialism was the reason why Singapore became Singapore as an independent republic. Therefore, I was very moved, during the period of National Mourning, that many minority Singaporeans expressed in the newspapers and wrote to me to say how grateful they were that they were born in Singapore and not as a minority somewhere else. And how in Singapore, they had seen equal opportunities and they have had a full chance to develop and their careers had in no way been hindered and they stand tall like everybody else. I think that is the most important legacy which Mr Lee left towards multiracialism and one of the most important for Singapore. For minority Singaporeans, really, the way to honour Mr Lee is not to have a minority celebration, but a joint effort to participate fully in the national effort to do what we are trying to do. And remember, we are not canonising a person; we are honouring a human being. This is SG50 and there are many activities which have been planned. I am very happy that a Malay community organisation is taking the lead to organise a commemoration for SG50. I think it is going to be on 8 August and it has involved other community organisations from the Chinese, Indians and Eurasian communities, to do it together as one. That is the sort of activities and the spirit in which I hope that minorities as well as the majority of Singaporeans will honour and remember Mr Lee.”
“At that point, I am sure these ideas of Dr Neo and others would still be there and, perhaps, by then, we would be a bit more ready to say, yes, we go.”
“Mdm Speaker, as I have tried to explain in my Statement, I think these are all sensible proposals. But I hesitate to make decisions on them now. It is two weeks since the state funeral and three weeks since Mr Lee passed away. I think we need some time to pass, we need to have some overall sense of perspective and history and then there is time enough for us to make these commitments and decisions to honour him, not just in the next few months but really in the next few decades. If you look at how other countries do it, when they have people who have made a big mark in their history pass away, you will have in their home town, perhaps, straightaway, a street named after you. But on a national basis, a memorial may be 50 years later, maybe 70 years, maybe several generations later. And then your position, your historical place is clear and emerges, perhaps, in sharper focus. If we are only going to do one thing, what is it which we want to do and then we do that. So, I think we will give it some time. Mr Lee had got a lot to do with Changi Airport. He had a lot to do with our having a currency which is worth the paper on which it is printed. He had a lot to do with many other things, too – the Singapore River, the greening of Singapore. If we want to name things after him, there is no shortage of things which are suitable. I would say, let us take our time. Let us focus, in the first instance, on this idea of how should we remember our founders, not just Mr Lee, but the core founding fathers of the country. That, in itself, is a major exercise. I think we should do that and then, over the years, there will be anniversaries, there will be birthdays, there will be 100th birthdays. We would come back to this and we would look at it again.”
“Mdm Speaker, that is a very important question and that is why we are taking some time over the matter. It is not a matter of just having the right place or the right structure, but also a process by which we can involve people in discussing what is the best way to honour him, how can we develop this idea, conceptualise this idea of some sort of memorial for the founders which is more than just a memorial and have people feel that this is something which is right for Singapore and the right way to do it. And then, after that, we find the correct place and then we make the right design. Also, if we are going to have a gallery, information and education, the right activities, so that everybody feels that this is part of our common heritage. Every country, as it develops its history, needs to develop these icons, these sacred memories and sacred places. We are early in the process. We are starting.”
“Let us focus our attention and energies on how best to achieve this, especially given Mr Lee's long-standing views and the wishes he expressed in his will. Mr Lee lived his life for Singapore, not for himself. Let us take time to consider the best way to honour his memory in a way that is in keeping with his ideals. In remembering the past, we must also look to the future. Whatever memorial we decide upon should not only be right for Singaporeans living today, but also for generations not yet born. The memorial should reflect and strengthen in all of us our sense of what it means to be a Singaporean, why Singapore is worth striving and fighting for and how we can continue to build a harmonious and successful Singapore for future generations. Thank you, Page: 50 Mdm Speaker. [Applause.] 3.17 pm”
“Mr Lee himself said he was only primus inter pares – first among equals. So, it is appropriate that we consider how to honour not just Mr Lee, but also our other founding fathers. One idea that has been suggested is to have a memorial for all of the founding fathers, perhaps coupled with an exhibition gallery to honour their legacy and educate future generations. Indeed, Mr Lee himself had thought that there was value in such a memorial. I agree that this concept merits further consideration. A Founders' Memorial need not be a grand structure, but it must stand for our ideals, our values, our hopes and aspirations. It must belong to all Singaporeans and mean something significant to us all. It should be a place where we and future generations can remember a key period in our history, reflect on the ideals of our founding fathers and pledge to continue their work of nation-building. I have, therefore, asked Mr Lee Tzu Yang to chair a Committee to gather views from the public and conceptualise such a memorial for our founding fathers. He has agreed to do so. If the idea of a Founders' Memorial finds resonance among Singaporeans, the Committee will take the project further. When I met Mr Lee Tzu Yang last week, he shared that in the week of National Mourning, he, like many others, was moved by the sense of solidarity. Everyone grieved together and, in our grief, looked out for one another – in the queues for the Lying-in-State and along the streets as people bade farewell to Mr Lee in the rain. With time, our grief will subside, but our unity should remain. If the memorial captured some of that same spirit, we will have succeeded. I agree with Mr Lee Tzu Yang.”
“I would ask each of my children to ensure our wishes with respect to the demolition of the House be carried out. If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law, rules or regulations binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants. My view on this has been made public before and remains unchanged. My statement of wishes in this paragraph 7 may be publicly disclosed notwithstanding that the rest of my Will is private." Mr Lee's position on 38 Oxley Road was unwavering over the years and fully consistent with his lifelong values. We should respect his wishes, as well as those of Mrs Lee. Dr Lee Wei Ling has informed me that she intends to continue living in the house at 38 Oxley Road. Therefore, there is no immediate issue of demolition of the house and no need for the Government to make any decision now. If and when Dr Lee Wei Ling no longer lives in the house, Mr Lee has stated his wishes as to what then should be done. At that point, speaking as a son, I would like to see these wishes carried out. However, it will be up to the Government of the day to consider the matter. There have been several calls to do something to honour not just one man, but our founding generation of leaders. For example, Ms Foo Mee Har suggested that we designate a Founder's Day. Mr Lee was always conscious that he did not act alone, but as a member of a team. His core team included Goh Keng Swee, S Rajaratnam, Othman Wok, Hon Sui Sen, Lim Kim San, amongst others. It was a multiracial team who complemented one another's strengths, Page: 49 trusted one another implicitly and, through their joint efforts, created a prosperous, fair and just society in Singapore.”
“He said that he had seen too many other houses of famous people "kept frozen in time… as a monument with people tramping in and out". They invariably "become shabby", in his words. My mother also felt strongly about this. She was most distressed at the thought of people coming through her private spaces after she and my father had passed away, to see how they had lived. Mr Lee stated his view on this matter in one of his books, "Hard Truths". This caused a public reaction as some people wanted the house preserved. So, in December 2011, after he had retired from the Cabinet and after he had written to us the second time, I held a special Cabinet meeting and invited Mr Lee to attend, in order to discuss 38 Oxley Road. The Ministers tried hard to change his mind. After the meeting, Mr Lee wrote to the Cabinet and I quote from his letter: Page: 48 "Cabinet members were unanimous that 38 Oxley Road should not be demolished as I wanted. I have reflected on this and decided that if 38 Oxley Road is to be preserved, it needs to have its foundations reinforced and the whole building refurbished. It must then be let out for people to live in. An empty building will soon decline and decay." End of the quote and that was the letter. Two years later, in December 2013, Mr Lee made his will. He appointed my brother Mr Lee Hsien Yang and sister Dr Lee Wei Ling as his executors and trustees. Mr Lee wrote in paragraph 7 of his will and I quote: "I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife, KWA GEOK CHOO, that our house at 38 Oxley Road, Singapore 238629 (‘the House') be demolished immediately after my death or, if my daughter, Wei Ling, would prefer to continue living in the original house, immediately after she moves out of the House.”
“Page: 47 Ms Foo Mee Har and Dr Lily Neo suggested issuing notes and coins that bear the image of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and that is certainly something we can consider for the future. However, this year being SG50, MAS intends to issue a set of commemorative notes and coins to celebrate our heritage and reflect the spirit of Singapore. The notes and coins were planned last year and had already been designed before Mr Lee passed away. The set of coins, which are themed "Education, Building our Nation Together", was launched by Minister Heng Swee Keat on 4 April – last week. The set of notes, comprising five $10 notes and one $50 note, will capture significant achievements in our history and the values and aspirations that underpin Singapore's progress. On the $50 note, one element in the design will be a transparent panel showing Mr Lee with fist raised, leading the crowd with the rallying cry of "Merdeka!" We had, in fact, settled this last year and the notes are in production. We had hoped that Mr Lee would launch the commemorative set of notes himself. Sadly, that is not to be. But we have decided to continue with the project and will launch the notes later this year. They will form part of our SG50 celebrations, which will honour our founders even as we pledge ourselves to continue their work. There have also been calls to turn Mr Lee's home, 38 Oxley Road, into a museum and a memorial to him. But Mr Lee was adamant that 38 Oxley Road should be demolished after his passing. He wrote formally to the Cabinet at least twice to put his wishes on the record – once soon after my mother, his wife, had died, and the second time soon after he had stepped down from office in 2011. He said, talking about Oxley Road, that "it should not be kept as a kind of relic".”
“And the various education awards in his name are to encourage students at all levels and of all abilities to strive for all-round excellence. One of his recent contributions to education for awards was the Lee Kuan Yew Fund for Bilingualism which focuses on Mother Tongue learning. He paid close attention to this issue all his life, not just as a policy matter, but as someone who learnt Mandarin the hard way as an adult and kept up the effort till his last days. Mr Lee was very careful never to allow a personality cult to grow around him, much less to encourage one himself. He was exceptional in this respect among post-colonial leaders and founders of countries. They were larger-than-life figures and often developed personality cults around themselves, especially if they lasted long in office. Hence, you will not find portraits or busts of Mr Lee Kuan Yew all over Singapore. He did have his portrait painted and his bust made in his lifetime, but he did not allow them to be displayed publicly and I know of only two exceptions to this. After he stepped down from Cabinet in 2011, a bust of him, which had been made many years ago in the early 1980s by Sydney Harpley, who is a British sculptor and who did the Girl on a Swing and other sculptures which are in the Botanic Gardens, was displayed in Parliament House. There is another bust of Mr Lee, made by French sculptor Nacera Kainou, which is displayed at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities in the Singapore University of Technology and Design, with his permission. This was presented by the Lyon-Singapore Association as a gift to Singapore in 2013, as a token of friendship between the French and Singaporean peoples. So, it is with this mindset that we should assess proposals to honour Mr Lee.”
“We want to honour Mr Lee, but we must do so in the right way. Most importantly, how we honour Mr Lee must be faithful to the ideals he lived by and fought for. Mr Lee made it very clear throughout his life that he did not need and did not want any monument. It was not monuments but ideals that were his chief concern; the ideals upon which he built Singapore: multiracialism, equality, meritocracy, integrity and the rule of law. He hoped these ideals would endure in Singapore beyond him. We can pay no greater tribute to him than to uphold the principles upon which he built this country. Mr Lee was very careful when it came to lending his name to institutions and awards. When he consented, it was for causes that he was passionate about and where using his Page: 46 name served a greater purpose. He was intent on showing his support for the cause or institution, rather than using the honour to glorify himself. For example, on his 80th birthday, he agreed that NUS should create a Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. Cabinet had discussed this carefully and had convinced him that having such a school and associating his name with it would help establish the Singapore brand of governance and advance the School's mission – to raise standards of governance in Asia, to improve the lives of people and to contribute to the transformation of the region. For the same reason, he supported NTU when it named its School of International Studies after his old comrade, Mr S Rajaratnam, and the SAF when it named the Command and Staff College after Dr Goh Keng Swee. Similarly, the Lee Kuan Yew Water Prize honours contributions towards solving the world's water challenges, because water, in the Singapore context, was a lifelong obsession of his.”
“Mdm Speaker, during the month of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's final illness and the week of National Mourning after he passed away, Singaporeans experienced a tremendous outpouring of emotions – gratitude, sorrow and solidarity. People prayed for, grieved over and paid their last respects to the founding father who had done so much to create today's Singapore. Many wrote touching messages in condolence books and cards and made special tribute books and items. During the Special Session of Parliament, Members spoke movingly about Mr Lee's contributions, what he meant to them and their personal experiences of him. I thank this House and all Singaporeans for their tributes to my father. Those of us who lived through this special moment in our history and experienced this sense of togetherness in our shared grief will remember it for the rest of our lives. Mr Lee's passing brought us closer together as one people and intensified our sense of nationhood. It was his last gift to us. How should we remember and honour him – his person, his contributions, his ideals? Members of the House and the public have made many suggestions. There were several questions on the Order Paper today. Ms Foo Mee Har and Dr Lily Neo suggested printing his image on our currency notes and coins; Mr Ang Wei Neng and Dr Lily Neo suggested renaming Changi Airport after him; and Ms Foo Mee Har suggested designating a day to commemorate our founding fathers every year. And there are many more suggestions. These are all good ideas. But we should not rush into making decisions on this matter, especially so soon after Mr Lee has passed away. We should allow some time to pass, consider the ideas carefully and make calm, considered decisions which will stand the test of time.”
“Mdm Speaker, if Ms Sylvia Lim were to go to data.gov.sg, she will find many indicators along the line she describes. We track them carefully. We add to them all the time. I think we probably have more data even than we want to see. But to believe that if we change to a different matrix, and you call it GNH, instead of GDP, then we will be happier, I am not sure that is the case. I think the Bhutanese example shows that it has not Page: 86 really worked out the way they wanted it to work out for them. That is all I want to say. We cannot be obsessed with GDP, we cannot be obsessed with economics alone, but we do need to make a living for ourselves, we do need our economy to prosper and, at the same time, we want to make sure that we do well on many other indicators – social, environmental, medical and so on. But the final indicator, as I try to say, which is happiness, is not something which I can give you. It is something which has to come from each person himself and it is not the sort of thing which lends itself to measuring. If you have to start measuring happiness, I think you will already be somewhat an unhappy person.”
“Mdm Speaker, we have to call a spade, a spade. If you have changed position, and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have the guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel the way, play with words, avoid the issue, and then claim to be responsible – that is what we fear can drive Singapore's politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.”
“Mdm Speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I do not know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what was said in Parliament in the Population White Paper debate last year. Because if he really does, after all the explanation, he should say, "We have too many foreign workers now; send home 70,000." Then, we will know where he stands. But after telling me that, "You can massage this and some people can do with less and others will need more" – well, that is easy to say. Who is going to do the massaging? Of course, the Government. And that is the mark of a sub-standard Opposition.”
“I think it probably is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let us come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate, the position taken by the Workers' Party is that "Enough is enough. Zero growth." We have continued to grow. I have not heard the Workers' Party demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that? Or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?”
“It is an eloquent explanation for why the Workers' Party has been inarticulate about many things. In a serious parliament, the government presents its policies, the opposition presents its alternatives. The Workers' Party may not have alternatives on every issue. You may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or a MediShield scheme. You do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going. And that direction has to be set clearly, not to explain to the PAP but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for. And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing and a little bit better. That means you have no stand, "Wherever the PAP is standing, ask them to do better". That is easy. I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think, in principle, we do not want Singapore to be like this? These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not elided over and avoided in the House. That is what a First World Parliament should be about.”
“Mdm Speaker, I am very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the Member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when he comes to election rallies because the Workers' Party's approach has been to be extremely reasonable – indeed, low profile – in Parliament but, come election time, to turn into tigers and heroes.”
“Mdm Speaker, I think the record will speak for itself. When we make a shift, we acknowledge the shift. When the Workers' Party changes position, they pretend they have not. That is the difference. Now, as for delegating responsibility for different parts of the speech to different Members of Parliament that is entirely within Mr Low Thia Khiang's prerogative. It is not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the Workers' Party. But, as the leader, you do have the responsibility to state where does the Party stand on the big issue. Somebody can look after healthcare; somebody can take care of transport; somebody can spend all his time marking Mr Heng Swee Keat on education. But where do you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right? Is it doing wrong? Do you agree with the Government? Do you have a better view? Or do you abstain? Or do you Page: 82 abstain from abstaining?”
“So, we got to maintain constructive politics in Singapore, to develop good policies, solve people's problems, encourage good people of integrity and character to serve and help us to make common cause together to face our future confidently as one people. And that is the task which I ask all Members of Parliament and, indeed, all political parties to join in in the effort. Singapore has come a long way. We have overcome the odds by working as one people. Our Pioneers sacrificed to build this nation and set Singapore on a path to development and prosperity. Many of them were Members of Parliament in this House, debating vigorously the future of the country, and passing laws that helped build our democracy and our society. And the best way for us to honour them is to build on their legacy, and take Singapore forward. That is how we should celebrate the Golden Jubilee, and I think Minister Lawrence Wong will be talking a bit more about SG50 later in the debate. For some people, turning 50 is a mid-life crisis. But as the President reminded us, "At 50, we are still a young nation, with great promise ahead." The PAP Government has the ideas, the plans and the team to work with Singaporeans to fulfil this promise and secure our future together. So, join us in this journey, to honour the spirit of our Pioneers and build a better Singapore for our children. Thank you, Mdm Speaker. [Applause.]”
“We represent a broad church where Singaporeans accommodate one another to improve and work on our shared goals. And we engage many Singaporeans in our shared future, through the Our Singapore Conversation (OSC), through the MediShield Life consultations, through many other exercises. The Opposition may not think that this is constructive politics but I believe it is and I thank the many Singaporeans who have given their time and energy to contributing, participating and helping to make Singapore better. And Opposition parties must also uphold the same standards. A case in point: when Ms Indranee Rajah on Monday pointed out that the Workers' Party has flip-flopped on foreign workers, Mr Low Thia Khiang denied this. He said, "Whether we flip-flopped. No. We are not. If she wishes to have a full debate on that, please file a Motion, we are prepared to debate Page: 80 that." Mr Low's denial is simply false. The Workers' Party did flip-flop. The record is there in the Hansard for everyone to see. But his suggestion to file a Motion is not a bad idea and I think it is worth considering. Many other countries have gotten into trouble because they have not gotten their politics to work. Take the US. Their politics is in gridlock. The US government was shut down last year for a couple of weeks. And even after it re-opened, the US was unable to tackle its long-term problems. Thailand, despite having the forms of democracy – constitution, free media, elections – its politics cannot bridge the deep and fundamental divides in their society. And no election, no constitution can solve this problem unless the political leaders address these fundamental issues and lead the country together and not apart.”
“There is no end to the ways in which you can divide up our society in pursuit of political advantage. And then, our politics would have failed Singapore. I am describing what constructive politics consist of. But honestly, constructive politics depends on what we as political leaders do, how we act, the decisions we make, the standards we hold ourselves to. It does not just depend on institutions, on culture, on the general environment, something vague which I have no control of but cause me to do what I am doing. Yes, values, culture, institutions all count. But do not blame them for your own decisions and choices. You are responsible for that. Have the courage and the honesty to take responsibility for what you say and what you do. And I think Dr Janil Puthucheary put it very well yesterday, so I will quote him, "What you say and how you say it are both important, as are what you choose to say nothing about. When you fail to acknowledge the good, when you avoid discussion of consequences or trade-offs, when you spend a whole speech attacking one point you disagree with and fail to support all the other points you should agree with, when you incite division in the name of diversity, when you silently support xenophobia in the name of nationalism, these are not the markers of good politics. No matter how much debate and diversity of opinion they reflect." The PAP does our best to practise constructive politics. We offer serious policies and debate the trade-offs even when the issues are sensitive, even when they may cause us political brownie points, for example, with the Population White Paper. We uphold the highest standards of integrity and we admit wrongdoings and we put them right, whether or not it is politically inconvenient or embarrassing.”
“And if he did not do anything about it, I would come to conclusions as to what sort of Member of Parliament he or she was. Fourthly, constructive politics means maintaining high standards of integrity. Honesty is an absolute necessity; and it is the key difference between politics in Singapore and politics in many other countries. We cannot allow flawed people in politics to be immune from scrutiny. Because we say in politics we can only discuss policies not personalities, or as Mr Low Thia Khiang said, "We believe in live and let live." Fifth, constructive politics means rallying people together for a common cause. To enable us to achieve broad objectives and accommodate our difference, we all have our pet issues. We all have our matters which we want done. Our demands of the Government, if we each fight our own battles, we are just going to check-mate one another. We have to form a broad coalition, compromise among ourselves, be able to set a general direction which achieves 70%-80% of what each one of us wants, and therefore achieve more for all of us together than we could possibly do by ourselves. It is more difficult now. Society is more diverse. Interests are less aligned. There are more special interests groups who form more easily. And yet, all the more in this environment, we have got to be able to navigate our next phase of nation-building together. Page: 79 If we end up with factional politics, each group pushing for its own single issue – it could be race, language or religion which would be disastrous – we could have NIMBY (Not In My Neighbourhood) groups forming, you can have green agenda, anti-development, you could have those for gay rights, those against gay rights.”
“First, it means developing effective policies for Singaporeans; solving problems; creating opportunities; improving the lives of people. It means having good policies, making difficult trade-offs, but persuading people, leading people to get things done. It means putting forward good people to lead, people capable of integrity and character who can represent Singapore with distinction, who can serve Singapore in an outstanding way. Institutions are important, yes. But equally critical is the quality of the Ministers and the Members of Parliament, and of those who aspire to be Ministers and Members of Page: 78 Parliament. Thirdly, constructive politics means having a robust and open debate; not just engaging in sound-bite politics – if I may quote Dr Janil Puthucheary. You must have a robust and open debate to ensure that proposals are scrutinised, are debated, are argued, so that we find out what the strengths are, identify the weaknesses and the problems, and we come up with the best ideas and solutions for Singapore. I am very disappointed that the Opposition has offered very little of this in this Parliament. But the scrutiny must extend beyond policies, also to personalities. We have to demand high standards of people in politics. Not through anonymous innuendos or insinuations, especially online – because this is a way to deter good people from entering politics – but responsibly, through open, direct raising of pertinent questions and establishing the truth to prevent incompetent, dishonest or self-serving people from getting into positions of responsibility and doing great harm to Singapore. Certainly, if ever a PAP Member of Parliament were accused of making false and untruthful statements, I would get to the bottom of the matter.”
“That is what we should be doing – working together to grow. Fulfilment comes, not from what others will give to us or do for us, but whether individually or as a nation, from what we do for ourselves. Even more importantly, what we do for others. We have got to keep Singapore this sort of a place – where the economy thrives and the human spirit thrives. We have policies to create a better Singapore for the future. But the key to realising these policies is to get our politics right. As the President said, we must maintain constructive politics that put our nation and our people first. Politics cannot just be about politics alone, because Singaporeans' lives and our future are at stake. If you are entering politics, the first question you must ask is, "What do you stand for, what do you believe in, what do you want to achieve in politics for Singaporeans?" I found it striking that when Mr Low Thia Khiang spoke on Monday on behalf of the Opposition, responding to the President's Address setting out the Government's agenda and programme for the second half of the term, he had nothing to say about the substance of the Government's programme. No critique, no suggestions, no alternatives. Nothing. There are many sorts of politics, and we have got to get our politics right. We do not want money politics. We do not want power politics. We do not want racial politics. We do not want the politics of envy. Constructive politics can help us to scale new heights. Wrong politics will doom us. When Mr Low Thia Khiang said, and I quote, "To me, in whatever way politics is described and coloured, it is still politics." That was a breathtakingly cynical view of politics. What is constructive politics?”
“" He was writing last year. He goes on: "And hopefully, also be able to see the F1 Grand Prix so we can have the chance to experience that as well. I just want to say, 'Thank you, Singapore for what you have given me and my family'. And if I can do anything to give something back, I would be happy to do so. And it could be anything." I think our reputation is well justifiably good and we must build on this reputation, this foundation. Aim high, so that Singapore will remain a special place and we can create an even better future for our children. This debate has not touched very much on economic policies. It is partly because we had a thorough discussion during the Budget in February and March, but I think also because Members feel that the policies are on track, as many of you have noted. But there is much work ahead in transforming our economy. We must not assume that success is guaranteed or that we can sit back and relax, or that economic success is unimportant. Sometimes, when people talk, it sounds like that is passé for you to emphasise economic success. Why you are obsessed with it? Because, it is important, and if you do not have that, we are in for a zero-sum game and a nasty time. We have to work hard to succeed. Singaporeans do work hard but others in Asia are working just as hard, some harder, and many, many are hungrier than we are. We must have Page: 77 that ambition and the drive to secure our place in the world's leading cities and make this a city where every citizen can live a fulfilling life. And then, we can grow the pie; and then, we can give everyone a share of our success. Because otherwise, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and some Singaporeans can gain only if other Singaporeans lose.”
“If I can get enough money one day, I would buy a small property so I can spend more days in Singapore, maybe with my father if he can still afford the long hours' flight and show it to my baby how beautiful it is." So, I think we made a friend. Here is another letter. This is from a Danish man. He came to Singapore as a student to study in INSEAD for the French MBA programme in Buona Vista. He wrote to me and he says: "Thank you, Singapore. Sometimes, you meet people who talk about life-changing experiences. And our stay in Singapore was as such. Of course, studying at INSEAD is that in Page: 76 itself, but attending the school in Singapore somehow just changed me as a person. It is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what did it. The proudness of the Singaporeans, the climate, the perfectly working infrastructure, the hospitality you meet as a student at INSEAD, the police officers who several times took their time to say "Hi" to my boys at the streets, the kindliness from the everyday people all around. Of course, it is the sum of all these, that make Singapore what it is to me." Then, he left, and went back to Fontainebleau in France. And in the next five years, a lot happened. He says: "I finished my MBA in Fontainebleau. I have had a really exciting and giving career since, thanks to what I learnt at INSEAD. However, we often talked about our time in Singapore. And when we reached the five-year mark from our departure, I took my boys back to visit the country for three weeks in 2010. We met no disappointing issues, events or experiences. Feels just like coming home. And now it is three years ago we visited Singapore. We still talk about the trip and about how often we can go back. Our hearts stayed in Singapore. So, we will come back for most of September this year.”
“She came, she lived here for a while and she has gone back and she is married. She wrote this letter recently to Mr Lee, quite unsolicited. She says: "Honestly, I cried in seeing those places. I have missed them so much after leaving Singapore. But I could meet all my friends and ex-colleagues. They organised my birthday party and I eat with them all my favourite food. I am crazy of the Chinese carrot cake, bak kut teh, dry noodles, rice porridge – the one in the hawker centre in Redhill is amazing – crab, dim sum and many other dishes. Singapore food is simply delicious. I have met great friends and we always keep in touch." Then, she talks about others and how she has seen the world and she knows what Singapore is. And she says: "I write for a geo-political analysis website for free and for pleasure. And I wrote an article about the Singapore model in 2012, and one about you that will be published in the next days. In Italy, no one apparently studied or was interested in Singapore so the website director is happy I can write about Singapore. I would like to keep this passion and write more in the future. I hope to have the chance to meet you one day – just to shake your hand and tell you personally how great you are. When I look at my beautiful country, ruined by bad politicians, I can assure you both right and left parties abused of their privileges and ruined their country. And bad political choices. I think we would need someone like you to adjust everything. My father is struggling nowadays because of the heavy taxation. He has a land to cultivate and an agency of import, export of agricultural products. He visited me together with my mother in Singapore, and was charmed like me.”
“But you owe a responsibility to be respectful of her, to be courteous, to be reasonable. We have to have that kind of a society in order to be able to talk about openness in order to be able to keep that channel and that flow of people moving up and not being closed off by glass ceilings or magic circles or the sense that you were born wrong or you speak wrong or you dress wrong, "Ah, that one just does not fit". That is how we keep ourselves open. All this strengthening of safety nets and keeping paths upwards open – these are critical policy shifts. As Ms Tan Su Shan said, there are important domestic issues to address when we look through the microscope. But we should also look through the telescope and see where we want Singapore to be. We are in a much stronger position today than we have been at any time in our history. Our international standing is high; businesses want to come here; "Singapore" the brand name stands for something good in the world. We ourselves may not always appreciate this, but many people who visit us are very impressed by what they see. I cast around on how I can convey this sense to you, which I feel, my colleagues feel and which Singaporeans who travel and work abroad feel acutely because they see it. They see the respect that they attract once they say, "I am from Singapore." Page: 75 So, I decided to share with you some of the letters which we get – unsolicited. I receive them from time to time. Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in his old age, also still receives letters from time to time. So, I will share one which I got and one which Mr Lee got recently. I will start with the one which Mr Lee got. It was written by an Italian, a lady. Her fiancé asked her to come and to work for our Youth Olympic Games (YOG), when we had the YOG in 2010.”
“Neither should you be ostentatious if you are successful, neither should you look down on others because of your physical appearance. Recently, I read about somebody who made a post on her blog, poking fun at an older man who had a hole in his shirt. I think that is wrong because an old or torn shirt does not mean he deserves less respect. I wear shirt with holes all the time, not in Parliament, but my Page: 74 wife says, "It has got a hole in it." I tell her, "Only one. When it has three, I will consider the matter." These are not essential to who you are, what you stand for, what people should think of you. It has to manifest in the way we interact with one another. One day, I went for a walk at the Botanic Gardens at night. I was not watching when I was walking. I bumped into somebody and I apologised. So, he looked at me, he recognised me. He said, "对不起，总理。刚刚下班。"There was no embarrassment, no obsequiousness, no awkwardness. I said, “对不起. It is my fault." He walked off, I walked off. I think that is something valuable. But it is not possible for us to be a completely classless society. There is no such thing in the world. Every society has a natural sorting and natural pyramid. Those who are in positions of responsibility have to have due regard. At the same time, if you are in the position of responsibility, you have a duty to the rest of society. Your respect has to be earned, but a society without leaders who are respected is doomed to fail. We have to have that respect. A teacher is in a position of respect and of responsibility over his students. So is the principal. When a parent interacts with the teacher, you have to understand them. A counter staff is in a position serving the public. When you interact with the counter staff, remember, she is serving you.”
“What you did in school matters. Every teacher will tell you that. But it should not be the last word on your life. That is why we set up the ASPIRE Committee under Ms Indranee Rajah. Ms Indranee spoke on this on Monday. Come the National Day Rally, I hope we will have something more to say about this. Besides our school life and after school, the third aspect of keeping paths up open is to uphold an ethos of openness and informality in our society. What do I mean? We have to be an open and egalitarian society. We must not have rigid hierarchies or class distinctions. People must be able to interact up and down the social ladder, comfortably, self-confidently, without obsequious scraping and bowing. You may be the Prime Minister; you may be a cleaner; you may be a teacher; you may be the student's parent. We are all Singaporeans together, we treat one another with respect. There is informality and easy camaraderie. You do not bow deeply, you do not touch your forehead, you do not "Yes, Sir", "Yes, Sir". In Chinese, they say, "平起平坐". The wealthy should not flaunt your wealth. Yes, you have been successful. Just keep a modest, low key, unassuming approach. Nobody would think the less of you. Your status is not marked by the car you drive, or the brand of clothes you wear, nor should it be marked by the way you talk. I say that because, in Britain, there is an issue. In the old days, the upper classes spoke one kind of English and the working classes spoke a different English – very different pronunciations, different terminology. An Englishman is classified by the way he speaks, as Bernard Shaw said. Singaporeans must not be like that. You must feel a certain comfort with one another.”
“It is a one-stop shop for CET, with training providers, classrooms and career counsellors all under one roof. The unions are also working with employers to conduct courses there. For example, they have got the Tripartite Nautical Training Award for students who want to get nautical qualifications and become sea officers. It is at e2i's Wavelink Maritime Institute. It is a most impressive facility and the most impressive thing about it is that they give the students with a passion, who have decided that they want to learn to become nautical officers and who are making the effort to make the grade, with help from the unions and from the Government. I met many other trainees there too who are learning new skills. Some had already graduated and have found better paying jobs. I was very happy that they could seize new opportunities even in mid-career. That is the first CET institute. We are building a second one, which is the Lifelong Learning Institute in Paya Lebar later this year. There will be many more opportunities for everyone to pick up and to sharpen their skills, and that is important not just for rank and Page: 73 file workers, but also for PMEs. Mr Patrick Tay spoke passionately about helping PMEs to cultivate a "second skill" or to deepen their expertise. The Government will support them, together with the employers. But it is not just about the training opportunities. It is really about the whole culture, the whole framework of how people work, study, upgrade, attend courses, are able to change careers and go into second, or maybe even third careers in their working lives. You need many more pathways to lead fulfilling lives so that one's whole future career is not fixed forever by the time you have left school, depending on how you did in school.”
“There are kids who win scholarships and study overseas from well-off homes, too. Yes. The difference is the kids from well-off homes without the scholarships, they might still go. If we had no scholarship scheme, the kids from poor homes would not have a chance to go. The scholarship scheme serves them. Page: 72 We had one polytechnic student. She and her school mates were preparing a decoration for the Singapore Aerospace. She wrote down on a card her dream – "I dream of becoming the CEO of Pratt & Whitney". She posted it. The CEO of Pratt & Whitney came to the Singapore Aerospace, saw the card, asked who wrote it, and said "I will offer her an internship." First step. There was another student who dropped out of school to take care of his mother. His mother was ill, he went to take care of her, and later on, he came back to school, went to Northlight, did well, went on to ITE and earned the Outstanding Graduate Award for NITEC in Facility Technology. These are people with grit and determination and talent, and we will look for them and build them up. Members of Parliament mentioned several other examples too. Mr Hawazi Daipi, Ms Jessica Tan, so did Ms Tin Pei Ling. We know they are there. We will make a special effort to seek them out and we must continue to give these and many more Singaporeans every chance to succeed. Beyond the schools, keeping paths upwards open also means giving Singaporeans possibilities to improve themselves throughout their lives. We need to strengthen Continuing Education and Training (CET), as Dr Amy Khor and others described. We just opened the Devan Nair Institute for Employment and Employability on May Day. It is in Jurong East, a beautiful institute.”
“In every Primary school, we have teachers who advise promising students on suitable Secondary schools to bring out the best in their talents and interests. In fact, we have teachers who will advise all the students, whatever their talents, which schools will best suit them, where they can get the most and the best education to develop them. So, the schools are making the effort, not just in terms of the content and guidance to the students, but also in terms of the tone, the ethos in the schools and the culture. We need to shape the culture in the schools so that students can interact with one another comfortably and without feeling self-conscious about one being poorer than the other, one being richer than the other. For example, starting with this year's Primary 1 Registration Exercise, we are reserving in every Primary school at least 40 spaces for students with no prior connection to the school, so that we will prevent our schools from becoming closed institutions. We are also exercising restraint in school spending and activities. Sometimes, having to restrain the schools and ask them not to go overboard in their enthusiasm. For example, raising funds to build infrastructure which must not be lavish, or planning study trips to exotic and expensive destinations. It is not necessary to go to the other side of the world to learn about the world. There are many things you can learn in our own neighbourhoods. The key point is that we must not put off students from poorer homes from studying in top schools because they feel out of place or socially uncomfortable. In fact, our education system continues to serve children from humble backgrounds well. We still see students winning Government scholarships to study overseas from poor homes.”
“One, our schools and education; two, post-schools; and three, the tenor and the tone of our overall society, the ethos of openness and informality which we are trying to maintain in Singapore. Schools. It starts with schools because education has been and remains an important way to level up. Every Singaporean parent believes that, which is why they pay attention to their kids, they invest in tuition and they angst enormously over which school their children are going to get into or be posted to. We are going to continue to improve our education system to give every child the opportunity to fulfil his potential, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. So, we are improving the quality of education at all levels – affordable pre-schools, heavily subsidised by the Government, more publicity-funded university places, helping ITE/polytechnic students to upgrade and go on and take further courses in life. We are Page: 71 seeking out talented students from humble backgrounds to encourage them to make the best choice for their education, as Assoc Prof Eugene Tan suggested. The schools have schemes to do this. For example, Raffles Girls School (RGS) invites Primary schools whose students typically do not apply to RGS to identify promising students, who they think could benefit, have a chance. RGS will then meet these students, meet their parents and encourage them to put down RGS as the school of their choice and re-assure them that if they need to, there will be scholarships, there will be financial assistance; they say, "Don't be put off because of money worries." You can make the best judgement based on your abilities, based on which school fits you best.”
“Under the Conservatives, the Liberals, under John Howard, they even set up a Future Fund in 2006 to pay for future liabilities out of accumulated surpluses such as pensions for civil servants. They thought they had money. Let us put it away. Do not spend it now. This is for the future, for the rainy day. But it never got to their future because soon after they set up the Fund, the surpluses disappeared. In Australia, General Elections are held every three years. And very often, elections become auctions. Politicians compete to offer more generous benefits and goodies to the voters so as to win the vote and outbid their competitors. There was one politician in one year, who said, "I am going to raise the GST" – he lost. So, now, from setting up the Future Fund in 2006, less than a decade later, Australia is facing chronic deficits. Tony Abbott, having come in, elected last year, promising not to make budget cuts, they have had to confront the reality and have just announced massive and painful budget cuts. Australia got itself into these difficulties despite their best intentions and their enormous natural wealth. Imagine how easy it is for Singapore, a small country with no resources, to fall into the same problems. When people say we should stop being paranoid, let us be confident and go forth, just spend, I think only the paranoids survive. Let us be very careful. The best way to improve lives is not just to provide safety nets to catch Singaporeans when they fail, but to create ladders of opportunity so that everyone has a chance to succeed, to scale new peaks, regardless of background, regardless of family circumstances. What do we mean when we say we are keeping pathways open to all? I would like to talk about it in three aspects.”
“We also want to provide stronger assurance in retirement for the lower income groups because the lower income groups may not have much put away in their CPF, either the in the Retirement Account (RA) or in their Special Account (SA) or in their house. So, these are things we are studying carefully. I will say something more about it, I hope, come National Day Rally. Strengthening safety nets is the right thing for us to do but we have to proceed very, very carefully because it is human nature to want more without wanting to pay more for it. And also, we are going against the tide. We are increasing our social spending precisely at a time when many other developed countries in the world are trying to cut theirs. They are looking at Singapore and they see Singapore as we are today, as a very interesting model to learn from. They think we have got it right – small Government, targeted subsidies, good outcomes in healthcare, minimum poverty, low taxes and a vibrant economy. What is the magic? They want our magic. We believe we need to improve our system but I think we should not forget that, in fact, a lot of things are working in our system. And as we try to improve it, let us not break the things which are important and which work well for us. My fear is not that we will lack good intentions. Good intentions are aplenty and many countries have embarked on this path with every good intention and gone awry. You take – not Greece, Italy or Spain which we know about – Australia. The lucky country. The richest natural resources per capita in the world probably. In the 1990s and early 2000s, 15 to 20 Page: 70 years ago, they ran budget surpluses.”
“Mr Heng Chee How spoke about this yesterday. That is one important way of helping. A second approach is to help older Singaporeans to unlock the value which is in their HDB flats. We have helped them to build it up, we have helped them to own it and now that they are old and there is value there, I think we should have ways to help them to draw on this value in a controlled way to meet their retirement needs. Quite a few people rent out rooms in their HDB flats. Some rent out their whole flats and move in with their children. We already have some schemes to unlock the value of the Page: 69 HDB property. For example, we have the Silver Housing Bonus – if they decide to move out of their flat and into a Studio Apartment, you can get a bonus from the Government. We have a Lease Buyback Scheme which Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Mr Gan Thiam Poh talked about – if you are willing to shorten the lease on your flat, while you get a string of money, it goes into your CPF LIFE. There are ways to do this. And yet, some people still feel asset rich, cash poor – as they put it. MND is studying how we can improve these schemes or come up with different valuations which are emotionally more congenial and easier for people to understand and to accept and use, without feeling that they are giving up their home or not going to have anything to hand over to their children. The third approach to retirement adequacy is to improve the CPF scheme and the CPF LIFE scheme. Many Members have talked about this – Ms Tin Pei Ling, Mr Zaqy Mohamed, Mrs Lina Chiam. We want to enhance CPF LIFE so that the payouts can keep pace with the cost of living.”
“They really did not feel that they needed a lot of extra insurance coverage and they wanted to make sure that they did not lose out when MediShield Life was introduced. Now, we cannot let Government pensioners opt out from MediShield Life because this is universal – it is compulsory. But we can make sure that Government pensioners are not that adversely affected. And PSD is studying this very carefully together with the unions. After the MediShield Life report is out, it will announce the details and how it proposes to solve this problem for the pensioners. The Government will do our part to help Singaporeans with MediShield Life. I am confident that employers will help their employees too. The NWC has discussed this and I think they will make some reference to this in the Wage Guidelines this year. Let us work together to get MediShield Life well launched and well implemented. Besides healthcare, we are also looking at other aspects of retirement adequacy and that means, in simple terms, a stream of income for people to live on in retirement. There are different approaches to this. The first approach, of course, is to work longer so that you continue to have a salary and you are active and you retire later. Meanwhile, while you are working, you will continue to build up for retirement. We should make it easier for workers who want to work longer to do so. The unions are very keen on this and the workers too. I have talked to the unionists. They are very happy that with the RRA (Retirement and Re-employment Act), workers can now work until 65 generally, and many are already doing so. Now that they are approaching 65, they want to continue working beyond 65. I understand, I sympathise and we are working towards raising the re-employment age within a few years.”
“We must get many important details right and we must ensure that people understand how it works, and how it affects them individually. And that is the reason why I have also reinforced MOH in the reshuffle to have Dr Lam Pin Min come in as Minister of State, and to have Dr Amy Khor already in MOH focusing on MediShield Life outreach. We have to get it right. Participation in MediShield Life is compulsory. You cannot opt out. Different groups have different concerns. And we have to make sure that all groups are properly taken care of. For example, for workers, we have timed the 1% increase in Medisave contributions in January 2015, paid for by the employers, to help workers pay for their MediShield Life premiums and their other healthcare costs. There is something coming. And for the lower income workers particularly, the Government will help them and their families with subsidies on their premiums, as Minister Gan Kim Yong has explained. Retirees are another group. The Pioneers are okay because they are covered by the Pioneer Generation Package. Those not quite old enough to be in the Pioneer Package, below 65, they also are covered because they will also have subsidies for their premiums. So, you do not have to worry – it will be okay. There is one special group of retirees which we watch closely and these are the Government pensioners because we have a responsibility to them. And the Amalgamated Union of Public Employees (AUPE) General-Secretary, Mr Ma Wei Cheng, raised them with Page: 68 me recently. Some Government pensioners already enjoy comprehensive medical benefits for themselves and their families, particularly those who retired earlier.”
“We introduced ComCare in 2004, we introduced Workfare in 2006, we introduced Medifund-Silver in 2008, and in this Twelfth Parliament, we have gone further, and we have broken new ground with our social policies. The Government and the community doing much more to support individuals and we are helping not only the lower income Singaporeans, but also middle income families through the Special Housing Grant, Wage Credit Scheme, CHAS (Community Health Assist Scheme) and in the process MediShield Life. We will continue to do more wherever necessary, especially for healthcare and retirement adequacy. Page: 67 That is why in this latest shuffle of my Ministers, I have strengthened the political leadership of the social Ministries. I put Sam Tan as the Minister of State in PMO in order to coordinate the social policies and, particularly, the implementation on the ground. I put Low Yen Ling as Parliamentary Secretary both in MSF and also in MCCY. One major safety net which we are working on now is MediShield Life. It is a major improvement over the current MediShield. Universal coverage for everybody, it is coverage for life and it offers better payouts, better protection against very large bills. Of course, because the coverage is better, the premiums have to go up. And I think Singaporeans recognise this so they want to know what the premiums will be. As Mr Gan Kim Yong has explained in Budget and also yesterday when he spoke, we will make sure that premiums are affordable for all. The MediShield Life Committee has been working on this – consulting, taking views, working out possibilities and they should submit their report soon. I expect by the time Parliament next meets in July, we will be ready to debate that report. MediShield Life is a very complex undertaking.”
“We should not always believe that the grass is greener on the other side. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Happiness is a state of mind. We can be better off, and yet, if we succumb to the urgings of those who promote envy, excite disaffection then we will always be unhappy. No amount of good things can make us happy. Happiness has to come from within ourselves. Because Singaporeans experience the same global trends, so it is completely understandable that we too feel anxious and concerned. But there is much that we can and must do, to secure our future and give ourselves greater peace of mind. We will work hard to fulfil our vision of a "fair and inclusive society, where every citizen has a rightful place and the opportunity to fulfil his or her aspirations". How will we do this? We should share the fruits of progress and strengthen our social safety nets. We should keep pathways upwards open to all. We should fire up the human spirit and, of course, we must get our politics right. First of all, we should share the fruits of progress more widely and strengthen our social safety nets. That is how we build a fair and inclusive society that is the yin to complement the yang of self-reliance and competition which are also necessary. Indeed, this is something which we have been doing for many years, long before I became Prime Minister. When Mr Goh Chok Tong was Prime Minister, he introduced Edusave, Medifund, the HDB Special Housing Assistance Programme and many other schemes targeted to address specific social needs. When I became Prime Minister, I built on this and took it further.”
“So, the Hong Kongers are anxious – a different environment but some sort of anxiety. We look for models around the world and we think of Bhutan. When we had the debate at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament in 2011, Ms Sylvia Lim made a major point about Bhutan. Bhutan was talking about Gross National Happiness (GNH) – not GNP, Gross National Product. And they had a fully worked out formula, structure, what do you study, what does happiness consist of. They have Jeffrey Sachs advising them and it was a whole system. But it was not so simple. Mr Khaw Boon Wan and some others on our side explained why it was not so simple. At that time, the Bhutan government made Gross National Happiness a big part of their agenda. It is a pity that Ms Sylvia Lim did not mention Gross National Happiness when she spoke in the debate today. Because I am not sure whether she noticed – last year, there was a general election in Bhutan and the government which proposed Gross National Happiness was voted out! The new government has come in and the new Prime Minister has been interviewed and had said that Gross National Happiness was "overused" and it "distracted (the government) from the real business at hand". And what is the real business at hand? He named four: tackling major problems with chronic unemployment, poverty, corruption and a sense that politicians were too remote. Page: 66 There is no magic formula which can cause us to solve these problems in a sense of suddenly waking up with no worries. We each confront our own different situations; we each have to manage in our own way and see our situation in perspective. I am not disparaging the efforts of others at all. I am just pointing out that every country has its own challenges.”
“There are exciting opportunities ahead: Asia is continuing to grow; ASEAN is establishing an ASEAN Community by the end of next year which should give us more opportunities in our neighbouring countries; we are venturing into new industries, new technologies; the globalisation is progressing, people talk about Big Data, we are part of that, we want to be a Smart City, a Smart Nation. But as Mr Sitoh has just pointed out, at the same time, we are undergoing very rapid changes and there are widening inequalities. This is causing angst and restlessness. And not Page: 65 just in Singapore, but in many countries around the world. Take, for example, China: developing, prospering, becoming middle income faster than any other country of that size and scale ever in the world. Yet, middle-income families in China feel the same angst as our middle income families do. They doubt that they can have better lives than their parents, even though their standard of living is already much higher. They worry what the future holds for them and they are unhappy that some others are doing much better than they themselves are. You would have heard the phrases, "官二代" or "富二代". That means second generation child of a high official or second generation child of a wealthy person. They are envied; everybody else says, "Where do I go?" Although, in fact, the tide is rising for everybody, but the anxiety, the angst is there, within China. But China causes anxiety elsewhere. One country is Hong Kong. And the Chinese visit as tourists by the millions. Hong Kongers, the residents, protest bitterly against the influx of Mainlanders raising their costs of living, buying their milk powder. They had imposed quotas: per tourist, two cans of milk are all they are allowed to carry out at the border.”
“The Government – we are a significant part of the construction business – we ask ourselves: which Government projects need to be built, which Government projects can be deferred? When it comes to HDB houses, when it comes to trains, projects which are urgent, we are going full steam ahead. But there are other projects which can wait one or two years. We can defer them, we can study them a bit more, we can phase them out so that we can spread out the demand for construction workers and then you will be able to manage the total number of construction workers in Singapore. No Ministry volunteers to put off any of their building projects but MOF is very persuasive. We have had very close discussions with the Ministries, with the Statutory Boards, some of which had new offices planned. We were going to build extensions to Gardens by the Bay on the other side – Marina East. We are planning to build a new Science Centre. We want to extend the Esplanade. These are all good projects but they will all now take a little bit longer to come. And altogether, you are talking about not a small sum – $2 billion worth of projects and we may save 20,000 to 30,000 foreign workers that way, which I think will be helpful. These are necessary trade-offs and I hope Singaporeans will understand. I have been reviewing our progress in the first half of this term. But even as we tackle the immediate issues, we have to look to the future.”