Leon Perera
Singapore
“I thank the Nominated Member, Mr Mark Chay, for his clarification. I did, in my speech, allude to my awareness of the existence of sports scholarships and I mentioned a few, nor in my speech did I claim that there is no Government support for these less well-known sports.”
“Sorry, again. I acknowledge that, of course, no system is perfect. I think we all acknowledge that. My colleague Assoc Prof Jamus Lim presented data on the performance of different countries in sporting excellence, government spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to ask one short supplementary question. I am wondering if the Government will consider requiring or mandating private companies to provide an elderly or parent care leave to some extent, or flexible work arrangements that will allow for time for eldercare and parent care duties?”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just one supplementary question for the Senior Minister of State. He referred to the service quality framework that the Government uses vis-à-vis SingPost because SingPost is a Government licencee.”
“I was suggesting that the determination of consistency of the Ministerial Code of Conduct be done by an independent organisation. It could be the AGO, it could be a judge or retired judge or someone else to put that imprimatur of independence. I was not suggesting either or. You may disagree with that.”
“At the end of the day, healthcare is, and will remain, must remain, a profoundly human endeavour. There is no more important goal in healthcare than attracting, retaining and bringing out the best from our great healthcare workers.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,226 lines we hold for Leon Perera, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 25.
“Moving onto the next part of my speech, there are certain provisions in the Bill which I do not oppose. Nevertheless, these provisions would give MAS additional powers over banks and in some cases, these powers may lengthen the turnaround time for decisions, limit business flexibility and, therefore, raise the cost of doing business, however slightly. Therefore, in the interest of transparency, I would like to pose some questions to better understand – and for the banking community and stakeholders to better understand – the Government's thinking in relation to these issues and to ask what facts prompted the Government to include these provisions in the Bill. This information may be relevant to other national sectors, other than just the banking sector. Clause 46, which inserts a new section 57EA, requires banks, credit and charge card issuers to obtain approval from MAS for places where they intend to conduct certain businesses. I would like to ask what facts or trends have prompted the Government to impose a requirement that banks seek the approval of MAS for these decisions, as opposed to just notifying MAS. It would be helpful for the public to better understand what facts MAS is detecting about such practices by banking businesses as it may have implications for other sectors of society. For instance, is MAS detecting overly aggressive marketing practices for credit or charge cards that may be fuelling unsustainable over-spending by at-risk families? If so, it would be useful to highlight this. Non-government organisations and voluntary welfare organisations working with at-risk families and at-risk individuals could help to provide feedback to MAS if they notice such unhealthy card marketing practices on the ground.”
“If MAS uses this power to direct a bank to terminate a transaction with its related party, for example, that act could conceivably result in a financial loss much bigger than the $250,000 fine that is associated with this provision. Such a decision could also inflict reputational damage on the bank. In relation to this provision – clause 17 – there is a risk that if banks do not clearly understand the guidelines which MAS will use to exercise its power to terminate transactions or eliminate exposures, this may create a culture of excessive notification and consultation with MAS at best, or excessive risk-aversion at worst. Page: 102 The Bill also requires banks to immediately notify MAS of any developments that would adversely and materially affect its financial soundness, reputation and ability to conduct business. In relation to this provision – clause 34 – there is a risk that if the banks do not clearly understand what needs and what does not need to be reported to MAS, this will create a burden of excessive notification which may raise compliance costs, however slightly. And these compliance costs may end up being passed onto end-consumers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in respect of these two provisions – clauses 17 and 34 – I would like to ask if MAS will provide banks with guidelines that it will use to determine what constitutes a transaction or exposure that could be potentially terminated by MAS and what constitutes a notifiable material development. Will MAS, for instance, be publishing a guidance document on how it will operationalise these powers, similar to the guidance published on anti-money laundering and terrorism finance last year and private banking controls in 2014?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, it is important for MAS to be sufficiently empowered to take a proactive stance in regulating the banking sector. The Global Financial Crisis showed the world how high the stakes are in getting our banking regulatory frameworks right. Prudential safeguards, such as empowering MAS to require a bank to incorporate locally in certain cases, only allowing fit and proper people to own significant stakes in banks, or to be a controller of the bank and providing safe harbour protection for external auditors who whistle blow, all these will enhance the ability of MAS to protect banking customers, as well as the stability and safety of the overall banking system. Having said this, we must ensure the continued competitiveness of our banking sector. Singapore's financial services sector makes a very significant contribution to jobs and the gross domestic product (GDP) in Singapore. Regulations should be framed and implemented in such a way as to minimise ambiguity. This would ensure that banks do not "overegg the pudding" so as to drive up compliance costs that could end up being passed onto the end-customers of banking products, not to mention crimping the job creation engine of the sector, however slightly. In this context, while supporting the Bill, I would like to pose a few clarifying questions and make some suggestions with respect to implementing specific provisions of the Bill. The Bill imposes new requirements and expanded penalties for engaging in related party transactions that are detrimental to the interests of depositors, including non-exposure transactions.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, just a brief clarifying question to the hon Minister. I think this question was contained in Mr Pritam Singh's speech which is that for members who are on HPS who fail to make the premium payments and reminder letters are sent to them, are these sent by registered mail or non-registered mail? And if they are sent by normal mail, could CPF Board give some thought to perhaps sending those reminders by registered mail? Page: 98”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for his very detailed reply. I just have two supplementary questions. The first is regarding the EIA itself. Will the Government, as a default position, be releasing future EIAs that are done in relation to other projects online, as the default stance of the Government? The second question is in relation to the on-going studies that are going to be done over the next two years, as the Senior Minister of State mentioned. This is early days yet, but my question is: will the Government consider publishing all the information that is relevant to making this decision and evaluating the trade-offs, in a single document and releasing that document for public debate and public consultation? The information I am referring to includes all the costs, the environmental impact, the commuting time impact and so on and so forth, when the information is ready, when the Phase 2 of the EIA is done and so on and so forth. Page: 19”
“Okay. In that case, I will conclude, Mdm Speaker.”
“But is the thrust of this Motion for the good of Singapore, or is it really undermining the long-term democratic hopes that I certainly would have for real democracy and for balance in this country? I am not so sure. I would like to conclude with this one question, which I think is relevant when we talk about achieving political balance and achieving real democracy for the country that we love in the longer term. And this one question is this and it has not been answered to the best of my knowledge by the hon Members of the People's Action Party who have spoken, which is, what will happen to Singapore if we are dependent on just one party overwhelmingly and that one party fails and there is no other party in our political landscape that can step in to remedy that gap? What will happen to this country? Can any member of the People's Action Party provide that answer? If you feel that that is an argument to develop more political balance, as I do, then that should be the consideration that guides us to have a political landscape that encourages the development of real political balance. And if I just may be permitted one last point before I resume my seat —”
“Alright. Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I will just confine myself then to talk about my decision to take up the NCMP seat while opposing the NCMP scheme in principle, before I move to my conclusion. Firstly, it was not a decision I took lightly. I thought about it very, very carefully. It was a very difficult decision to make. But I decided that on balance, I could make a constructive contribution. And on balance, I could make a constructive contribution, and that the benefits will outweigh the risk. I could make a constructive contribution that would help in the longer term cause of political balance in this country. Whether that was the right decision or not, I will leave that to others to judge, but I think it is something that all of us in the Workers' Party have to continually review as we move forward, whether in the context of a changing political landscape, changing rules, whether this balance and this decision still holds true. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I just want to make one final observation. We are here today to debate this Motion. We have heard many hon Members of the People's Action Party talk about Ms Lee Li Lian. To be very honest, Mdm Speaker, she is not here in this Chamber to defend herself. The Workers' Party Members have attempted to speak out to explain her reasons, but she is not here to defend herself. She is not a person who lacks integrity. She loves this country. She has worked very, very hard, as some Members have noted. Even when she was pregnant, she did house visits. But we are gathered here today to debate this Motion which I think is having the effect of painting a certain narrative about the Workers' Party.”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker. If the hyper majority of the People's Action Party becomes basically unassailable, then the will of the people will not effectively be enforced. There will not be an electable and viable constructive Opposition party that Singaporeans will be able to support in order to hold the Government to account and ensure that the Government actually aligns itself to the political character of the country and the will of the people of Singapore. That is my fear for Singapore and that is why I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle. While we are discussing the NCMP scheme, I note in passing – I know you have said I should limit my speech to the Motion – that we do not have a completely level political playing field here. We should not forget the context. The Workers' Party has made a number of recommendations on its manifesto on political reforms. Now it is not the time to go into those in any detail, but I want to note that in passing, we do not have an independent Electoral Commission. The People's Association does not work with Workers' Party in the same way as the PAP —”
“But, Mdm Speaker, I do see a benefit to the People's Action Party that is not to the benefit of Singapore. That benefit is that the NCMP scheme allows the People's Action Party to send a very strong message to the Singaporean people. That message is you do not need to vote for any party other than the People's Action Party. You should, you ought, you can and you must return 100% of elected Members of Parliament seats to the People's Action Party and you should relegate Opposition parties to NCMP seats. I can see how that benefits the People's Action Party. I suspect that that benefit may play out. But does it benefit Singapore, Mdm Speaker? Does it benefit Singapore? I am not so sure. I think if that message is the message that is put across to the Singaporean electorate and that message is accepted by the Singaporean electorate, what will happen is the negation of the evolution of genuine democracy, real political balance in this country. And a passion for real political balance and genuine democracy, Mdm Speaker, is not just why I am here. It is why my Workers' Party colleagues are all here. If Singapore's politics evolves, so that there are no elected Opposition MPs – which could well be a reality, it nearly happened in the last general election – what will happen is that the People's Action Party's hyper majority in Parliament – it is not a super majority; "super majority" is a term that comes from US politics and I think it refers to a 60% majority in the Senate, this is not a "super majority", Mdm Speaker. This is a hyper majority. It is 92% or 93% of all parliamentary seats —”
“With your permission, Mdm Speaker, I would like to speak on the Motion. Mdm Speaker and hon Members of the House, I would like to share my thoughts on the amended NCMP Motion before us. Mdm Speaker, over the course of the debate, over the last one hour or so, the thrust of the debate from the hon Members from the People's Action Party in this House has been to construct a narrative. That narrative is that the Workers' Party are bad people. It is not an unfamiliar narrative. It is a narrative that is frequently heard. It is that the Workers' Party is shifty, somehow untrustworthy, our motives have to be questioned, our integrity is to be questioned, and that has found expression in the amendment to the Motion that has been tabled before the House. It has been put across that we are contradictory; we are contradicting ourselves by accepting the NCMP seat and at the same time opposing the NCMP scheme in principle. I will share my personal perspective and point of view, because I think no doubt that it is relevant. Many people will want to know why it is that I oppose the NCMP scheme in principle, but I have agreed to accept an NCMP position myself. I intend to speak on that. But before I do so, let me just suggest another consideration to this House which is this: the thrust of People's Action Party Members of this House in speaking on the NCMP scheme – both the current NCMP scheme and the new scheme that is being formed – is that this is, Mdm Speaker, a gesture of magnanimity on the part of the People's Action Party. It is charity that it is being extended, and for which we should be grateful. It is been put across that the People's Action Party does not stand to benefit in any way from the NCMP scheme. None whatsoever. It is sheer magnanimity.”
“Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would just like to put a clarification question to the hon Parliamentary Secretary Mr Baey Yam Keng. Mr Baey referred to my speech when I quoted from an op-ed piece by some of our artists. I would like to ask the hon Parliamentary Secretary if he agrees with the views specifically expressed because it was not entirely clear. So, here, I am quoting from the op-ed piece by Mr Tan Tarn How and Mr T Sasitharan. Mr T Sasitharan, as you know, if I am not wrong, is a Cultural Medallion recipient. In any case, he is a very prominent local artist speaking on behalf of the Arts Engage network of Singapore which involves a number of local artists. The view that he expressed was, and I quote verbatim here, "Our website also documents cases of works censored to protect the Government from embarrassment rather than for society's good. Perhaps it is fitting to remember here that arts funding is not the Government's but the people's money." So, I would like to ask the hon Member does he agree with that view; and if not, why not?”
“I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I just have two supplementary questions. Firstly, would the Minister consider creating a more active match-making function or facility among the Government agencies involved, such as SPRING, A*STAR, IDA, and so on, in order to make our small and medium enterprises (SMEs) more aware of the available IP that they can license or commercialise in a more proactive way? My second supplementary question is: would the Ministry consider creating a facility whereby SMEs may be able to approach the research centres, institutes and universities in some collective way to request if a certain kind of IP can be developed for their commercial purpose; and if there is a research institute or research team that is willing to take that up, to then execute the research and allow the SME to commercialise that IP when it is developed, with some cost and profit-sharing from the Government. The reason I ask this is because there is a database of IP, there are events to promote this, there is a scheme to attach researchers to SMEs, but I think this sort of match-making and system whereby we can request the institutes to develop IP may be a way to be more proactive to enable our SMEs to really leverage the expertise in our community of researchers in a similar way to, for example, the Fraunhofer model in Germany.”
“I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive and helpful reply. Notwithstanding the difficulty of predicting longer term health outcomes, would the Ministry consider developing an estimate for what the long-term health impact would be in terms of the healthcare cost that would have to be borne by the Singapore Healthcare System, both Government and consumers and companies in the long term, from our children suffering exposure to haze so that we can use that dollar figure, even if it is an estimate, derived from other international studies that have been done – as the Minister of State acknowledged – so that we can use that estimate as a planning parameter to decide how much to invest in haze-proofing our schools and ensuring our children are better protected against haze? This approach to policymaking and decision making may be helpful to assess the future impact, so as to decide investment today.”
“Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Minister of State for a very comprehensive and helpful reply. I just have two supplementary questions, if I Page: 16 may. Firstly, specifically in the context of the Jade Circle proposal and in the context of dementia patients requiring institutional care, would the Ministry consider creating, as a permanent subvention, a portable subsidy that is associated with dementia patients according to age or income or some other such criteria, as opposed to a subsidy that is associated with the institution? My second question is: would the Ministry consider initiating a process to develop an integrated national plan to cope with dementia, which will be an increasing problem in Singapore, along the lines of the Australian National Framework for Action on Dementia and the report of the Hong Kong Working Group on Dementia?”
“Yes. So, in the context of the fact that there could be a minority of Singaporeans who are exercised about this issue and are concerned about ballot secrecy, would the Minister consider asking MOE to include a brief or a limited element of training about ballot secrecy within the Social Studies curriculum, given that it seems to be an issue that exercises a minority of Singaporeans, although it does not exercise the majority?”
“I think the Minister for his helpful reply. Mdm Speaker, in the course of my grassroots work, I have encountered quite a number of Singaporeans who are under a misimpression about ballot secrecy and have articulated to me the view that they are concerned that ballot secrecy is not inviolable, and the nature of their vote may be—”
“I thank the Minister of State for his helpful reply. Just a few very brief clarifications or supplementary questions. Firstly, just to clarify the doctor-to-population and nurse-to-population ratios, does it include the entire population of the island, including foreigners, or does it include just citizens and permanent residents? That is just one clarification. Secondly, as the Minister of State kindly acknowledged, the doctor-to-population ratio may not capture every relevant dimension to the issue. There is the matter of disease incidence and caseload may differ according to disease incidence, such that the doctor-to-population ratio may not be a perfect approximation of relative workload. So, would the Minister of State or MOH consider conducting at least one initial benchmarking study to assess the relative caseload for doctors and nurses in our country, with respect to other countries with whom it may be useful to compare? In terms of looking at the issue of caseload, would the Minister consider studying this issue in the context of the panel that has been convened to look into healthcare work processes in relation to the Hepatitis C infection cluster? Would the Committee and the Ministry consider looking at workload – while not being a direct trigger or direct causal factor to the incidents that we have seen – but would that Committee consider workload to be, perhaps, a contributory or underlying context that might explain some of these incidents, and consider if anything needs to be done on that front, with respect to mitigating the risks of such healthcare-associated infections in future?”
“We can be an example to countries around the world of how efficiency in government, economic and urban planning can be combined with democracy, healthy and vibrant democracy, balanced politics, active citizenship and an active civil society and private sector. We can show the world how a country can be vibrant economically while having a vibrant political life and a deep sense of belonging. Mdm Speaker, at SG51 and staring out at SG100 – which I will most certainly not live to see but our children will – I can think of no better mission for the country that we love. With that, I support the Motion.”
“Yet, Mdm Speaker, in the last election, we came close to having no elected Opposition Members of Parliament in this House. With a Parliamentary super majority for one party, what is the greatest danger facing Singapore's political landscape in the long term? Is it that of gridlock, a word which we had frequently heard yesterday? Or is it that of the non-existence of any viable alternative party other than the ruling party? Mdm Speaker, we must celebrate diversity of views, debate and disagreement. This must start in our schools and carry forward into this Parliamentary Chamber and to all social spaces in between. We must celebrate debate and disagreement as the best way to test ideas. We must learn to agree to disagree without branding one who disagrees with us as our enemy or as someone who has disrespected us. This is real unity; this is real respect. Let us debate and disagree but remain united as Singaporeans. That is real unity worth fighting for. Let us not forget that in 2019, which is just another three years into the future, we face another anniversary – 200 years of Singapore's existence as a recognisably modern society. Mdm Speaker, I believe that a confident Singapore and a big Singapore can stand the test of time. And if we focus on that test of time, on the longer term, there is one way in which we, in Singapore, can be a beacon to the world; there is one purpose which can serve to focus our hearts and minds in the 21st century. The Singapore glass is half full. We have done very well with a very high quality of civil service, government efficiency and urban planning. We have not done as well in fostering strong non-state actors and institutions to balance a strong state.”
“But to have a core leadership that has very few with any other kind of career profile, that opens up the danger of groupthink, self-rationalisation and self-congratulation. Recently, some individuals in the Arts Engage network of Singaporean artists commented, in an op-ed piece, that there were "cases of work censored to protect the Government from embarrassment rather than for society's good." They said, "Singapore has yet to achieve the ideal of 'arms-length funding' where public money is given out by an independent, non-government body." This was said in the context of the arts sector. Mdm Speaker, we have some degree of public debate involving scholars and public intellectuals. This is good, but we need more civil society bodies that take on the role of policy debate and advocacy. And what about politics? In the General Election of 2015, it was said that voting for the Opposition went against human nature because it was human nature to thank a party for good policies. There is something else that is more or less predictable about human nature. In my opinion, when too much power becomes entrenched in one party or group of persons or individuals, whoever they may be and from whatever party they may come from, inevitably, that power breeds complacency and a tendency to be self-serving. It is a matter of time. There is yet another argument about diversity and debate, Mdm Speaker. If policy ideas are not tested in open and public debate, not only in Parliament but outside Parliament, there will be Page: 26 less public understanding and buy-in into the thinking that has gone into the policy making. This will make it harder for us, as a country, to truly move as one.”
“In the same vein, we should consider becoming pioneers in the fields of indoor urban agriculture and urban as well as offshore solar power generation which bolster our food and energy security. We should explore using underground space for indoor farming and optimise our rooftop and maritime options for solar power generation, thereby developing potentially exportable know-how and intellectual property. We shall have more to say about these matters in future sessions. Mdm Speaker, some would say that Singapore and Singaporeans are already confident enough. I am not so sure. In my grassroots work in East Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC) and Aljunied GRC, I meet many residents who feel insecure and, in some cases, overwhelmed by the cost of living and the challenges of retirement and by fears about whether their children can afford housing. The second theme that we should unite around, Mdm Speaker, is that of a big Singapore, a Singapore that is not dominated by a very strong state, but one where non-state actors are also strong, confident and influential. Here, I refer to the private sector, civil society, alternative political parties and the citizens of Singapore themselves. How can we face the future as a developed country if we are dominated by a very powerful state that is, in turn, dominated by an entrenched, single political party? This structure creates too much dependence on a small group of people. The risk is too high. When our leadership core comes overwhelmingly from one kind of career background – lifelong civil servants – the risk becomes greater. Mdm Speaker, I respect our Civil Service and the civil servants who have devoted their careers to serving the needs of the people.”
“Together with a raft of other measures that not only provide Government support and help small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to manage costs, but also help to nudge SMEs towards greater productivity, a way of setting long-term productivity targets and enabling our SMEs to benchmark their own productivity performance within their industries. Lastly, we should look at our education system when talking about a confident Singapore. Is our education geared to producing leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs? Or are our students focused more on content-mastery at the expense of cultivating soft skills like leadership, problem-solving, initiative, communication skills and confidence? It is said that, in Singapore, a child raises his or her hand only when he or she is 100% sure that he or she has the right answer, whereas in Silicon Valley, for example, a child would do so even if he or she was not completely sure. Are we nurturing Singaporeans who have enough sense of self-worth and self-esteem to make confident choices? Mdm Speaker, when we talk about the economy, we have to talk about industries. What is a sunrise or a sunset industry will change, and change more frequently as the 21st century meanders on. Confident Singaporean citizens and companies will be able to seize opportunities in any new sectors that emerge. But when we talk about future-ready economic sectors, we should not forget those sectors where Singapore's small size and high population density force us to develop Page: 25 expertise. Necessity, it is said, is the mother of invention. We have developed technologies and know-how in water recycling and water management due to our water scarcity. This is an example of that.”
“Confident citizens will dare to switch industries to start a business, to take time out from working to reskill or further their education. Confident companies would not be so insecure about future business costs and rentals that they cannot invest in big bucks about the future or secure the funding to do so. The confident citizenry and companies would drive productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Confident Singaporeans will not only want to work for multi-national companies, but to found their own multinational companies. Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party has proposed several measures to foster confidence amongst Singaporean citizens and companies. We should continually strengthen our risk-pooling of social safety nets and management of the cost of living. Insecurity about the risks and costs that lie in the future holds back risk-taking and breeds short-termism. We should cherish social mobility, take steps to enhance it and measure it regularly. We should do more to ensure retirement adequacy. Right now, many Singaporeans who reach their drawdown age have little or nothing to withdraw from their Central Provident Fund (CPF), whereas CPF LIFE payouts that they would receive are insufficient to retire on. If Singaporeans fear retirement, they will not make confident choices that a 21st century economy needs us to make. We should do more to groom our local companies to become world leaders and to form a strong third engine of economic growth, alongside multinational and Government-linked companies. The Workers' Party has called for a National Secretariat to bring a whole-of-Government approach to this critically important task for our nation's economy.”
“The pledge enjoins us, yes, to be one united people, but united in building a democratic society based on justice and equality. Some say that the pledge enshrines abstract principles. Yes, it does. But are we a people who do not hew to any abstract principles? Are we a people who only recognise purchasing power as a touchstone of progress? Surely not. I am sure everyone in this Chamber would agree. Mdm Speaker, the pledge gives us principles but, to concretise those principles, I will argue that we can unite around two major themes that will build the Singapore story on strong foundations for the 21st century. The first is a confident Singapore, and the second is what I call a big Singapore – a Singapore where not only the state is strong but non-state actors are strong and influential and steering our course as well. Today, our economy faces major headwinds, as many Members here have noted. Such challenges are likely to recur in the 21st century. This is because we have already picked all the low-hanging fruit of economic growth. Future growth in the 21st century as a developed economy in an increasingly competitive and globalised world may not come from pursuing exactly the same economic development strategies that got us to where we are today. Mdm Speaker, what should unite us at this time is the same thing that will secure our long-term economic future as a developed economy, that is, to build a confident citizenry and a confident base of local companies. Confident citizens are not so worried about the cost of living, or Page: 24 their ability to retire, afford property or afford to have children, that they cannot take risks or make career choices with longer-term payouts.”
“Mdm Speaker, it is my privilege to address this House today to support the Motion of Thanks to the President. It is a privilege that I do not take lightly. I shall speak today on the subject of national unity and, specifically, what ideas and values we should unite around. My starting point is the reaction to the results of the General Election 2015. One key note quickly emerged from some quarters. It was said that the results showed that we were one united people. Mdm Speaker, I find that casting the election results as a badge of national unity is deeply unhelpful for nation-building. It suggests that what unites us as Singaporeans is our support for one political party. I am sure that most Singaporeans believe that what unites us is not that. Mdm Speaker, real unity should be built to last. It should be built on sterner stuff. Real unity recognises that the different voices and the debate among them are precisely what make Singapore stronger. Singing with one voice is neither proof of unity nor is it conducive to real unity. What unites us is our shared heritage, our shared values and our common hopes for the future. Our bedrock as a nation should lie not only in the trust between the Government and the people. Mdm Speaker, our bedrock should be the trust that we have in one another, our collective sense of self-worth and national purpose. This will outlast any government and any party and is a firmer foundation on which to build our nation. To me, there is no more eloquent statement of what defines us than the Singapore pledge that our children recite every day at school. There is no point in asking our children to do this if we do not fashion our institutions around the values that it enshrines.”