Low Thia Khiang
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister for Health. The official communication channel to the people who subscribe to the WhatsApp group quoted the Prime Minister saying that "Experts think that the Wuhan virus may be less deadlier than SARS". So, can we have some verification whether this is true so far?”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] So, Member Mr Gan Thiam Poh meant to say that although the Minister has the decision-making power under this Bill, you can still go to Court to challenge the decision.”
“Mr Speaker, clarification in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have stated clearly that the Government already has a lot of power under existing legislation. They can even shut down websites.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] First and foremost, you must follow the Minister's decision to take down the message, you cannot go to Court. According to this Bill, you must comply with the Minister's order. Otherwise, you will be charged.”
“In Mandarin, Sir. (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Our Secretary-General is in the Committee. He told us about the contents of the Committee's discussion, so we know what was discussed in the Committee.”
“(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] You assume that the Minister will not do this, but is your assumption correct? It may be correct now, but will it be correct in the future? Even the Minister cannot guarantee that, he said he cannot be sure that future governments will not abuse their power. Can you be sure?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,669 lines we hold for Low Thia Khiang, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 54.
“Sir, it was reported by the Straits Times that the number of homeless people has doubled. When I read the report, I was thinking whether this is more of a social problem or a housing problem. My own experience from meet-the-people sessions is that it may be less a social problem and more of a housing problem. This is because while many of these cases of residents who lost their homes do involve dysfunctional families, quite a number of them are still financially viable and could afford to stay together as a family if they could afford the rental of a house. Many ended up without a home because of strict HDB rules on rental housing and obtaining HDB subsidised housing loan. I understand HDB's housing rules are to ensure economic benefits given to citizens are equal and not abused, and thus resisted providing HDB rental flat and housing loan at below market rates. I am concerned that such a position could create more homeless Singaporeans which could unwittingly breed a segment of our society who become bitter and alienated from their country, which seems to care so little about them when they fall into bad times. The HDB's proposition for those who are unable to purchase a HDB flat or to qualify for a HDB rental flat is to seek help for accommodation from family members. The HDB should know well that with the size of HDB flats, most families do not have a spare room to accommodate another distressed close family member's family. The end result would be strained relationships between family members, which could adversely impact the family structure as a basic unit of our society. Is the creation of more strained family relationships desirable? I therefore urge the Government to seriously look into the problem and explore other housing options for such families.”
“I will quote part of what he says: (In Mandarin): "Holding onto personal memories and affections and not wishing any changes to the environment is a selfish and unrealistic mindset. The development speed of a place can make a person feel lost. Spectacular growth figures and grand visions will not stop people from feeling a loss of identification. What purpose does this kind of development have? At least in Singapore, this doubt is not entirely anti-foreign, instead it is more about questioning the economic development model." (In English ): This is what I think many Singaporeans asked, whatever the defence of your economic growth model in the past.”
“Sir, the labour chief showed us the magazine published by NTUC This Week. Yes, I have read it but I find it quite confusing because everything was interpreted as productivity. There is even supply and demand productivity, for instance. Sir, the Minister also referred to Hougang Town Council. We are not on BSI but I would like to clarify that notwithstanding that, we have built the requirement into the contract with the contractor, demanding them to raise productivity by mechanisation and by employing Singaporeans. And they are given incentives for that. But we do not have to be on BSI. Sir, the labour chief also elaborated on what NTUC has done in looking at the low-wage workers' plight and trying to upgrade them. I am not denying that the NTUC has done its part. But whatever he has done, the outcome remains that low-wage workers continue to draw a low wage and this is not satisfactory, although he has done his part. Secondly, the low-wage workers today, especially working in certain industries, are facing a threat from foreign workers. They feel that their jobs can be taken away anytime. And that, despite whatever schemes that you have to upgrade their skills or to re-skill, that is the outcome the workers today face. Perhaps, NTUC may want to do better and work harder. Lastly, the labour chief defended the economic growth strategy of the Government for the past five to 10 years. He said we wanted to build a buffer and whatsoever. From the economic point of view, I am not sure whether he has realised the outcome of this strategy and the impact on our people and our society. Perhaps, I should draw his attention to an article written by a Zaobao reporter, Zeng Shaopeng.”
“It is a clarification. I am asking her if what she is doing is productive. On the second case where she talked about the snake, I suppose if she had advised the resident to call a pest control contractor or the Zoo, perhaps, it would not incur unproductive help of the Police, LTA or whoever. And I suppose, Sir, she would be more productive by giving correct advice, rather than becoming the source of unproductivity by getting the resident to call everybody – LTA, NPark, etc.”
“It is about the mathematical formula. I suppose Er Lee Bee Wah is better in Mathematics, I am no good, but neither can I understand her mathematical logic. Now I have two clarifications for her, Sir. First, she is referring to her experience about a lot of bicycles parked at Khatib MRT Station, she is calling LTA, and those bicycles chained to trees, she is calling NPark. I suppose it would be more productive for her to mobilise her grassroots to advise these cyclists on where to park their bicycles properly –”
“I would advise the Member not to look at my suggestion as "tsunami" that we are going to cut off all foreign workers. I have stated very clearly in my speech that we should use dependency ratio to try to mitigate and manage the influx of foreign workers. We are not denying industries the need of foreign workers. I mean, I am not that mad. Sir, the Member also brought up the same problem that if we do away with the foreign worker levy, it would depress locals' wages. I have explained that I think otherwise. I do not think that is going to be the factor. It is the labour market and also the dependency ratio will play a crucial role in allowing Singaporeans to be properly employed and with reasonable wages. How to go about it? I think I have explained. You need consultation with the industries. You want me to do it myself? I cannot, I have to admit it. Lastly, the Member says that if the wages of the low-wage workers, like cleaners, rubbish collectors go up and the wages of some other professions go up, we might end up with a high cost of living. Sir, indeed, that could happen and I thought that is happening also in other countries. But can we say that because we are worried about the cost of living going up, we deny our low-wage workers and let them continue to draw a low wage? Do we want a section of our society to continue to be impoverished? Is it fair?”
“Let me make a study first and, if you give me the Ministry of Manpower, yes, I will propose to you what is the dependency ratio.”
“It is still price mechanism but the point is, without price mechanism, you can still look at what the needs of industry are and that is one way to push them towards productivity. [Interruptions ] You look at the needs of individual industry. I am not suggesting for one moment that you do not employ foreign workers. But you have to study and look at what is the adjustment level that is needed, and I suppose the Ministry of Manpower can do that. An hon. Member: Come up with your proposal.”
“Okay. She misunderstood what I said about opium. I am referring to the foreign worker levy as opium and not to the foreign workers as opium. She said that it is a dangerous suggestion because of the question of how we reallocate the quota and all that. But I suppose it is not something that is very new to look at how quotas can be allocated and there are many other ways. We can look at how COE is being allocated. So it is a matter of – Hon. Members: Price mechanism.”
“First of all, I would like to clarify that I was also not born in the Year of the Tiger.”
“What they have articulated in this House, is it an NTUC's programme or Government's solution? Their views are the same as the Government's views. Maybe they do not even have their own views. Because they are members of the Government and NTUC, they have enough resources from the organisation and the Government. So they said they have solutions, but I do not have solutions. This year is the Year of the Tiger. Based on what I have said above, let me present them a Chinese phrase as a gift. This is what is called "狐假虎威 (hu jia hui wei )". *Cols. 2579-2580.”
“She is saying that it is difficult to go and look at businesses, to see what exactly they need and the number of foreign workers. But I thought that is the job of the Government. Similarly, the current system proposes a tier system of foreign worker levy, which is equally complicated. She also raised the question of the foreign worker levy, if removed, will affect the wages of Singaporeans. But, Sir, even with the foreign worker levy in place, Singaporeans' wages are also being dampened and depressed because of the influx of foreign workers. So it does not work in that way as she said that it would affect Singaporeans' wages. On the contrary, with the dependency ratio, and when you tighten it, the company will have to think seriously how to get local workers in order to meet the dependency ratio to employ foreign workers. It becomes an incentive, not a disincentive. Sir, my view is that the foreign worker levy becomes an opium. Opium for the Government because it collects money from the levy; opium for the businesses because there is a soft option for them instead of employing local workers, paying higher salaries and raising productivity, they can bank on paying levy so that they can continue to have low productivity, relatively lower labour cost, in order to compete in the market. Lastly, Sir, the Member also said that I made comments to accuse and critcise the Government, but I have no alternatives. That was the same point made by Member Seng Han Thong. He said, "有看法, 沒办法 (you kan fa, mei ban fa)." Sir, I would like to speak now in Mandarin. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] What solutions do Mrs Josephine Teo and Mr Seng Han Thong have?”
“Sir, I have a few clarifications. The first is pertaining to what the Member said. She said that the problem of low-wage workers has been addressed by some Government policies, like WIS, and she made the point about it being an international trend, which was the same point made by Member Seng Han Thong. Sir, although there are measures like WIS, the fact is that the low-wage workers remain as low-wage workers. And for the past 10 years, it has remained so. So is the Government going to be happy to say, "Okay, I am giving you some assistance, and thereby you remain as a low-wage worker?" That is the point I am making. The second clarification is that it is an international trend, that there is a disparity of wages because of economic structure. Is that a consolation to the Government that because it is an international trend, thereby we should allow our workers to continue to remain as low-wage workers? I thought the PAP Government always says that Singapore is unique and that we are different from others. So, perhaps, we should not use the convenience of international trend to console ourselves to say that, "it is okay because it is an international trend and that our workers can remain as low-wage workers". The third clarification that I need to make concerns my proposal to urge the Government to abolish the foreign worker levy, which the Member raised. Sir, first of all, she asked how then would the company that needs foreign workers get the workers. I am not saying that we should ban foreign workers. What I am saying is that we should use the dependency ratio to control the import or the number of workers, depending on the needs of the business.”
“Sir, may I have your permission to clarify? Mr Speaker: Okay, a short one. We do not have much time.”
“It is only fair that the Government starts looking at how to uplift the lives of Singaporeans and make them more pleasant. This is a timely wake-up call to the Government as general election is getting nearer.”
“While CET may serve a purpose for older workers, an adult continuing an education programme should be initiated to cater to the needs of the retirees. Learning as we know is a lifelong process. We should develop a community college for citizens of all ages, especially older Singaporeans who enrich themselves in course not related to their work. The college can have low or minimum entry requirement, courses are totally modular. A senior citizen can earn credit towards a degree or simply for self-enrichment. Entrepreneurs can come in any age group. For an ageing society like Singapore, we should not even have any preconceived ideas on the limitation on what older Singaporeans can do to help build our economy. In conclusion, Sir, looking at the revenue the Government collects every year from the foreign workers levy, it has a moral obligation to ensure our low-wage workers are not left behind. Ten years is a long wait for low-wage earners to move up the economic ladder. Asking these people to wait another decade for that to happen and to depend on State handouts in the interim is wrong. I again urge the Government, as what I did at the last Budget Debate, to work harder to up the wages of the workers soonest possible rather than wait for productivity to improve because that is also conditional upon the affordability of companies to pay the increase in levy. There is no easy way to success. I believe Singaporeans understand that very well. Singaporeans have shown resilience and endured the economic hardship and discomfort with the influx of foreign workers for the past 10 years. On top of that, Singaporeans have to cope with depressed income and rising cost of living such as high utility cost.”
“Productivity will be a natural by-product of innovation. While a total of $5.5 billion is set aside to boost productivity over five years, only $1.5 billion is going into R&D via the National Research Fund. The Gross Expenditure of R&D stood at 2.8% in 2008. The ESC has recommended raising that to 3.8% but the Minister highlighted Finland and its R&D spending as an example of putting money to good use. Finland spent about 3.4% of its GDP on R&D at the end of 2000. Companies such as Sony, LG, Samsung, Acer and Canon are private and highly innovative multinationals. I can hardly name any private entity here that comes close to what these companies have achieved. Of course, some of you may say we have Creative, the sound card maker. If you read its story, you will find that Government has very little to do with Creative's growth and success as well. I believe we do have a lot of room to improve with R&D funding and nurturing SMEs into global companies. I urge the Government to take bold steps now rather than a measured approach to make that vision a reality. We should raise the R&D funding and involve SMEs in nation building as much as we can. Let me now move on to continuing education and training and our ageing society. The Minister has said that the Government will place additional emphasis on our older low-wage workers by providing them the needed support to enhance their skills and continue to be valued in the workplace. While all these CET activities are good for low-wage workers, continuing education does not always have to be work and wage-related. As Singapore is an ageing society, we must include older Singaporeans, working or retired, in the masterplan towards becoming an advanced economy.”
“It becomes an incentive for the employer to find ways to raise productivity in order to stay competitive. The new system proposed by the Government of using price mechanism and a tiered system levy based on the proportion of foreigners on the payroll to address the dependency on foreign workers is too complicated. It does not look like a system designed to control the growth of foreign workers but as a source of revenue for the Government. Sir, it was reported in the news that there were about 856,000 work permit holders in Singapore as at December. Taking away 196,000 domestic helpers, we are left with 660,000 work permit holders. A $10 to $30 per month increase in levy will translate to an additional $79 million to $238 million per year in work permit levy for the Government. If I use the low-end of the work permit levy, which is $150 per month, and multiply that by 660,000 workers, the Government is taking in about $1.2 billion per year in work permit levy. If I use the concessionary domestic helper levy which is $170 per month and multiply that by 196,000 workers, the total levy collected by this Government for all 856,000 work permit holders is a conservative estimate of $1.6 billion per year before any increase scheduled on 1st July. I have not even added the levy for the 82,000 S-pass holders. This brings me to the next issue of helping workers upgrade through Continuing Education and Training (CET) and innovation. Although CET and innovation are key components to boost productivity, the emphasis should be on innovation. To achieve an "Advanced Economy" with "Superior Skills, Quality Jobs and Higher Income" requires innovation through research and development, redesigning work method and machinery, information technology and automation.”
“The price mechanism will not work too if the total cost of hiring a foreign worker, with a levy thrown in, is below a decent living wage for a Singaporean worker. Most companies will have to hire foreigners because no Singaporean workers will apply. The price mechanism is also opened to abuses. MOM has stated it will step up monitoring and enforcement efforts against employers who try to pass on the levy to the foreign workers. This whole exercise could just end up fattening the Government's coffer with little results to show in controlling the ever-expanding foreign workforce. With the Government's determination to expand our economy using productivity growth so that Singaporean workers can finally achieve real wage growth and income level comparable to developed economies, it should take the bold step to remove the foreign workers' levy completely. The Government should just use the dependency ratio to control the growth of foreign workers in Singapore. Dependency ratio can be refined by industry sectors as well as size of the company to allow foreign workers to supplement local manpower when it is necessary. The Government can decide on the dependency ratio in consultation with the industry and set realistic targets on productivity growth in different industrial sectors by gradually reducing the ratio. The savings in foreign workers' levy can then be used by companies to provide employment for local workers when the dependency ratio is reduced, upgrade the production process or send local workers for training to upgrade their skills. The dependency ratio will force employers to look harder how to re-skill and make Singaporean workers productive instead of looking to relatively low cost foreign workers as an option to compete in the market.”
“Therefore, the question the Government should answer is, why after decades of promoting productivity and skills training, and despite that we have achieved 5% productivity growth in the 1980s and about 3% in the 1990s, we are back to the same call again? The next question is, why manual workers like cleaners and garbage collectors in developed economies are paid so much more than their counterparts in Singapore? Are the cleaners there more productive than ours or do these developed economies have more compassionate and effective policies to ensure workers at the bottom of the economic ladder do enjoy a decent and dignified life? With the new emphasis on productive, it seems the Government is suggesting that workers with low income have only themselves to blame because of their low productivity and low skills. The call to workers to up-skill, re-skill and multi-skill may not yield the desired results as well. I know of machine operators in the construction sector who participated in MOM's safety course and other skills recognition programmes, only to end up losing their jobs to foreigners or have their wages depressed because foreign workers are prepared to work for lower pay and longer hours. Sir, I will move on to the issue of dependency on foreign workers in our economy. The Government's intention to use a price mechanism to manage the growth of foreign workers will probably not affect large profitable companies. As you can read in the newspaper, most of the concerns came from SMEs. It will probably create a divided economy with profitable companies hiring foreign workers as per normal and struggling companies relocating or downsizing.”
“It should not attempt to link the cause of low wages in our healthy economy on the low productivity of our workers. It is easy to blame our local workforce for low productivity but who opened the gates to allow foreign workers to flood the labour market in the first place? The easy access to cheap foreign labour offers little incentive for companies to up their productivity and this is stated in the ESC report. The Government has to assume some responsibility for the low productivity registered in the last decade. Low-wage workers have lived with low productivity and high growth for the past 10 years with little improvement to their incomes. I made the same comment at last year's Budget debate speech. Meanwhile, this Government has taken every opportunity to bask in the glory of having brought our tiny economy from third world to first. But how long more must our low-wage workers wait to enjoy a first world pay? Must they wait until our productivity reaches 2%-3%? Low-wage workers have every reason to be concerned with this productivity drive. The Minister has said that the Government's goal is to grow our productivity by 2%-3% per year over the next decade. Only then, real income can go up by one-third in 10 years. Does this mean that the Government expects low-wage workers to wait another 10 years for something that may not happen as we have witnessed the last 10 years? Low-wage workers do not have the incentive to go for training after training. If they have any time to spare, they will probably take on a second job to supplement their meagre income.”
“I must say this Government is highly productive at squeezing every drop of effort and energy from our workers to achieve its desired GDP numbers. But are Singaporean workers that hard to manage? Are they so lazy or resistant to change that they have to be constantly reminded to up-skill, re-skill and multi-skill? Are they so expensive and unproductive that NTUC has to initiate a "Cheaper, Better, Faster" rally call to all companies and workers? In case the Government has forgotten, this workforce has stood by Singapore since our independence. Singaporean workers have given their best years to grow the economy. They have contributed their blood, sweat and tears to nation-building before the floodgates were opened for foreign workers to continue to satisfy the Government's appetite for high GDP growth. While the Government has been very pro-business all the while, it should spare a thought for what our workers want out of a healthy economy. Singaporean workers' perspective of employment is simple about bread and butter issues. Can the wages they make meet their expenditure after deducting for transport, meals, CPF, housing, medical fees, etc? Thus, wages for workers, especially for the low-income group, must go up when the economy is doing well. This is just not the case as the 2008 Report on Wages in Singapore has shown. The Minister said in his Budget speech that "raising skills and productivity is the only viable way we can achieve higher wages and is the best way to help citizens with low incomes". Sir, I want to state clearly the responsibility and enabling factor for helping citizens with low income to achieve higher wages rest squarely on the shoulders of the Government.”
“" That qualification at the end of Minister Mentor Lee's remark is cold comfort to Singaporeans struggling to make ends meet because there is also the competition for jobs. This year's Budget is touted as a fiscal measure for Singapore to move "Towards an Advance Economy" with "Superior Skills, Quality Jobs and Higher Incomes". The three key elements in this year's Budget are "Raising Productivity", "Growing Globally Competitive Companies" and "Including All Singaporeans in Growth". Stripping away the rhetoric, the fiscal policies put forth by the Government for 2010 are neither innovative nor groundbreaking enough to reflect the uphill task of making Singapore an advance economy and, more importantly, less dependent on foreign workers. I am not concerned with the quantum of the Budget. It is the initiatives that worry me, in particular the initiative in raising productivity and income. First, let me touch on raising productivity. To undo years of dependency on cheap foreign labour and to grow the economy through higher productivity is a difficult journey. The impressive GDP growth of 5% a year in the last decade, as reported by the ESC, was achieved through the expansion of our workforce, specifically with a lot of help from a rapidly growing non-Singaporean workforce. Years of economic expansion have not done much to help low-wage earners move up the value chain, as the labour statistics had shown. Productivity has stagnated at 1% for the past decade. Sir, Singaporean workers are constantly asked to up-skill, re-skill, multi-skill, be cheaper, better and faster. On top of all that, they must also work longer and the latest demand on our workforce is to work smarter as well.”
“The level of comfort in our public infrastructure like transport and healthcare is also declining upon a population spike of almost a million people in the last decade, with 75% of the increase arriving the last four years alone. Although the Finance Minister has said in his Budget speech that the impressive growth of the past decade achieved with the help of foreign workers was not a strategy of "growth at all costs" but of growing our economy to raise Singaporean incomes, the increase in median income per household member from 2005 to 2008, cited by the Minister, tells only part of the story. The Report on Wages in Singapore for 2008, released by the Ministry of Manpower, shows clearly the wages of lowest-paid group of workers have remained stagnant for a decade. The wage gap between the higher-skilled occupational group and the lowest-paid group has also widened in 2008 from a decade ago. Sir, when the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) has to be revised upward and the qualifying monthly income limit increased to $1,700 to ensure low-wage earners are not left behind in our foreigner-dependent economy, does that not raise an alarm in the Government about the meagre salary that our low-wage workers are getting? The growth strategy adopted by the Government for the past 10 years has definitely not made these Singaporean workers feel any sense of progress with the nation. Minister Mentor's speech to the residents of Tanjong Pagar probably summed up the "growth at all costs" strategy best. He said, "Between the two, growth as against no growth? I have no doubt we made the right decision: growth, whatever the inconveniences of competition of space, buses, MRTs, even schools – but we always give preference to our own citizens.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC) calls for a "clear shift" to sustain our future economic growth on skills, innovation and productivity rather than on expanding the labour force. Such ideas are not new. It was recently reported in the Straits Times that notable economists, including University of Michigan Prof. Linda Lim, have questioned Singapore's obsession with GDP growth and suggested that more thought be put into whether this growth is "good" and whom it benefits. The report also stated that "15 years ago, Nobel Prize-winning Princeton economist Paul Krugman caused a mild sensation by warning that while Singapore's headline growth numbers are impressive, its total factor productivity – the efficiency with which people, capital and land are combined to produce goods and services – was among the lowest in the world." Although this Government has always considered Singapore a small and unique nation, its fiscal measure, so far, has been fairly conservative. For Budget 2010, the Government is relying again on its own conventional wisdom to address the fundamental problems caused by the implementation of its policies in the past decade. The "growth at all costs" strategy initiated since the late 90s has resulted in a present state of our economy where low-wage earners are growing dependent on state-funded handouts to subsist and productivity is stagnating at 1% from an influx of cheap foreign labour. Furthermore, social stress is on the rise and threatening to move our ever-changing society closer to the brink of polarisation.”
“Mdm Deputy Speaker, I want to clarify that the fact is that no Opposition MP has opposed the Bill, although we have not spoken. We are not opposing the Bill. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Okay, so you support the Bill.”
“There are some killer litters who are IMH patients. How does the HDB deal with them? And, secondly, under what circumstances will the HDB acquire the flat of those convicted of killer litter?”
“I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary under the following circumstances, what will be the alternative for the residents. The resident is asked to sell the flat because the arrear is too high or HDB has to resell or repossess the flat. He could not get a HLE, a loan from HDB, because he is not qualified or he is required to upgrade, but obviously he cannot upgrade; he has no relative or family member to share accommodation with and he has no financial means to go and rent premises from the open market because the rent is too high. So what is the alternative?”
“Sir, supplementary questions. From the Minister's answer, it seems to me that HDB is under-building to meet the demand of the new flat buyers. By doing so, is not the HDB, inevitably, pushing up the resale market prices of HDB flats? In terms of new flat prices, how does the HDB set the price of a new flat? Is it according to the property market or resale market's price? If so, then the price will keep on rising. Would it continue to be affordable, in the future, for Singaporeans?”
“But I believe that we should leave the Pledge as it is and not attempt to interpret it in one's own way, breaking down its component parts for application in argument. The National Pledge represents the spiritual part of our nation. And unless it is really necessary and justifiable, we should not invoke it for the sake of argument. Sir, last but not the least, ideals and principles enshrined in the National Pledge are always work in progress. And the Pledge begins with, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves" – not the Government of Singapore pledges itself. Therefore, each of us, as citizens, if we find Government policies or some social behaviour which are not right for Singapore, then, as a citizen, we should make it right for Singapore.”
“Sir, I do not think we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge, but I can recognise that we have made progress. Sir, I am of the opinion that we should not read too much in the Pledge and attempt to interpret for one's own convenience and to suit one's own argument. The language used for the Pledge is simple, succinct and to the point. The first part of the National Pledge says, "We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion ...". This is a statement of fact – that we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society, and we are all Singapore citizens. By having this common identity of being Singaporeans, we should be united as a people. We are a young nation. The second part of the Pledge is to forge a consensus for a roadmap forward – "to build a democratic society based on justice and equality ...". It clearly defines the guiding principle by which Singapore, as a society, should forge ahead with actions based on justice and equality tenets towards the type of society we wish to build, ie, a democratic society. The last part of the Pledge expresses our ultimate goals and aspirations for Singapore as a nation. Why is the need to be a united people and to build a democratic society? It is to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. Therefore, Sir, my view is that we should read and understand the Pledge as a reminder of the fundamental statement of what we want to be as a people, as a society and as a nation. Some may want to argue over the details or even how to formulate or implement policies to conform to every word of the Pledge.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed with my speech, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Member on his amended motion. He said that he acknowledged the progress that Singapore has made in the 50 years, etc, and achieving the tenets as enshrined in the National Pledge. I would like to ask, what does he mean by "achieving the tenets"? Is he saying that we have achieved the tenets enshrined in the National Pledge or is he saying that it is in progress?”
“Sir, on my first supplementary question, the Minister's answer was that the Government should not intrude into Temasek's affairs. I am simply asking for information on Temasek. What is the strategic difference? When did it emerge? I am not asking the Government to intrude into Temasek's affairs. My second supplementary question arises from the concern of Mr Goodyear. All Singaporeans know next to nothing about Temasek. We now have a foreigner who has actually gone deep enough into that company with probably inside information or even state secrets. How does the Government ensure that Mr Goodyear will not divulge such information? And how does the Government ensure that he will be bound by the Official Secrets Act? We all know that the Official Secrets Act is hard to enforce on someone outside Singapore.”
“Sir, my first supplementary question is a follow up on Mr Lim Biow Chuan's question on the Government's position on Mr Goodyear. He was identified in 2007 and I understand that the Government found he shared Temasek's values and was committed to building long-term sustainable value. Why has the issue of strategic difference suddenly emerged and resulted in his departure? Was this an error of judgement made by the Board when they interviewed him? My second supplementary question is, does the Minister not agree that the appointment of the CEO of Temasek is a matter of public interest? By saying that it is not appropriate for the Government to add further to the statement by Temasek nor be involved in the Temasek decision, it leaves the Singaporean public in the dark. Would the Government consider asking Temasek or the CEO of Temasek to reveal more information on the issue? Is it good to leave Singaporeans in the dark and let them continue to speculate on what happened?”
“Just two clarifications. The Minister mentioned about 45,000 new jobs will be created. May I know how many of these 45,000 jobs will go to locals? The second clarification is, what is the success rate of job placements of those who have undergone training like SPUR and other training programmes?”
“Yes, that is clarification. Why not? So, okay, I will go to another part of my clarification. The second part, he talks about the somewhat contradiction between the NCMP and NMP schemes which the Workers' Party took a different stand. There is no contradiction, Sir. I would like to clarify that, perhaps, because the Workers' Party believes in parliamentary democracy. We believe that Parliament should consist of elected Members and Parliament should not become just a token of airing the people's views, without any significant working of the system. That was why I proposed that voters should elect Opposition and the only way for the Opposition to be able to play a role is to have elected Members of Opposition in Parliament. For NCMP, at least there is some basis because they have gone through the electoral system, whether they are losers or best losers. For NMP, it is selected and nominated by a committee of Parliament. So, that is the difference and that is why we have different positions on NCMP and NMP. The third clarification pertains to the GRC system. We still believe that there is no need to have GRC. I would like to clarify that if you look at the past results before the GRC system was imposed prior to 1984, the PAP had enough minority Members of Parliament here. And I doubt that even if you remain in the same system without the GRC, the number of minority candidates will shrink, and I do not believe that Singaporeans will vote along racial lines.”
“The clarification is that, by what he says, it means that he is exposing himself and exposing the PAP.”
“No, I am not making a speech, I am clarifying. So, I am clarifying what –”
“I am clarifying, Sir. Because he is saying that the Workers' Party is –”
“Sir, when the Minister criticised the Workers' Party's stand on the announcement by the Prime Minister yesterday, and said we are somewhat self-contradictory. He also says that election is primarily for Singaporean voters to vote for a government, namely, the PAP, he is just letting the cat out of his sleeves. This is what exactly the PAP has been. The system is designed to entice Singaporean voters –”
“Thank you, Sir. I have three clarifications. The first one: will the Prime Minister, in appointing the EBRC, also add into the terms of reference that in the re-drawing of boundaries, it should keep the existing electorate as far as possible? Because our biggest complaint on the GRC system is that there is a tendency of gerrymandering, like in the Cheng San GRC where you cut up the whole Cheng San GRC to Ang Mo Kio. Sir, the second clarification: will the Prime Minister consider appointing the EBRC earlier, prior to the election that he intended to call, so that the Opposition will have more time to look at the new changes? The third clarification: I would like to ask the Prime Minister for his assessment on how serious is the US going to implement those protectionist policies, such as taxing companies in foreign land and also to "buy American".”
“If Singaporeans dare to innovate, dare to break through, regardless whether it is new or old materials, I think we can change it, make over and create, give it a new way of presentation, a new elegant demeanour and outstanding image, then I believe Singapore will rise to a brand new level of “Everyday is a new day, and everyday is an innovative day.” This is the survival technique for Singapore while facing competition of globalization in the 21st century. Speaker, Sir, I fully support the President’s policy speech. 3.08 pm”
“I tried to read history books on Ming Dynasty written in biographical style, for example, “Ming Shi” (History of Ming Dynasty) and “Ming Shi Lu” (Veritable Records of the Ming Dynasty). However, after reading only two lines and my eyes became very heavy, it is so dull and dry that I could not continue reading. But, last week, when I open the first novel in the series “Ming Chao Na Xie Shi’er”, I read only one paragraph and I cannot help but continue reading page after page, and I finished the whole book in just three days. With 5 million copies published, it is said to be the most popular history textbook in China over the past thirty years. What is the success factor of “Yu Dan” and “Dang Nian Ming Yue”? Their success lies in their ability to adopt an innovative method of addressing the audience, and dramatic way of writing, it has turned solemn and dull philosophy and history into the most superb and interesting source material of literature and art, it allows the audience and readers to explore modern sensory experience by stepping into the realm and level of the ancients. “Innovative Mindset” and “Dare to Break Through” is the foundation of their success. I hope that the Government, despite continuous efforts to paying attention to research and development, it could also provide a favorable environment to encourage Singaporeans to break through traditions and old patterns, and to carry out a re-thinking reform movement.”
“3 billion people; there are many talents as numerous as the sands of the Ganges in China. When both leaders met for the discussion, the Chinese Premier deemed “Innovation” as an important foundation for the Sino-Singapore bilateral relationship. This showed clearly that China think highly of the progress achieved by Singapore in this area; it also highlighted innovation as an important foundation for the development of big nations. “Innovative Mindset” may sound abstract. But, it is not beyond reach. Not only new or unprecedented ideas and thoughts are considered innovative. Many old things can be improved and changed into fashionable and popular new products, so as to have a new role in the new era, and to lead the new fashion. Let me use two examples to illustrate how can we apply innovation on obsolete ideas and things, so as to restore its prestige and radiance, and become fashionable for a time. The first example is regarding a well-known Chinese Professor named “Yu Dan”, who gives lecture at a forum on the analects of Confucius “Lun Yu”. The Professor made her explanation lively and easy to understand, and so tens of thousands of people were attracted by her talk, they were brought back more than two thousand years ago to the ancient time, to learn about the profound central thinking of Kong Zi. The second example is about a very famous author in China named “Dang Nian Ming Yue”, and his series of books on the history of the Ming Dynasty titled “Ming Chao Na Xie Shi’er”. He used a very lively and interesting way of writing and turned the three hundred years of history during Ming Dynasty into a TV drama series, and it captures the interest of hundreds and thousands of readers.”
“Sir, it will take a long time to achieve this in any society but, as the familiar saying goes, a thousand mile journey starts with the first step. If we start this journey today, we will reach the destination some day. When that day comes, we would have built a resilient society with cohesive families. Sir, I would like now to continue my speech in Mandarin on the need for creativity, innovation in a new world order. (In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] In the President's policy speech, the President spoke comprehensively and concisely on the topic of economics, research and development, education, training, politics, diplomacy, internal security, racial and religious harmony, as well as the challenges ahead and how we face up to the challenges ahead of us. Due to time constraints, I will focus on the discussion of the topic “Innovative Mindset”. As for other topics relating to economics, politics, education, training etc, please allow other Members to approach the subjects. Why do we talk about “Innovative Mindset”? Singapore has achieved success over the last forty years, and to a large extent, it is a result of our investment in human capital, and boundless creativity. Innovation is the main factor that propels the society forward. A small country like Singapore needs to depend on innovation to stand out, even a big country require continuous innovation to drive growth in all areas of development. Last November, I accompanied the Prime Minister during his visit to China. When PM paid a courtesy call on the Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao, Premier Wen summed up Sino-Singapore ties in three words. These three words are: “Friendship, Cooperation, Innovation”. China has a population of 1.”
“And having seen many of my residents during the MPS - I know that their needs are genuine and I would not want to offer them anything less than what I am doing now. But at the same time, I do think that our Asian family values and traditional ethics have been somewhat eroded. We have periodic discussions and collective hair-pulling about these issues in Parliament regularly and that explains why my hair is thinning at this stage. We have often said that schools should do more but I think this is something that the school system cannot tackle. I suggest that the families take this up on their own. Teach their children a core curriculum of five key family values, and these values do not have to be the same for all the families - after all we do not value things all the same way. But we ought to ensure that we do stand for something as parents, as a family collectively, and teach these values to our children. In my own family, the Tan value system, for example, would be: (1) Honesty; (2) Filial Piety; (3) Sincerity; (4) Compassion; and (5) Society above self. These systems are manifested in the things that we do as a family and, hopefully, will stay with my children when they grow up. On a national level, I suggest that this is something that the National Family Council can take up. For example, organise a campaign to get people to write down their family values; showcase how different families are living their “dreams” and being true to their values. Sir, this, for me, is one way to balance the Government's doing more to cushion people against future shocks, and the people learning resilience and coping mechanisms on their own.”
“Now, it is difficult I think to put forth ethical, foundational arguments like these, in defence of policy issues such as financial assistance, but is this not the bottom of what we all do for society and nation building? The President said that the Government is able to provide well for the people in this recession because it has cared for its finances prudently. He said, "We steered clear of excesses during the boom years. We strengthened our revenue base, budgeted within our means and accumulated reserves for a rainy day. We supervised our banks to be prudent, and avoided a credit bubble. When the financial crisis struck, we were in a strong position." Sir, I am very happy at these words and they were true of the Government, but can we say the same of our people? Have we, as sons and daughters, as responsible parents, steered clear of excesses? Have we worked hard, saved enough and accumulated reserves for a rainy day? Have we taken care of our parents, our families, and become self-reliant, so that in a financial crisis, we do not ask for handouts? Sir, my own view is we have not. We have become somewhat accustomed to the largesse of an efficient MCYS whose many helping hands are indeed everywhere doing everything for us - they make sure the poor children do not have to pay fees, the needy elderly have enough food, and even well-to-do children who do not care for their parents, have VWOs to turn to. Sir, I am in a terrible position of making a criticism without having the foggiest idea of what the solution is. Sir, I do not ask the Government to do less - for that would make those in need terribly unhappy.”
“I am however, wondering what the true impact of these efforts are. Suppose you are the father of an eight-old-year boy who wants to learn how to cycle. Do you line the streets with cushions so that he will not hurt himself if he loses his balance? Do you brace his knees, and every conceivable part of his exposed body with padding? You might, if you were an extremely protective father. But the commonsensical approach would be to let the boy have a go at it himself, and take the knocks and spills as they come. A boy who is mollycoddled is a very different person from one who is physically tough and to take spills without fear and whining. The latter, I think, could be the approach that we take towards helping Singaporeans during tough times. Recently, I have seen many residents, especially the elderly, come and see me for help at the MPS. The difference is that in the past, many of them would be hesitant to do so and would rely on their children. Today, many see Government help as an entitlement. Something that they should tap on as a first port of call, rather than a last resort. "I want to spare my children the burden of caring for me," they tell me. I am frankly astonished and dismayed, for my traditional Confucius values tell me that it is a natural obligation for children to look after their parents, and for the parents to be cared for by their children when they grow old. I would sometimes tell them, "You should let your children care for you, not the state, not because it is a good public policy (although it is), not because society expects it (although it might), but because it is the right thing to do". This is filial piety, one of the most fundamental values of the human race.”
“Today, if you were buying a property, you would have agents telling you that the market for the mid-and- lower-range properties is getting hot again, and sales are moving. You would read from the newspapers that sales remain strong, and that buyers are still snapping up new launches. So, what recession? I feel Sir, that this time, the recession is worse on paper, but much less on the ground, compared to 2003. Perhaps in 2003, it was SARS and everyone was huddling at home. Maybe it was due to a psychological fear, the kia-si symptom when people stay at home. But this recession is every bit as severe as the ones we have experienced in the past. In fact, it is the worse one yet, since we have never had to draw down on our reserves before, and we are doing so this time. Jobs are lost, and growth remains very sluggish. The economic growth rate was forecast at -6% to -9%. Yet, people are still spending. On the one hand, this is good because it adds to the economic multiplier, it prevents a downward spiral where liquidity is sucked out of the economy. On the other hand, it is worrying because this spending could have come about because of a false sense of security. Sir, this Government has been through many recessions with its people in the past. In the early years, we had recessions once every 10 years or so. Nowadays, shocks have been coming more often. So, we have become "practised" at the craft of recession-cushioning. Each time the economy shows signs of slowing down, we have the NTUC and e2i coming out at the forefront to job match, get training and reduce retrenchments. We have MND pump priming with infrastructure projects and, of course, the MCYS and its numerous help schemes. Sir, I am not diminishing the efforts of our civil servants and union partners.”
“He also says that an important part of this effort is to ensure that we strengthen social cohesion. The President observes that challenging times will put stresses on our society and our families. Globalisation, while benefiting Singapore as a whole, also widens income gaps and puts pressure on lower-skilled and less-educated workers. He says, "The Government has done much to help this group upgrade, and to supplement their wages. In this downturn, lower-income Singaporeans will not be left to fend for themselves." Sir, it is true. We have done quite a lot to help workers prepare for new jobs, take care that children from vulnerable families have opportunities to reach their full potential in schools. Our Education Minister just yesterday announced another $67.5 million to help students and their families cope with the recession. In the light of all these points, I would like to pose a simple question for the House to ponder over - do the Members feel that somehow, despite all the doom and gloom coming out of the US, that there is a recession in Singapore? Or is it really business as usual, with people still spending and being as cheerful as ever? And second, do the Members feel that this buoyant optimism is our fault? Sir, I use the word "fault" purposefully, because it will come clear that I do not consider this unbridled optimism an altogether good thing. Let me elaborate. Today, as we go to some of the mid-priced restaurants like Crystal Jade, and Ichiban Boshi, do we feel that there is a recession? Even at Mezza9 in Hyatt Hotel, a fairly upmarket place, there remains a sizable lunch crowd on most days. So, what recession?”