Ong Seh Hong
Singapore
“The target groups are often the defenceless youth. We have an obligation to protect them and it is important to raise awareness and educate the public on the threat of all these cyber bullying, cyber crimes and cyber sexual hunting. Close cooperation with the parents is another instrument to combat the scourge.”
“And if the book is published, the writer still has to go through book dealers who will take a 50% cut and the books will be put under consignment, ie, payment once every three to five months. The sale of Chinese books has dropped from more than 10,000 to a few thousand, and now to around 1,000.”
“Therefore, I seek an update from MCYS on the nature and the extent of social problems relating to gambling at the casinos following the full-operations of these two casinos in Singapore. What are the control mechanisms in place and how effective have they been so far? Gambling”
“There is, for me, a simple way to tell if the Budget brings real benefits to the people and the country. If the Budget hinders us, if it taxes so severely or gives too generously that we lose our motivation to work, if it makes onerous administrative demands on us and on businesses, then it cannot be a right budget.”
“Sir, I have a few supplementary questions. First, besides denying employees from taking sick leave which is a very clear infringement of the Employment Act, there could be other forms of exploitation of the workers, such as requiring them to work unnecessarily long hours.”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for giving this detailed account of what happened because there were discrepancies in the newspaper reports in the accounts by Mr Goh as well as the Police. However, I would like to ask the Minister how does the Police ascertain whether personal safety is being compromised.”
The complete record
Every one of 397 lines we hold for Ong Seh Hong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“Madam, currently, only about 17% of our workforce are graduates. With the intention to increase the cohort to 25%, we are now one step closer to a system of mass education where more students, regardless of background, have a chance to do a tertiary course. But this ignores the fact that increased participation does not always lead to higher standards. In fact, according to a report in Australia on the changes in academic work, the opposite is the case. We also need to be conscious of the fact that the drop-out rate does not increase after the student intake is enlarged in our universities. Madam, no one denies the importance of a tertiary education. Graduates not only have a greater chance of gaining employment and earning more, but also have the privilege of fulfilling their intellectual curiosities and academic ambitions. However, there is multi evidence in many countries that, as the tertiary institutions enlarge their intake of students, many of these colleges just fail the standard tests. Instead of developing academic excellence and high quality education, many of these tertiary courses promote a mediocre level of abilities. Madam, if our rhetoric about a knowledge nation and our intent to be an education hub is to be taken seriously, how would the Ministry ensure that our universities are indeed the world's best and their standards would not be compromised by a bigger cohort? I also note with concern that this year's budget allocation to the Ministry of Education has decreased by about 10%. Can the Minister assure this House that the standard of our tertiary education will not be compromised? And can the Minister also assure this House that the tuition fees will not be increased to cover the budget cut?”
“Because we could learn from those countries who have undertaken the process of deinstitutionalising their mental health services. We can learn from their experience, avoid their mistakes and thus shorten our learning curve. Sir, we owe this obligation to this group of our fellow citizens who are unfortunate enough to suffer from mental illness.”
“Worse still, we miss another opportunity recently when the Ministry of Health started the process of, what they call, "decanting" long-stay patients from Woodbridge Hospital to the Pelangi Village Complex under MCDS, and this continues the approach of custodial care. To use the word "decanting" is what I find demeaning to the mental patients. This process, to me, I would describe it as "trans-institutionalisation", ie, moving the patient from one institution to another institution. One look at the way in which this complex is constructed, with high fencing and with patients pacing about in the complex, stuck in their catatonic state, you will know what I mean. Sir, here, I urge the Ministry to review its overall approach and philosophy towards the mental health service. I would like to suggest that the Ministry set up a Mental Health Service Committee consisting of representatives from the patients and their advocates, mental health professionals and policy makers. The Committee should be tasked to: (1) chart the long-term direction of our mental health service based on a community care model with comprehensive support for the patients, in terms of their medical care, rehabilitation, psycho-social needs, housing and employment assistance; (2) educate the public in order to destigmatise the mental illness; (3) review and revamp our mental health legislation to facilitate community care and treatment. I also suggest that the Ministry set up a Mental Health Service Directorate, with the appropriate budget, to take full charge of the implementation of this mental health service as proposed by the Committee. Sir, we are already half a century behind in the way we view this mental health service. But it is time for us to make changes. All is not lost.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a practising psychiatrist. While we may boast to have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, I am afraid that we may not say the same for our mental health service. We are about 50 years behind time in the way we treat our psychiatric patients. Sir, in the past, before effective medical treatment was found for the mental illness, patients with severe psychiatric illness were locked up in jails, or in asylums. Such a custodial approach was not only inhuman but was detrimental to the overall well-being of the patient. Many of them became, what we call, institutionalised, lost their identity and literally became a zombie. After the discovery of effective medical treatment and a better understanding of the underlying organic causes of mental illness, coupled with the realisation of the deplorable state of mental institutions, the movement to deinstitutionalise mental patients and help them reintegrate back to the communities was started in a number of developed countries in the middle of the last century. While there have been some hiccups in the process of deinstitutionalisation in some of these countries, the overall result has so far been positive. Sir, we missed the opportunities to move towards a community care model when the Woodbridge Hospital was redesigned and rebuilt in the late 1980s and 1990s. By then, much of the world already had moved on or in the process of closing down mental institutions and getting their psychiatric patients to move back to the communities. Yet, in Singapore, we continue to lock them up.”
“Sir, in order for us to become the regional hub of medical excellence, allowing the private sector to participate in the provision of public healthcare will introduce the much-needed competition in this sector. This would result in lower healthcare cost to our nation. I urge the Minister to consider my suggestion. Mr Andy Gan Lai Chiang (Marine Parade): Most of the Members of the House have already voiced their concerns about the high cost of Government hospitals. Some of it are due to the clustering section that is occupying 80% of the market share of the total hospital services that are provided by the Government. I would try not to repeat the concerns of the Members which I support, but I would just like to ask the Minister whether occupying 80% of the hospital share of the market in Singapore is going to be the long-term view of the Government. And, if so, can the Minister make it clearly known to the House so that we can be prepared for the high cost that we will be expecting in the years to come. When I was looking at the Budget Book, subvention funds for restructured hospitals rose from $769 million in FY 2000 to $1.6 billion for FY 2003, almost double the amount spent in the year 2000. If this trend is going to continue, the House must be prepared for it. However, if it is not going to continue that way, can I suggest that maybe we privatise certain hospitals in the clusters, while the Government keeps one or two large hospitals like the Singapore General Hospital and the NUH together with other research facilities? The Government can then regulate the cost of medical services of private hospitals through a subvention fund and leave market forces to determine which hospital is more cost-efficient than the other.”
“Sir, the Minister for Finance, in his Budget Statement, announced the introduction of market-testing for non-core Government services this year, beginning with new services. Public sector agencies will be required to compare the cost of providing the service in-house against the price quoted by private sector vendors. If a private sector vendor can deliver the service more cost-effectively, it will be engaged to do so. Sir, this is an excellent approach to make sure that we get value for our money. I urge the Ministry of Health to also consider introducing market testing in healthcare, allowing the private medical providers to bid for the service in the public healthcare sector. Currently, the two healthcare clusters enjoy a captive market. They also practise cost-recovery. It is almost like a monopoly. There is little incentive for them to operate cost effectively as whatever the cost is it will be recovered from the Government subsidy and topped up with the fee payable by the patients. It was not surprising to hear that one could avoid the long queue at a specialist clinic to get a consultation at a private clinic for an average fee of, say, $60-$80. I believe this is not much different from the subventions from MOH to all these specialist clinics plus the fees payable by the patients. As an example from overseas, in a comparative study between the National Health Service (NHS) of UK and a non-profit private medical service provider, Kaiser Corporation in California, it was concluded that Kaiser achieved better performance at roughly the same cost as the NHS because of integration throughout the system, efficient management of hospital use, the benefits of competition, and greater investment in information technology.”
“The Government should cast its net wider when applying healthcare subsidies to Singaporeans. Sir, I am speaking for the lot who are out of the band to qualify for subsidies and yet poor enough to be stressed by the rising healthcare cost. While means test has not kicked in at the acute hospitals yet, most are already anxious about their ability to meet the rising costs. Sir, I urge the Ministry to relook at the details of means testing for the healthcare services and ensure that the healthcare subsidies are given to a wider group of Singaporeans so that they are not deprived of affordable healthcare.”
“Sir, last year, I raised the concern on the cut-off of the Ministry's means testing that would result in only half of the patients being eligible for subsidised healthcare. I was relieved when the Ministry implemented the means testing at the community hospital last year. It was done in a gradual manner to phase in the impact. I commend the Ministry for listening to the people and thank the Ministry for taking appropriate steps to alleviate the concerns of the people. Sir, while I support the underlying principle of means testing, I am still concerned about the Ministry's intention to set the cut-off at 50% of the population, ie, only roughly half of the patients will receive subsidised healthcare when the means testing is kicked in fully. This is far too stringent a level to set. Sir, every Singaporean should be given access to affordable healthcare. By setting the means test cut-off at 50%, those in between, the not so poor and yet not so rich, will be deprived of good medical services they could afford. Let me elaborate. For example, it is common for a husband and wife, both working and with two children, to earn about a combined salary of slightly more than $5,000. This will be above the median household income and the family will fail the means test. When the means test is kicked in fully, say, at the acute hospitals, and the husband is unfortunate that he needs a bypass operation that would cost $20,000, the family would have a problem forking out four months' worth of their total income either in cash or it will wipe out their Medisave savings very fast. This would be a great burden on average Singaporeans. 2.15 pm Sir, with increasing healthcare cost, most Singaporeans look to the Government for good and affordable medical service.”
“I want to talk about competition in the healthcare service, a point which I will allude to in my later cut. In conclusion, our Government has given the promise that no one will be denied basic affordable healthcare. We are very proud that we have delivered this promise so far. I hope we will continue to deliver our promise.”
“So, I would like to urge the Ministry to review the approach for this cost recovery, maybe a price minus model where the price of a service is being fixed and the operator will have to work backwards in order to recover and to make sure that he is able to provide the service at a price that is affordable to our patients. Sir, I would also like to talk about ---”
“Sir, our healthcare system is amongst one of the best in the world. We have a wider coverage for our population vis-a-vis many countries in the world. We have fine-tuned our system, including tweaking and competition, by introducing two clusters of medical providers. At the moment, our healthcare expenditure is close to 4% of our GDP. However, if we age adjust it to that of, say, the United Kingdom, it would be about 7.2% of our GDP. Hence, if we want to maintain the same level of healthcare, in a few years' time when our demography reaches that of the UK, we would expect to spend 7.2% of our GDP. If we continue to raise the standard of healthcare, the total expenditure will probably be much higher than the 7.2%. Sir, I would like to know if this level of GDP spending is sustainable in the long run for our country. When our population gets older, less people would be paying taxes. So, would our average Singaporeans still be able to afford to pay for their healthcare? What is the Ministry's measure to make sure that our healthcare providers do their best to contain the cost and operate in a cost efficient manner? I share the concern of other MPs who spoke earlier about the two clusters and whether they are operating in a very cost efficient and cost effective manner. I think one of the problems is probably the cost recovery model, which may not incentivise the operator to be efficient because he may just pass on the cost back to the consumer, the patient and also the Government who gives him the subsidies.”
“--- terms favourable to its members. This would be a win-win-win situation for all three partners. If the management fee could be lowered, more CPF members would be persuaded to let the professionals manage their money and enjoy better returns in the long term. The fund management industry would have the boost of extra monies for them to manage. The CPF Board, in the end, would have fulfilled its mission to provide a cost-effective quality service to its members.”
“While we want to attract foreign fund managers to be based here, we must also make it attractive for our citizens to park their money with them. In this regard, I feel that the CPF Board must do its part for its members. It is in the best position to negotiate the best deal for its members. Size in business does matter. As a big fish, you are more likely to be wined and dined than an average guy on the street. With the clout of over 40 billion investment dollars potentially there, the CPF Board should negotiate and even dictate ---”
“Sir, first, please allow me to quote the CPF Board's mission statement: 'We aim to provide our members in a cost effective manner the widest range of quality services possible.' Sir, the size of our CPF members' reserves as of December 2001 was over $90 billion. Our CPF members are allowed to invest their savings in a range of financial instruments including shares, bonds, gold and professionally managed products. Here, I feel that the CPF Board may not have discharged its duties adequately in providing its members cost effective investment options to enhance their long-term savings. 1.15 pm Sir, since most of the average Singaporeans are not investment savvy, many got their fingers burnt when investing their CPF savings in the markets themselves. Why are they not investing through professional fund managers who will provide them portfolios, reduce their investment risks and enhance their returns? One of the biggest obstacles is the high management fees imposed by the fund managers. On average, you have to pay about 3-5% front-end fees plus an annual fee of between 1-1.5%. As of December 2001, a total of $44 billion of CPF members' monies were invested. If they all invested these monies through fund managers, a mere 3% fee would be $1.3 billion. This is enough to build, I think, a new MRT line. Sir, whichever way you look at it, this is a huge amount of money. But as individual account holders, our average CPF members are like ikan bilis. They have no bargaining powers. It is just like when you go to the bank, you have to queue up if you are an average retail market customer, and you have to pay all the fees that they ask you to pay.”
“Sir, much has been said about the concern of unemployment and long-term unemployment in Singapore. The increasing trend of long-term unemployment actually stood at 1.4% as of December 2002, compared to about 0.3-0.5% in the early half of the 1990s. This is very worrying, because mainly those with below secondary education and those 40 years and above are the most affected group. On the other hand, employment prospects are not very good. With 28 jobs for every 100 job seekers, even when we fill up all the vacancies, many of them will still be out of job. I agree with the Minister that attracting more investments is the way to create jobs. But with 28 jobs for every 100 job seekers, what are the Ministry's specific plans to boost the number of jobs for Singaporeans? Has the Ministry actually considered maybe promoting and facilitating employment creation in the informal and semi-informal sectors of the economy? While I agree that it is the individual's responsibility to look for a job, retrain himself and try to keep the job, we must also know that many of them, after retraining, still could not find a job. So, what are the Ministry's specific measures to help this group of people who are willing to change but are unable to find jobs? For those who still refuse to change their mindset, what are the specific measures that the Ministry is taking to help to change their mindset so that they will be willing to take up different jobs and have more realistic expectations, and so on? Sir, looking into the longer horizon, I think that structural unemployment would be a problem that we are going to face. What steps is the Ministry taking to prepare ourselves for that challenge?”
“The crisis has injected in us all a sense of urgency for change. Clearly, we could not carry on business the way we did. The crisis gave birth to the ERC. And I think the ERC Report will guide us into the future. 1.50 pm”
“We can compensate for this by making the total cost less than the sum of individual costs. I call this synergy in reverse. Singapore is in bear territory. We hear his roar, we see his footprints. But the marauding bear is not just chasing us; the bear is chasing each and every one of our neighbours as well. We do not have to strip ourselves naked - like selling everything on the cheap - in order to out-run the bear. All we need do, Sir, is to shed enough baggage to out-run our neighbours. In fact, we should not out-run the bear this time. We need some clothes on for the next bear run. Many of us are unnecessarily gloomy. A few even think that this is the end of Singapore. Yet, during the good times, many of us thought the music would never stop. Now that we are in bad times, the same people think the music would never start again. We have been through this before in 1986-1987. This is not the first economic downturn, nor will it be the last. Memories are always short. In the recession of 1986 and 1987, Singaporeans went through the same emotional trauma. Sir, I want to end my speech by quoting a familiar Chinese idiom. It says: Sai Weng shi ma, yan zhi fei fu ( ). Sai Weng was a horse trader. One day, his favourite stallion ran away. He was extremely sad. Soon after, the stallion brought back a herd of wild thoroughbreds. He was delirious. The essence of this idiom is: do not despair, something good will come out of something bad. The Chinese say: Yin huo de fu, huo fu wu chang ( ). Nothing is forever. I like to look at things with an "Ah Q" mentality. Because of the economic crisis, the Government has reviewed and agreed to U-turn on major policies, which were once immutable. In fact, many nuts were cracked. I see this as a sign that good things are on the way.”
“Sir, the second point is land cost in Singapore is not that expensive today. It is not the cheapest in the region, but it is not that expensive. Since the Asian crisis, market forces have driven down land prices considerably. Compared to Shanghai, for example, good quality housing in Singapore might well be cheap. I was reading the Time magazine last month. Hannah Beach, Time's Shanghai correspondent, lamented that she could not find a decent - I repeat decent - not luxurious, accommodation for her housing budget. What does she mean by "decent"? She means a flat or a house with running water, continuous lighting and heating, because she needs to file reports back to the States. When she found a decent place at US$5,000 per month, the agent immediately told her that the asking rent had been up to US$5,500. For that kind of money (which is something like S$9,500), she could have got a luxurious penthouse in Singapore. Premium grade office space in Singapore is quite cheap today. One would easily get reports in the Straits Times today, but I got this figure sometime ago. Premium grade office space in Singapore could go as low as $5 per square foot. I am talking about top grade office space. If you bargained hard enough, you might even get it lower - I do not know. But for $5, you can get reasonably very good office space. In Guangzhou today - not Shanghai or Beijing - good grade office space is already $3 per square foot. We are only $3 difference, but we are Singapore. In my assessment, land cost in Singapore is reasonably cheap, and the same for industrial land. Sir, there is no need to artificially drive down land costs to be the cheapest in the region. Competitive pricing, yes; but fire sales, no. Land is only one factor of production.”
“In fact, the sad story is many of my key grassroots leaders themselves have been retrenched, but they are still with me. They are still doing the MPS, and they understand that their unemployment is not the fault of the Government. Sir, all of us here understand the desire for more handouts, and we also understand the desire for instant cures for our economic malaise. But, really, there is no viagra for our economic impotence. Many people tell me there is - the economy will rise again, they say, if land cost was lowered. I heard Mr Loh Meng See say business cost in Singapore is high; land cost is one of the sins. Many of them have told me that if the Government was to lower land cost, then all will be well. But two issues need to be looked at very seriously. First, artificially lowering land cost by flooding the market with land might well make land cheap, but the consequence of taking large doses of this kind of strong medicine has a known medical side effect. It causes massive heart attacks. For those saddled with negative equity, the disease might well be cured, but the patient will be dead. And negative equity works like a virus. Once it has infected a critical mass, the entire population is in peril. In fact, much of Hong Kong today is trapped in negative equity. I was reading the South China Morning Post last night, and on the weekend issue, the Sunday Morning Post issue of March 9th, there was a report which said that a survey by Mastercard showed that Hongkongers were more gloomy in the middle of last year than Indonesians were when Indonesia was at the height of the Indonesian crisis. That was how depressing. Hong Kong is a land of entrepreneurs. Today, it is more like the land of the gloomy.”
“Sir, the ERC Report serves a very important purpose. Investors take a long-term view of their investments. The ERC Report provides them with advanced intelligence of Singapore's long-term policies. The ERC prescription is a holistic treatment to our current economic ills. This kind of treatment takes time. But what investors are seeing is something even more illuminating. In spite of a major economic crisis, resulting in the Government running three years of deficit, Singapore is lowering taxes. This, by itself, may not be profound, but we are lowering taxes in the face of difficult economic times, in the face of deficits. When we compare this to Hong Kong, which is raising taxes to cover their shortfalls, this move by Singapore, as opposed to what our most fearsome competitor is doing, is clear evidence to investors that Singapore, first, has the financial clout; and, second, the social cohesion to restructure the economy and reorganise ourselves in order to move ahead of the crowd. Sir, Singaporeans caught up with the daily routine may not appreciate these long-term policy implications. I can understand that. Like all MPs here, I do have the meet-the-people sessions. And in these MPS sessions, my grassroots leaders and I have met many casualties of what I would call this very severe economic downturn. And many of them have come with a begging bowl asking for handouts. My grassroots leaders and I cannot be unmoved by these events. We help them in any way we could. I turn to my CCC. I turn to my Mayor who is sitting there, and they all chip in and help them in one way or another. I write to MOM. I write to NTUC and some of these cases were successful.”
“Sir, while the ERC Report might be an anti-climax, I cannot understand why many are not excited by the recommendations in the Report. Memories are very short. We have forgotten that some taboo policies, which only a few years ago were held to be sacrosanct, have now been bulldozed by the ERC. For example, lowering taxes to as low as 20% was an absolute no-no, even only a few years ago. The argument then was that if the Government were to lower taxes below 25%, Singapore could be blacklisted as a tax haven, an absurd answer you might think. Then, it was the holy grail, only a few years ago. So, a major U-turn sign has been removed. One big nut has been cracked. While there are other taboos which have been swept away, another one was the concession to exempt selected foreign income remitted to Singapore from taxes. The Budget will now give such income remitted back to Singapore tax free exemptions. A smaller taboo may be exemption of interest of domestic deposits from taxes. Today, the ERC Report has consigned these nuts to the incinerator. So, I cannot understand why Mr Leong Hong Kee said that major U-turn signs have been allowed to stay. These are radical policy U-turns which many of us, including myself, have railed against 10 years ago. Many of us failed then. But, today, 10 years on, they have become policies. The policies have come about because of the ERC Committee meeting, deliberating and finalising the recommendations. Sir, a major crisis, a new economic landscape post-September 11, and a new Finance Minister have made a hundred flowers bloom. I celebrate these U-turns. I think we can do with a few more of these U-turns, but let us digest the present lot of cracked nuts on our plate before we move on to the next plate of cracked nuts.”
“For this reason, Singaporeans do not go to the streets to demonstrate, unlike our friends in Hong Kong, because here we need to make adjustments to our lifestyle, to make a living for tomorrow. For all these, foreign investors have begun to notice us from afar. The ERC Report is like a lighthouse that beckons them to our shore. Many foreign banks are beginning to shift forex operations back to Singapore from our competitors like Hong Kong, Sydney and Tokyo. The Bank of Tokyo and Credit Swiss First Boston are among those reported to be moving major components of their currency trading operations from Tokyo to Singapore. Others who are here like Citibank and ABN-AMRO will be adding more forex and derivative businesses. Germany's WestLB Bank has recently started operating here. Sir, this trickle will slowly turn into a tide. Fidelity Investment, one of the world's biggest fund managers, left Singapore in a hurry immediately after the Asian crisis in 1997. Today, it has applied for a licence to restart its operations in Singapore. Sir, we might well ask: how can all these new happenings be attributed to the ERC Report which was only released early this month, on 7th February? The answer is that many of the key recommendations were already released many months ago. To me, the ERC Report is an anti-climax too, like MPs here have suggested, but there are good reasons why it is so. The ERC Report, to me, is like a movie. It is like a movie where the story line had been told many times. In fact, over the last 12 months, we were also invited to some detailed early previews. It was as if the whole nation was invited to sit next to the director's chair while the ERC "movie" was being made.”
“Investors looking at Singapore from outside Singapore will quickly differentiate Singapore from the rest of the region. It will then be clear that the Singapore mountain is quite different from those in the region. The ERC Report has many radical ideas. But to me, it sends a few, simple but clear messages. The first message is that Singapore is open for business. It is a simple statement, but we go beyond that. We say that we are not xenophobic. We welcome talent, whether they are black or white, and all shades in between. The second point I read in the Report is that the Singapore Government will lower costs, the direction of costs will go down, both corporate income tax and personal income tax. And this Government is determined to make Singapore an affordable business and manufacturing centre by sweeping away as many rules and bureaucracies as possible. Yes, individual factors of production will not be the cheapest in the region, but if investors look at the total cost - the key words here are "total cost" - they will find that the total is less than the sum of its parts. For example, Matsushita's Maris, the world's foremost manufacturer of refrigerator compressors, found that while labour cost in Singapore is much higher than in the region and in China, Singapore is still a cheaper place to manufacture its products. The third point I gleaned from the Report is that, collectively, we are willing to sacrifice short-term gains for long-term benefits. All of us will moderate our pay increases, like deferring the CPF restoration for two years or maybe even beyond, and all of us must upgrade ourselves and make ourselves relevant to the world outside. DPM mentioned that the ERC Report is not just an economic roadmap for the future. It is also an exercise in social bonding.”
“Sir, to illustrate this point, I want to bring you on a journey to China, to a place call Jiang Xi ( ) where there is a famous mountain called Lu Shan ( ). Tourists and scholars flock there by the thousands - in fact, millions - to unravel the poem of one of China's most famous poets, and his name is Su Shi ( ). Singaporeans will probably know him as Su Dong Po ( ). The title of the poem is Ti Xi Lin Bi ( ). It is a Song ( ) Dynasty poem. It reads like this: heng kan cheng ling, ce cheng feng ( ) yuan jin gao di ge bu tong ( ) bu shi lu shan zhen mian mu ( ) zhi yuan shen zai ci shan zhong ( ) I cannot translate the poem as well as I can appreciate it, but I will try. The poem says: When I look at the mountain from the front, it looks like a ridge. When I look at the mountain from the side, it looks like a cliff. There are so many of them, they are near and far, tall and short, they all look different. I cannot see the real face of Lu Shan ( ). Because I am right in the middle of the mountain range. Sir, people rush to mountain tops only to be disappointed because they could not see the majesty of the mountain or the ranges in the mountain or at the summit. In fact, we all know that the most beautiful view of Lu Shan ( ) or any beautiful mountain like Mount Fuji, is not in the mountain or at the summit but rather the majesty is gleaned from a far distance. Sir, the ERC Report, to me, is like Lu Shan ( ). It has many radical policies, the import of which can only be appreciated from a far distance. You do not have to be physically removed from Singapore, but you must read it with a mental detachment. How far from Singapore must we read the ERC Report? I think we have to read it from really far, from outside South East Asia and beyond.”
“Indeed, when the idea was conceived years ago, when many of us saw the pictures and the models, there were scathing comments. However, over time, most of us have fallen in love with our magnificent Durian. The first reactions to the ERC Report were also mixed. Different people saw different things in the Report. Employers found relief in the non-restoration of the CPF. Investors were encouraged by the long-term direction of low taxes and cost. Workers were reassured that they will be given a helping hand. However, Sir, it is equally true that many on the ground, including many MPs in this House like Dr Wang, were clearly disappointed. Ignatius Low and Soh Wen Lin of the Straits Times wrote on 8th February that many felt the ERC "blew a unique chance to rebuild the system." Mano Sabnani wrote in the Weekend Today on 8th February that his friends thought the "visions and strategies were not all new." They were old stuff. Indeed, many of the ideas have been around for some time. But the difference between then and now is that a collection of ideas has now become a set of Government policies. Why do people react so differently to the ideas in the ERC Report? In part, because it is a voluminous report. After all, it is the product of 1,200 man-years. In part, because everybody was looking out for their own little niches, their own little ideas, their own little suggestions. When their ideas were there, their reaction was, like Dr Wang said, "It was an old idea; in any case, it was my idea." When their ideas were not there, the reaction was, "The Government didn't look deep enough. It was a waste of time and resources." Just like the Esplanade, Sir, each one of us sees a different facade of the monumental ERC Report and passed judgment. How then should we read the Report?”
“When confronted with economic hardship, the social fabric woven into the society can be undone very quickly. So we need to be very vigilant over such potential threats to our society. This is especially so for a young nation like Singapore. For example, the depression in 1929 sent the German economy into extreme slump. The German people immediately began to blame the government for the state of affairs. They were then willing to buy in any political party that promised them changes, especially the extremist parties. The rest was history, and how Hitler came into power. Sir, this is a gloomy picture and I do not think the likelihood of it happening in Singapore is high, but we have to be mindful of the divide that economic uncertainty can bring to our society. In any case, this is a whole new world order we are seeing now. All of us have to pull together as a united people behind the strong and capable Government to sail through this rough sea, as we modify the ship, because there is no safe harbour for us to park our ship and rebuild. But, in the end, I believe we will emerge a stronger nation. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Minister for Defence (Assoc. Prof. Koo Tsai Kee): Mr Speaker, the public finally got a glimpse of the long awaited Economic Review Committee Report. Adorning the cover of the Report is the beautiful and resplendent "Esplanade". I have a copy here. I like the cover. This is, to me, an interesting parallel. When I saw the cover and when I read the Report, I thought the parallel was even more appropriate. The ERC Report provoked many reactions, the same kind of reactions as the Esplanade. Most people did not fall in love with the Esplanade at first sight.”
“To condemn a healthy, energetic 62-year-old man to his home or spending his time on the golf course is probably a waste of human capital. We should make better use of them because we already have scarce human resources. We must also understand that chronological age is no indication of a person's physiological and mental health. The concept of setting a retirement age actually contradicts our move to make Singaporeans to be more independent and to take charge of their own destiny. By removing the concept of retirement age, we can encourage Singaporeans to plan for themselves financially, psychologically and emotionally. And this is definitely a right signal sent to our people. But, of course, together with this change of retirement age, we need to re-orientate the employers and employees towards, for example, redesigning the work environment, the job, redefining the work, and for the employees to be able to accept reduced working hours or some sort of flexible working arrangement if they are going to work beyond a certain age. The advantage of hiring older workers is manifold and I am not going to elaborate here. For Singapore, it will also give us the added advantage of reduced reliance on foreign workers and we are able to keep our citizens gainfully employed longer, promote their independence, dignity, confidence, self-worth and reduce their dependence on the State for financial, social or medical needs. Mr Speaker, Sir, to manage these changes ahead calls for the cohesion of the people and the wisdom of our leaders. If not managed properly, there would be a lot of resentment and it is a fertile ground for extremist views. History has shown that difficult economic situations have often led to profound changes.”
“He also managed to keep his overheads low by hiring locals compared to his competitors who used Singaporeans who had to fly there 3 to 4 times at 3 to 4 times the cost and they have to check into a hotel. But he said that when his business expanded and he needed to get some help, he was turned down by TDB for the simple reason that his company was registered in the Philippines and not in Singapore. I thought in this sort of situation, our agency, even if it cannot give the grant, should point out the road and help them by providing a one-stop customer service to tell them how they can navigate through the system and where are the other fundings that are available. If we are able to help these people to spread their wings to the region or internationally, in return, they will plough some benefits back to Singapore. I see that this policy statement has signalled that these mindset changes will be there and hope that these changes will happen sooner rather than later. The next point I would like to touch upon, Mr Speaker, Sir, is on the concept of retirement. This has been alluded to by the hon. Member Lim Hwee Hua yesterday, and I support her view that in the new economy, the concept of a pre-determined retirement age is probably no longer relevant. I think we should let everyone have a greater say. If you want to encourage self-reliant and self-independent Singaporeans we should allow them to have a greater say in when they want to stop work and, at the same time, we will let them take care of themselves, financially or otherwise. So, we need to rethink this idea of a legally defined pre-determined retirement age. With better healthcare and social conditions we are living longer and healthier.”
“Recently, my Constituency Sports Club wanted to organise a basketball tournament and they were creative or innovative enough to suggest that they want to get sponsors to put up advertisements on the banners around the basketball courts. I said, "Good, brilliant idea. Why not go and do it?" But I was taken aback when the Chairman of the CSC suddenly asked me, "Do PA rules allow us to do that?" I think everything that we have to go back to the rule book is something like the NUTS syndrome that was alluded to by Amy Khor just now. I think we should encourage more entrepreneurs. We should actually move away from this checking the rule book mentality. Next, the funding of entrepreneurs and local enterprises. It is good to see that the Government has actually put in various schemes through SPRING, IES, to help Singapore companies to venture out. But we must review the way they are being given out and administered. In this area, more flexibility and more customer-friendly approach have to be adopted. I will give another example. A grassroots leader of mine told me that he went to the Philippines to bid for a contract to build cellular phone antenna stations. He told me that there were another three Singaporean firms competing with him, including a listed company. Eventually he got the contract, even though he said that he made the presentation wearing a T-shirt while the other people were wearing suits. I asked him how did he make it. He said he was able to do it, and he used Hokkien to say it, by "boo kia pang piow, boo kia char tan". Basically, he had a very gung-ho mentality. He was not afraid of the bombs and kidnappings there.”
“This equivalent to some sort of "semi-informal sector" will help to create some jobs and income opportunities for some of these people who may be out of job or not able to get jobs. And we should not forget that even Bengawan Solo, a successful confectionery and kueh maker, had its humble beginning in a HDB kitchen. This call for a change and flexibility of our rules and the civil service has been much alluded to by many of my other parliamentary colleagues here, and I should not go further. Mr Speaker, Sir, here I would like to link it to the role of the Government in promoting entrepreneurship. Like many of the other Members here, I am very encouraged by the appointment of the Minister of State in charge of entrepreneurship. I agree with what he said that the job of the Government is to create an enabling environment for entrepreneurs to emerge and grow and let a thousand flowers bloom. But we must do this fast. Speed is the essence if we want to succeed. I would urge that the Government expedite its review of all the statutory requirements and regulations of doing business here and to make it less restrictive and easier to start up business. One example that comes to my mind is the change of use of HDB shop space. I notice that in Hong Kong and Taiwan, if a business does not do well, within 24 hours you can see that the owner will change the shop front and start a completely different trade. But in Singapore, the change of use usually requires a lot more work and application. This rigid mindset of "do only if the rules permit" is pervasive and is very bad for us. It also affects the operation of work even at the grassroots level.”
“She told me that she was only given 4 days to train and 2 days of orientation and was expected to handle a different job scope. Such is the speed of change and the adaptations we must face. Of course, she feels stressed with these changes but anyway she was lucky to still keep a job to go to. After restructuring the economy, we would probably expect a small group of Singaporeans who would be structurally unemployed, not through their own doing. They might go for training and retraining and still could not get a job. Maybe they are not up to par for the job or there is just no job for them. It is a correct approach that we should not give free handouts to these people as otherwise we may probably degenerate into a welfare state and perpetuate the cycle of dependence. So, how? Maybe, for this group of people, we should encourage them to venture into some small businesses and services, a kind of "cottage service industry", providing some domestic help, repair or delivery work. However, we must have the legislation to help them keep the cost of doing business to the very minimal. For a start, for example, maybe we should relax further by allowing them to use HDB flats to register their business. Currently, my understanding is that a HDB flat is only allowed for some IT-related business and to get approval you are also subject to IDA support, and so on and so forth. So we may have to do something to relax this and to help these people. Some of my grassroots people also suggested that to help this group of people get started, some small, low interest or interest-free loan, may be given to them through some self-help groups or CDCs in order to get them started.”
“The signals are there for Singaporeans to see - changes in CPF, bank originated loans for HDB, removal of restrictions on car loans, relaxation of CPF investments and so on and so forth. All these carry a similar underlying message - Singaporeans have to make their own decisions and take their own risks. However, from the way people have rushed to take up bank originated loans to buy cars, I do not know whether they have realised the significance of the impending changes. To adapt to the changes, all of us must learn to be flexible, nimble, quick to act in a crisis, and responsive. We must always be positive if we want to succeed in an environment of changes and to have the confidence to overcome difficulties. On the other hand, when we encourage our people to embrace changes, we ourselves must also be mindful of the constant stress level that our people would go through with these changes. Human beings are by nature not fond of frequent changes, whether in their environment or circumstances, because change means uncertainty. Uncertainty makes a person worry. Even for the employed, in the new economy, they probably have to go through many transitions of jobs and during these transitions they would also have to look for some means to look after themselves while in-between these jobs. So these are things that we will have to understand and do something to help our people. I know of a lady in her 50s who has worked in SingTel for about 30 years. She was always in the Customer Services Department. However, the call centre handling residential accounts was relocated to Malacca. She has been transferred to another department to handle commercial billing.”
“They want more and more handouts from the Government even though many of them are employed in this difficult time. I am very worried about this trend, Mr Speaker, Sir. I am worried that Singaporeans have failed to see the impact of the economic restructuring we are going through. They might not have seen that in the new economy. There will be some Singaporeans who may actually become long-term unemployed. There will not be any lifelong employment in Singapore and every Singaporean has to expect frequent changes in job to stay gainfully employed. Mr Speaker, Sir, to survive and to succeed, I think the Singapore society as a whole must cultivate a mindset change and to develop a culture that embraces change as a way of life. As the Chinese saying goes, "qiong ze bian, bian ze tong", which means when we are caught in extreme circumstances, we must change and only change will bring about relief. This Budget policy has painted the changes we are expecting ahead. So it is now for us - the people, the Government, the unions, the companies and everyone who has a stake in Singapore - to pull together and face these changes together. However, much has still to be done to bring about this mindset and culture change. We have probably been cushioned too well in the comfy zone and somehow we have this mentality of waiting for the Government to do everything for us. Maybe that is like what the hon. Member Mr Ong Ah Heng quipped yesterday that we have a er shi si xiao government, ie, a Government that looks after everything. Singaporeans must grow up, like a teenager growing into an adult and getting out of the parental house and becoming more independent and self-reliant.”
“Are they not assistance for our poor and needy? Mr Speaker, Sir, from what Mr Steve Chia has commented from his dialogue with some residents and grassroots and from reports in the newspapers, I see that quite a number of Singaporeans are still complaining that there are not enough goodies in this year's Budget. They want more and more handouts, like what Mr Steve Chia has just suggested, from the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. Before I make my speech, I would like to take on a couple of issues on what NCMP Mr Steve Chia has said. He said that the Government is actually kidding Singaporeans that they can retire comfortably with their CPF savings. I would like to bring to his attention pages 98 and 99 of the ERC Report on refocusing of the CPF system. DPM and Finance Minister has also stated in this House that CPF would be refocused on the basic financial, housing and medical needs for retirement. Also in the ERC Report, it is clearly stated that, since its introduction in 1955, the CPF system is a sound framework for Singaporeans to save for their own retirement, reflecting our strong emphasis on individual responsibility. It is our belief that everyone has to take his own responsibility for retirement. Next, he commented that the Singapore Government did not promote or create any Singapore brand. In fact, Singapore itself is already a brand internationally and this is the hard work of a clean, capable and efficient Government led by PAP in the past four decades. I would also like to take issue with his comments on having a chronic deficit. Is he not aware that if we run a chronic deficit, as the hon. Member, Amy Khor has also mentioned, we may end up in a situation like Hong Kong? Worse still, our Singapore dollar will also be weakened and it will affect the savings of our CPF members and thus the long-term retirement nest-egg of our citizens. He also made the comment that PAP stands for "Poor Also Pays" which I differ. Look at the rebates we have given, all the assistance schemes given by the CDCs and all the Government agencies to help the less fortunate in society to tide them over the hard times.”
“A harmonious and gracious society starts from the heart of the people. It cannot be achieved through Government legislation. Sir, I support the motion.”
“They offer services to people, regardless of their race, language or religion. Such social services will help to promote religious harmony and mutual trust, and serve to promote prosperity of the nation. On the other hand, if a religion is solely preoccupied with its evangelical work and increasing its fold or, worse, if it is misused by other undesirable elements, it will bring about social disintegration and the break-up of the nation. Therefore, the various religious leaders, whether Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Taoist, should constantly be mindful that the JI incidents could well be repeated in their own religion. Therefore, they should be vigilant against these undesirable elements which twist the religious teachings to incite hatred, and harm the social security and peace. In a multi-religious society like ours, we have to emphasise the common ground, and not the differences. More important is that we should respect the faith of others when we engage in evangelical work. We should not denigrate other religions. When they carry out evangelical work, they should curb the excessive zeal of their followers, so as not to hurt the feelings of other religious groups. Sir, there is a saying, "Be magnanimous to others, but be strict to oneself." We should not expect other people to respect us when we ourselves do not show our respect to them. Therefore, we have to be exemplary in our conduct, whether we are Chinese, Malays or Indians. As long as we are Singaporeans, whether we are Muslims, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus, every one of us should learn to become a better person, eg, respect others, be considerate to others, show concern to others, etc. It is only when we have won the respect of others can we influence them so as to reform society.”
“We should not mix politics with religion. We have to emphasise the social functions of religion and urge all the religions to fulfill their social obligations. Water can float a boat; it can also sink a boat. Religion can do the same to our society and to our nation. For human beings, clean water is a basic necessity to sustain life. Frequent drinking of water can cleanse out all the toxins in our body. A good religion is like pure water. It can cleanse up the soul of a human being. For example, the universal love of Christianity, the mercifulness of Buddhism, the appeal for charity and good conduct of Taoism, and the peace advocated by Islam - all these are aimed at making one a better person and to lead a positive way of life. On the other hand, impure water will bring about diseases. If a cup of water has been poisoned, when drunk, it will slowly damage the nervous system, kidney, liver and, eventually, cause death. A religion that has been distorted and misused by other people can also slowly corrode our mind and we can be led astray to do things which are detrimental to ourselves and to other people, just like what the JI has done. On a higher plane, for example, rainwater can bring moisture to the earth, bring forth all living things. If water is properly controlled, it can irrigate land and generate electricity. But, on the other hand, a rampant flood and inundation will cause devastation to land and properties, and even loss of lives. Religion is the same. Good religions serve to cleanse our mind and the followers are urged to engage in charity work and bring good to society. Therefore, we must endorse what the religious groups have done in Singapore, in setting up hospitals, nursing homes and other social welfare work.”
“" Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, how should our non-Muslim communities perceive the Muslim community? A mind of Buddha, or a mind full of cow dung? Fourthly, the Muslim community should also make their stand clear to all Singaporeans. They should be explicit in their stand and draw a line between themselves and the extremists. They should not let the other people think that since they are Muslims, they would sympathise with the JI because of their religion. Therefore, I fully support our Malay MPs and the Muslim leaders for their statements. But more has to be done. The Muslim community leaders should explain to all Singaporeans how do they practise their religious teaching in a multi-racial, multi-religious society, and how they would strive to integrate with the mainstream to make greater contribution to our society. They should ensure that their followers would not make narrow interpretation of Islam and shut themselves up in their cocoon, alienating from society. In my conversation with the people, certain Chinese are quite confused on certain religious issues, eg, the wearing of the tudung. They asked me whether it is compulsory for Muslim women to wear the tudung, and whether it is true that when wearing the tudung, they cannot shake hands with other people. They are confused about these issues. So, if we want to make progress, we have to make a breakthrough. When the non-Muslims open their arms to welcome the Muslims, the Muslims should be open minded and be prepared to work together to achieve greater religious harmony. Lastly, the JI incident must certainly be an eye opener for all the religious groups in Singapore. Therefore, I fully support the religious leaders' attempt to formulate a code of conduct governing their religious teaching.”
“As a member of the big Singapore family, we have to be united to support our Muslim brethren. Although there are certain non-Muslim people who have a wrong perception of the Muslim community, we need to correct such a misconception. We have to try to make the non-Muslim community understand that our Muslim brethren are peace loving and patriotic fellow citizens. We must exercise tolerance towards them. We should not fault the whole community just because of a few black sheep among them. I would like to tell a story. In the Sung Dynasty, there was this great writer by the name of Su Dongpo. I believe you must have heard of his name. He was a devout Buddhist and had a good friend who was a Buddhist monk, named Fo Yin. The two of them enjoyed debating on the teachings of Buddha. One day, while they were practising meditation, Su Dongpo asked the Rev. Fo Yin, "What do I look like?" His monk friend answered, "You are like a Buddha." Su Dongpo was very pleased to hear that. After a while, the monk friend asked him, "What do I look like?" Su Dongpo thought it was a good opportunity for him to make fun of his friend. He said, "You look like a heap of cow dung!" When Fo Yin heard this, he said nothing and smilingly nodded his head. Su Dongpo was very pleased with himself, thinking that he had won a battle of wits against Fo Yin. When he returned home, he boasted to his younger sister, Su Xiao Xiao, how he had won over Fo Yin. On hearing this, Su Xiao Xiao said, "Brother, you are wrong. You have actually lost to the Rev. Fo Yin. Because Fo Yin's mind was full of Buddhism; what he saw before him was nothing but Buddha. But your mind was full of cow dung, that is why you only saw cow dung.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. As the last person in the long list of speakers, I find that almost all the points I want to raise have been touched on by the Members. Nevertheless, in view of the importance and significance of the White Paper, I must still show my support for the motion by the Minister for Home Affairs. I will briefly touch on five aspects. Firstly, the release of the White Paper is a reflection of the high degree of transparency on the part of the Government. At a dialogue session of the Feedback Unit, many participants endorsed and commended the manner in which the Government tackled the matter, and hoped that the Government will do likewise in other major issues and policy-making. From the reaction of the people, we observe that our society has matured, and we are able to openly discuss sensitive issues like this without incurring any intense reaction. Secondly, we should commend and reward the officers of the Home Ministry for their contribution, especially the ISD officers. They are the unsung heroes. But because of the secret nature of their work, we cannot openly commend them. And I hope that they will receive some form of appropriate commendation and reward. At the same time, we must ensure that they are provided with enough manpower and resources in order to continue with their arduous responsibility of safeguarding our social stability and national security. Thirdly, we should not direct our spear or point our fingers at the Muslim community. This is unfair to them because maintaining racial and religious harmony is the duty and responsibility of everyone. These JI activists are just a handful of dangerous elements. They do not represent the entire Muslim community.”
“Sir, is the main objective of LUP not to provide 100% barrier-free access for our residents in view of the fact that our population is ageing? Therefore, if that is the main reason, is there really a need to have 75% support or "Yes" vote? Would the Ministry consider lowering this requirement because, at the end of the day, what we want is 100% lift access for our population which is ageing?”
“Now, you want to impose further burden on these innocent victims who, after losing their flats, have to incur extra legal expenses and time, not to mention the mental anguish they have to go through. Since we know that this amendment is unfair and unjust, I feel that we should take the corrective action now. Mr Speaker, Sir, our law is to protect the law-abiding citizens and to hold wrongdoers responsible for their misdeeds. This particular provision has contradicted that spirit. Therefore, I strongly urge that this part of the amendment be reviewed and changed. The CPF Board must take action against the culprits and not take the easy option of penalising the innocent victims while leaving them in the lurch.”
“This is very unfair to the buyers, Mr Speaker, Sir. I wonder if the Ministry, as the Chinese saying goes, has become "hei bai bu fen" ( ), which means unable to differentiate the white from the black. Or if the Ministry simply takes the easy way out, yes, the Board can just take the flat back, sell it, recover the charges due to itself and leave the buyers to sort out the mess with the sellers. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is another Chinese saying, "yuan you tou, zhai you zhu" ( ), which literally means there is a culprit to every wrongdoing and there is a debtor to every debt. It means that we must go after the real culprit responsible for any wrongdoing and we must not "yuan wang hao ren" ( ), that is, we must not wrong the innocent people. Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support the other amendments in the Bill, I would like to urge the Ministry to rethink this particular amendment. Instead of empowering the Board to sell the HDB flat involved, I would like to suggest that the CPF Board be empowered to impose a severe penalty on the members who default on the charges due to the Board. For example, defaulters, like Mr Tan in my illustration, could be fined a hefty sum several times the amount due and, in some instances, be imprisoned. I certainly hope that the Ministry would not reply by saying that those buyers affected could take action against their lawyers for negligence or take out a civil suit against the sellers. Is that not a very convoluted way of solving a simple problem? In the first place, it is already wrong to ask them to assume the responsibilities of the seller's wrongdoing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this CPF (Amendment) Bill. I rise to express my concern on the unfair penalty that will be imposed on the HDB flat buyers when the sellers default on payment of the charge due to the CPF Board after the amendment comes into place. Specifically, I refer to the changes to the Act, which empower the Board to sell the flat and recover its dues. Let me illustrate my point with an example. Suppose a Mr Ong has decided to buy a HDB flat from a Mr Tan. They agree on a price and Mr Ong duly paid up the amount to Mr Tan either by cash, his CPF or a loan. Thereafter, one would expect that Mr Ong would be able to move into his dream flat with peace of mind. However, after the amendment comes into force, things might not be so straightforward anymore for Mr Ong. Should Mr Tan decide to pocket the money and he does not repay the charge due to the CPF Board, Mr Ong would be in deep trouble. Why? Because with the amended legislation, the Board would come after Mr Ong for the flat, never mind that Mr Ong is not the person who defaults the payment. After 60 days on expiry of the due date of the payment to CPF Board, the Board would put up a notice of sale to declare its intention to sell the flat. Another 90 days have lapsed and if Mr Tan still does not pay up, the Board would go ahead and sell the flat and recover whatever charges due to CPF Board. As a result, Mr Ong, the buyer, who has paid for the flat would lose his flat while Mr Tan, the culprit, would get away. An analogy is like when you are going to a shop to buy a packet of rice, but because the shopowner did not pay up the supplier, the supplier comes after you to take away your packet of rice to recover the debt which is owed by the shop.”
“Moreover, having dual citizenship also means that we will permit immigrants to come to Singapore to also hold dual citizenship and they may just be doing likewise, lobbying for their home, their originating country, and influence our politics in Singapore, which may not be a wise thing to do. Last but not least, it really devalues the meaning of citizenship. However, as the Chinese say, we must always give people a hou-lu. So we must be like a forgiving mother, welcome and embrace our children who sometimes have wandered off and decided to come home. We may want to be more flexible and more forgiving in granting citizenship back to those Singaporeans who choose to come back with good reasons. In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, sad will be the day when Singaporeans forget their history and values, and no longer remember the country that nurtures them, the land that our forefathers had fought and worked so hard to build. However, I am more optimistic. Most Singaporeans are all-weather citizens. They are ready to sail the Singapore ship together, in good times and bad times! Sir, with that, I support the Motion.”
“Only with a culture can a person have certain roots, and with this root, it will help them to get rooted to Singapore. And, of course, we should, besides encourage them to have a deep sense of their own culture, also encourage them to understand others' culture. At the community level, I feel that Singaporeans also must help to promote active participation in the community. Many things have been said by other hon. Members before. But what is important is whatever we do, it must always be done with this objective in mind. This must be done to forge community bonding and to build a national identity. Clan associations, self-help groups, etc, could be roped in to help to promote the righteous traditional values. For example, Confucian teachings stress a lot on loyalty to friends, family and the country, and these should be promoted. Lastly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to touch briefly on dual citizenship. There are pros and cons of allowing dual citizenship. The advantages include the following: maintaining ties with the citizens, promoting their economic contributions to this country, encouraging their remittances back to Singapore, and maybe we can help to develop a sympathetic lobby in the countries that they have emigrated to. However, I see that there are also many disadvantages of doing so. Dual citizenship is like having two sets of parents or, someone may like to say, two wives. It is polygamy. With one set of parents or one wife is already difficult. How do you manage with two sets of parents with different beliefs, psychology, values, and so on? This will result in divided loyalties.”
“Having said that, I anticipate that the MOE may respond by saying that our curriculum is already so packed, how do we add in all this. I think if we have to forgo some teaching of the hard subjects, we may have to do it. As the Chinese saying goes, shi nian shu mu, bai nian shu ren, (it takes 10 years to grow a tree, it takes 100 years to build up a people.) Building the character of our students is investing in the future of our nation, and is building the foundation of our nation for tomorrow. And this should take precedence. Another aspect of bonding is to create a common memory. Culture, in its broader sense, makes up the bulk of our memories. We have to therefore promote culture and arts, both in school and community. For this, we can do it in the community also, not just in schools. In the past, Singapore had been criticised as a place where the development of culture and arts had been sidelined. But we have been doing catching-up in the past few years, and much more can be done. Arts and culture must appeal to everyone. We should not promote arts and culture that appeal only to a certain group of people, but we must have one that has mass appeal. Moreover, as we aspire to become a truly cosmopolitan city, we also have to accept the introduction and the impact of more varied forms of arts and culture that come along with all the international talents and migrants that pass through Singapore. The end result, I think, would definitely make us a more vibrant place to stay, and this will actually help to build the memories for this place. But we should not forget that every Singaporean will still have a race of his own. While we place national interest above one's interest, we must also help Singaporeans to have a deep sense of his own culture.”
“We should teach our National Education on a more emotional level, and not just at the level of maybe recounting of historical facts. We may even want to structure the NEP to be more interactive and with more involvement. And some of the assignments may be done with the parents and grandparents, so that the memories of the early generations can be passed on to the younger generations through this programme. In schools, I think we should also start teaching the idea of responsible citizenship since young. We must, as I said, inculcate the two senses I mentioned since young. And our youths must be taught what the system stands for, what are the rights and obligations of a citizen, and let them know more about the Constitution and the needs of active citizen participation. What is a participatory citizenry? It should be one that involves the citizens in the decision-making process. And it must come with a mature attitude towards consensus building. More often than not, Singaporeans like to complain and say that their feedback is not being heard or not listened to because Government does not take the popular stand and follow what they have asked for. So, I think it is also important to nurture this type of mature attitude to know that for Singapore to survive, sometimes we cannot rule by popular policies, and sometimes we have to make tough and difficult policies. Lastly, what is more important is that we must also not over-emphasise the importance of materialistic success at the expense of other basic human values. We have to place more emphasis on the teaching of the humanities, science, literature and arts. These are the softer sciences that will help to inculcate the values of loyalty, honesty, responsibility and so on and so forth.”
“He said that, "Patriotism is not associated with any particular race or religion but the loyalty to a set of principles that the country stands for." In Singapore, I think we should promote that and uphold our belief in meritocracy, equal opportunities for all, multi-racialism, multi-culturalism and the able helping the disabled. The next question, Sir, is how should we go about promoting this. I think we should do it in the schools and in the community. Why schools? I think we have to start promoting this sense of indebtedness, responsibility and patriotism when Singaporeans are still young. Of course, it has to start at home also. As the Chinese saying goes, san sui ding zhong sheng (your future is decided when you are three years old). And every Singaporean spends, on average, maybe 10-15 years in the educational system. And this is also the period when their characters are formed and developed, and their value systems are developing. We must not ask our students just to study and study. Like the comment of a young Singaporean during a dialogue session, he said, "If the memory of Singapore youths are limited to studying, they would not have much bonding with Singapore." Then, what should be taught? Our students recite the National Pledge and sing the National Anthem every day. We must ensure that what our system stands for is actually enshrined in the Pledge and the Anthem. So, we should make an effort to make sure that our children, our students, really understand the meaning and buy in the values that are ingrained in them. The hon. Member, Gan Kim Yong, has also proposed the revamping of the National Education programme, and I support his call for that.”